A Case Study of University–Industry Collaboration for Sustainable Furniture Design
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Innovation for Sustainable Product Design
Aims and Scope
3. Case Study: Sustainable and Modular Dormitory Furniture
3.1. Method
3.2. Phase 1: Exploring the Design Opportunities, Sustainable Materials, and Principles
Survey with Dormitory Users
3.3. Phase 2: Concept Generation and Evaluation
Design for Disassembly, Maintenance, and Repairs
- Manufacture: Ease of manufacturing based on local manufacturers’ existing capabilities.
- Modularity: Interchangeable design, flat-pack construction, and customisation. Individual units can be easily replaced/repaired without affecting the whole system.
- Flexibility: Ability to change configurations and individualise the furniture.
- Comfort: Adequate ventilation, privacy, socialisation, and secure storage.
3.4. Phase 3: Iteration and Validation
3.5. Phase 4: Refinement, Prototype, and Deliver
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
4. Discussion
4.1. Considering Sustainability in the Design Process: Implications for HCD
4.2. Developing Sustainable Products Using a HCD Approach to Foster University–Industry Collaboration
4.2.1. Prototypes for Effective Communication with the Stakeholders and the Role of the HCD Process
4.2.2. Engagement with Stakeholders, End-Users, and Design Team Members
4.3. Sustainability in Product Development: Design for Disassembly, Reuse, and Recyclability
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Roos, G. Design-Based Innovation for Manufacturing Firm Success in High-Cost Operating Environments. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 2016, 2, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kuys, B.; Kyriazis, E. It’s All about the Money: Adding Value to Industry through Industrial Design-Led Innovations; University of Wollongong: Wollongong, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, I.K.; Lu, T.-W. How to improve the university–industry collaboration in Taiwan’s animation industry? Academic vs. industrial perspectives. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2016, 28, 717–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinmo, M.; Rasmussen, E. The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 1964–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Tabbaa, O.; Ankrah, S. ‘Engineered’university-industry collaboration: A social capital perspective. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2019, 16, 543–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walden, R.; Lie, S.; Pandolfo, B.; Lee, T.; Lockhart, C. Design Research Units and Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs): An Approach for Advancing Technology and Competitive Strength in Australia. Des. J. 2018, 21, 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacomin, J. What is human centred design? Des. J. 2014, 17, 606–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simon, H.A. The Sciences of the Artificial; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenman, M.; Gero, J. Purpose and function in design: From the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Des. Stud. 1998, 19, 161–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wastling, T.; Charnley, F.; Moreno, M. Design for Circular Behaviour: Considering Users in a Circular Economy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barbaritano, M.; Savelli, E. How Consumer Environmental Responsibility Affects the Purchasing Intention of Design Furniture Products. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieroni, M.P.P.; McAloone, T.C.; Pigosso, D.C.A. Configuring new business models for circular economy through product–service systems. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haines-Gadd, M.; Chapman, J.; Lloyd, P.; Mason, J.; Aliakseyeu, D. Emotional Durability Design Nine—A Tool for Product Longevity. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rexfelt, O.; Selvefors, A. The Use2Use Design Toolkit—Tools for User-Centred Circular Design. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoinle, B.; Roose, I.; Shekhar, H. Creating Transdisciplinary Teaching Spaces. Cooperation of Universities and Non-University Partners to Design Higher Education for Regional Sustainable Transition. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, M.S. How sustainability fuels design innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2010, 52, 75. [Google Scholar]
- Bocken, N.; Ritala, P.; Albareda, L.; Verburg, R. Introduction. In Innovation for Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulte, J.; Hallstedt, S.I. Self-Assessment Method for Sustainability Implementation in Product Innovation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Villamil, C.; Hallstedt, S.I. Sustainability product portfolio: A review. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kembaren, P.; Simatupang, T.M.; Larso, D.; Wiyancoko, D. Design Driven Innovation Practices in Design-preneur led Creative Industry. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014, 9, 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prahalad, C.; Ramaswamy, V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanders, M.S.; McCormick, E.J. Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 6th ed.; Mcgraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, D. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition; Basic books: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lyon, A.R.; Brewer, S.K.; Areán, P.A. Leveraging human-centered design to implement modern psychological science: Return on an early investment. Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 1067–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hapuwatte, B.M.; Jawahir, I.S. Closed-loop sustainable product design for circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steen, M. Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign 2011, 7, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, J.; Tan, R.; Sun, J.; Ren, J.; Wu, S.; Qiu, Y. A Needs Analysis Approach to Product Innovation Driven by Design. Procedia CIRP 2016, 39, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ankrah, N.A.; Langford, D.A. Architects and contractors: A comparative study of organizational cultures. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 595–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osmani, M.; Glass, J.; Price, A. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduction by design. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1147–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhamra, T.; Lofthouse, V. Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ioannou, K.; Veshagh, A. Managing Sustainability in Product Design and Manufacturing. In Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waage, S.A. Re-considering product design: A practical “road-map” for integration of sustainability issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 15, 638–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaafar, I.H.; Venkatachalam, A.; Joshi, K.; Ungureanu, A.C.; De Silva, N.; Rouch, K.E.; Dillon, O.W.; Jawahir, I.S. Product Design for Sustainability: A New Assessment Methodology and Case Studies. Environ. Conscious Mech. Des. 2007, 25–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nugroho, H.S.W.; Handoyo, H.; Prayitno, H.; Budiono, A. Sort Elements Based on Priority, in order to Improve the Quality of E-Learning in Health Using Difficulty-Usefulness Pyramid with Weighting (DUP-We). Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 2019, 14, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Silva, N.; Jawahir, I.; Dillon, O., Jr.; Russell, M. A new comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of product sustainability at the design and development stage of consumer electronic products. Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 2009, 1, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bras, B. Incorporating environmental issues in product design and realization. Ind. Environ. 1997, 20, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, G.; Kosoris, J.; Hong, L.N.; Crul, M. Design for Sustainability: Current Trends in Sustainable Product Design and Development. Sustainability 2009, 1, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, A.S. A Model to Integrate Sustainability into The User-centered Design Process; University of Central Florida: Orlando, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, W.; Moultrie, J.; Ye, S. The Customer-Dominated Innovation Process: Involving Customers as Designers and Decision-Makers in Developing New Product. Des. J. 2019, 22, 299–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, R.; John, K. Design prototyping as a translational tool for medical device commercialization. J. Des. Bus. Soc. 2020, 6, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, A.; Paul, J. Knowledge transfer and innovation through university-industry partnership: An integrated theoretical view. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2019, 17, 436–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, P.V.K.; Mosleh, W.S. Conflicts in co-design: Engaging with tangible artefacts in multi-stakeholder collaboration. CoDesign 2020, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamenopoulos, T.; Lam, B.; Alexiou, K.; Kelemen, M.; De Sousa, S.; Moffat, S.; Phillips, M. Types, obstacles and sources of empowerment in co-design: The role of shared material objects and processes. CoDesign 2019, 17, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bergold, J.; Thomas, S. Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Hist. Soc. Res. Hist. Soz. 2012, 13, 191–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaharuzaman, M.; Sapuan, S.; Mansor, M.R. Sustainable materials selection: Principles and applications. In Design for Sustainability; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 57–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battaïa, O.; Dolgui, A.; Heragu, S.S.; Meerkov, S.M.; Tiwari, M.K. Design for manufacturing and assembly/disassembly: Joint design of products and production systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 56, 7181–7189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harper, K.H. Aesthetic Sustainability: Product Design and Sustainable Usage; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Chapman, J. Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, J.; Kremer, G.E.O. A systematic literature review of modular product design (MPD) from the perspective of sustainability. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 86, 1509–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Concept | Positive Aspects | Negative Aspects | Opportunities |
---|---|---|---|
Concept 1 |
|
|
|
Concept 2 |
|
|
|
Concept 3 |
|
|
|
Concept 4 |
|
|
|
User Needs | Desired Features | Other Key Insights |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
Test Type | Force Allocation/Materials | Results/Comments |
---|---|---|
Specifications: The product must be able to withstand 200 kg evenly distributed across the bed surface. A Factor of Safety (FOS) of 2 has been used for the simulations. | Material Properties for Acacia mangium for simulation properties are listed below Poisson’s Ratio: 0.33 Shear strength parallel to the grain: 12 MPa Density: 530 kg/m3 Tensile strength: 140 MPa Compressive strength: 34 MPa Yield strength: 72 MPa | NA |
Test 1: Single bed | Force 1: 400 kg (FOS × 2) = 4000 N Force location 4000 N total across each contacting face. Force 2: Uprights and Top section (including fasteners) = 25 kg (250 N) Force location of 250 N on receiving cavity of legs. | Stress results: Pass Stress Max = 7.728 MPa, Yield of Material = 72 MPa Displacement results: Pass Max Displacement = 2.012 mm max |
Test 2: Bunk bed assembly | Force 1: Top Bunk Assembly Weight = 46.6 kg (466 N) Top Bunk Load = 400 kg (4000 N) Top Frame Bottom Bunk = 25 kg (250 N) Total Force 1 = 4716 N Force Assignment = Across all 4 legs of bottom bunk bed Force 2: 400 kg (FOS × 2) = 4000 N Force Assignment: Force location 4000 N total across each contacting face. | Stress results: Pass Stress Max = 7.61 MPa, Yield of Material = 72 MPa Displacement Results: PASS Max Displacement = 2.015 mm max |
Test 3: Bunk bed assembly legs evaluation | Force allocation: Top Bunk Assembly Weight = 46.6 kg (466 N) Top Bunk Load = 400 kg (4000 N) Bottom Bunk Assembly Weight = 46.6 kg (466 N) Bottom Bunk Load = 400 kg (4000 N) Total Force 1 = 8932 N Force Assignment = Across all four legs of bottom bunk bed | Stress results: Pass Stress Max = 6.8 MPa, Yield of Material = 72 MPa Displacement Results: PASS Max Displacement = 0.06144 mm |
Test 4: Bunk bed assembly uprights evaluation | Force 1: Top Bunk Assembly Weight = 46.6 kg (466 N) Top Bunk Load = 400 kg (4000 N) Top Frame Bottom Bunk = 25 kg (250 N) Total Force 1 = 4716 N Force Assignment = Across all 4 uprights | Stress results: PASS Stress Max = 0.4 MPa, Yield of Material = 72 MPa Displacement results: PASS Max Displacement = 0.0294 mm max |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kuys, J.; Al Mahmud, A.; Kuys, B. A Case Study of University–Industry Collaboration for Sustainable Furniture Design. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910915
Kuys J, Al Mahmud A, Kuys B. A Case Study of University–Industry Collaboration for Sustainable Furniture Design. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910915
Chicago/Turabian StyleKuys, Jo, Abdullah Al Mahmud, and Blair Kuys. 2021. "A Case Study of University–Industry Collaboration for Sustainable Furniture Design" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 10915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910915