Advertisement

What Do Experienced Practitioners Discuss When Designing Product/Service Systems?

  • Abhijna Neramballi
  • Tomohiko Sakao
  • John S. Gero
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper presents empirical results aimed at increasing the understanding of conceptual activities of Product/Service Systems (PSS) design by experienced designers from industry. Results are derived from a protocol analysis of five PSS design sessions, using the Function–Behavior–Structure coding scheme. Sessions included five pairs of professional designers and the task was to redesign a concept for an existing PSS to improve its resource efficiency. The results show (i) the distribution of design issues during PSS design sessions, (ii) on average 47% of the overall cognitive design effort spent by the designers is related to behavior, and (iii) all the design issues except requirements are constantly focused on during the entirety of the design sessions. Major differences compared to product design are the average occurrence of function for PSS design (23%) for product design (4%) and of structure for PSS design (22%) compared to the product design (35%).

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported in part by the Mistra REES (Resource Efficient and Effective Solutions) program funded by Mistra (The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research) (grant number DIA 2014/16). It is also supported in part by a grant from the US National Science Foundation Grant No. CMMI‐1400466 to the third author.

Informed consent was obtained from the participants of the design sessions on a voluntary basis and is in line with the regulations as described by Linköping University’s Centre for Applied Research Ethics. The authors acknowledge their contribution to this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Baines TS, Bigdeli AZ, Bustinza OF, Ridgway K (2017) Servitization: revisiting the state-of-the-art and research priorities. Int J Oper Prod Manage 37(2):256–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sawhney M (2016) Putting products into services. Harvard Bus Rev 94(9):82–89Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tischner U, Verkuijl M, Tukker A (2002) First draft PSS review. Econcept, CologneGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sakao T, Napolitano N, Tronci M, Sundin E, Lindahl M (2008) How are product-service combined offers provided in Germany and Italy? Analysis with company sizes and countries. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 17(3):367–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ulaga W, Chacour S (2001) Measuring customer perceived value in business markets. Ind Mark Manage 30:525–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sakao T, Lindahl M (2015) A method to improve integrated product service offerings based on life cycle costing. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 64(1):33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matschewsky J, Kambanou ML, Sakao T (2017) Designing and providing integrated productservice systems—challenges, opportunities and solutions resulting from prescriptive approaches in two industrial companies. Int J Prod Res 56(6):2150–2168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meier H, Roy R, Seliger G (2010) Industrial product-service systems—IPS2. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 59(2):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH, Wallace K, Blessing LTM (2006) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verma R, Fitzsimmons J, Heineke J, Davis M (2002) New issues and opportunities in service design research. J Oper Manage 20(2):117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morelli N (2003) Product-service systems, a perspective shift for designers: a case study: the design of a telecentre. Des Stud 24(1):73–99MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kannengiesser U, Gero JS (2015) Is designing independent of domain? Comparing models of engineering, software and service design. Res Eng Des 26:253–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gero JS, Jiang H, Vieira S (2013) Exploring a multi-meeting engineering design project. In: Chakrabarti A, Prakash RV (eds) 4th international conference on research into design (ICoRD’13), Springer, Chennai, India, pp 73–84Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang H (2012) Understanding senior design students’ product conceptual design activities. National University of Singapore, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song T (2014) Expert vs. novice: problem decomposition/recomposition in engineering design. Utah State University, UtahGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDonnell J, Lloyd P (eds) Design meeting protocols. DTRS 72007, University of the Arts, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Umeda Y, Takata S, Kimura F, Tomiyama T, Sutherland JW, Kara S, Herrmann C, Duflou JR (2012) Toward integrated product and process life cycle planning—an environmental perspective. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 61(2):681–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roy R (2000) Sustainable product-service systems. Futures 32:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindahl M, Sundin E, Sakao T (2014) Environmental and economic benefits of integrated product service offerings quantified with real business cases. J Clean Prod 64:288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tukker A (2015) Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy—a review. J Clean Prod 97:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mont OK (2002) Clarifying the concept of product–service system. J Clean Prod 10(3):237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kan J, Gero J (2008) Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designers. Des Stud 29(4):315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lammi M, Becker K (2013) Engineering design thinking. J Technol Educ 24(2):55–77Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Durugbo C, Tiwari A, Alcock JR (2011) A review of information flow diagrammatic models for product–service systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 52:1193–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alonso-Rasgado T, Thompson G (2006) A rapid design process for total care product creation. J Eng Des 17(6):509–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Regan WJ (1963) The service revolution. J Mark 47(July):57–62Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Komoto H, Tomiyama T (2008) Integration of a service CAD and a life cycle simulator. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57(1):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baines TS, Lightfoot HW, Evans S, Neely A, Greenough R, Peppard J, Roy R, Shehab E, Braganza A, Tiwari A, Alcock JR, Angus JP, Bastl M, Cousens A, Irving P, Johnson M, Kingston J, Lockett H, Martinez V, Michele P, Tranfield D, Walton IM, Wilson H (2007) State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng B 221:1543–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Love T (2000) Philosophy of design: a metatheoretical structure for design theory. Des Stud 21:293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis verbal reports as data, revised edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Someren, MW, Bardard YF, Sandberh JAC (1994) The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Atman CJ, Bursic KM (1996) Teaching engineering design: can reading a textbook make a difference? Res Eng Des 8:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Purcell T, Gero JS (1998) Drawings and the design process: a review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Des Stud 19(4):389–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mc Neill T, Gero JS, Warren J (1998) Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Res Eng Des 10(3):129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Suwa M, Purcell T, Gero JS (1998) Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designer’s actions. Des Stud 19(4):455–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tang H-H, Gero JS (2002) A cognitive method to measure potential creativity in designing. In: Workshop 17—creative systems: approaches to creativity in AI and cognitive science (ECAI-02), LyonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McDonnell J, Lloyd P (eds) About designing: analysing design meetings. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hay L, McTeague C, Duffy AHB, Pidgeon LM, Vuletic T, Grealy M (2016) A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition. In: Gero JS (ed) 7th international conference on design computing and cognition, Springer, Chicago. pp 135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag 11(4):26–36Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gero JS (2010) Generalizing design cognition research. In: DTRS8: interpreting design thinking, DAB documents, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2014) The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design. In: Chakrabarti A, Blessing L (eds) An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kan WT (2008) Quantitative methods for studying design protocols. The University of Sydney, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kan WT, Gero JS (2017) Quantitative methods for studying design protocols. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Branki CN (1995) The acts of cooperative design. Concurrent Eng 3(3):237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kruchten P (2005) Casting software design in the function-behavior-structure framework. IEEE Softw 22(2):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Visser W (2006) The cognitive artifacts of designing. CRC Press, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hofmeister C, Kruchten P, Nord RL, Obbink H, Ran A, America P (2007) A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial approaches. J Syst Softw 80:106–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robin V, Rose B, Girard P (2007) Modelling collaborative knowledge to support engineering design project manager. Comput Ind 58(2):188–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Van Wie M, Bryant CR, Bohm MR, McAdams DA, Stone RB (2005) A model of function-based representations. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19(2):89–111Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kan JWT, Gero JS (2007) Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information. In: McDonnell J, Lloyd P (eds) DTRS7 (Design thinking research symposium), University of the Arts, London, pp 155–165Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kan JWT, Gero JS, Sarkar S (2010) Using a generic method to study software design cognition. In: van der Hoek A, Petre M, Baker A (eds) Workshop on studying professional software design, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Williams CB, Lee Y, Paretti M, Gero JS (2011) Effects of design education on design cognition: a preliminary comparison of engineering students. In: 41st ASEE/IEEE frontiers in educationGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Widgren M, Sakao T (2016) Unanswered questions in conceptual design towards circular economy. In: The 14th international design conference—(DESIGN 2016), Dubrovnik, pp 571–578Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhijna Neramballi
    • 1
  • Tomohiko Sakao
    • 1
  • John S. Gero
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management and EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations