A Parametric Product Design Framework for the Development of Mass Customized Head/Face (Eyewear) Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper applies parametric design for the new product development and mass customization of products, exemplifying this with head/face eyewear.

Pp1.L34-37 Please provide references and specify which product design domains these statements apply.

P1.L39 I don't understand how such a broad term as "manufacturing" can be described as a "phase" of product development. This is conceptionally not true.

P1.L43-44 "...design for Mass Customisation (MC) have been explored by product designers as alternatives to the always demanding user needs." - well, I'm confused here. Did the authors want to say that designers see MC as an alternative to user needs? 

P2.L60-68 and L69-80 These paragraphs are repetitive. The authors mention several times flexibility for the designers ending with the loose statement that the proposed solution will decrease the cost of production. I'd like to see more evidence here and a clear explanation of what was done, how this helps designers, what benefits customers might have?

 

Overall Introduction section needs clarity and more citations.

 

P3. L127-129 "Designers predict in advance the product elements that could potentially be used to create a different range of 128 products based on user/customer needs." - how? There are methodologies for modeling customers' preferences or capturing customers' subjective preferences (e.g., Pedersen, Søren Nygaard, Martin E. Christensen, and Thomas J Howard. 2016. "Robust Design Requirements Specification: a Quantitative Method for Requirements Development Using Quality Loss Functions." Journal of Engineering Design 27 (8): 544–567. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2016.1183163 or works of Simon Schütte, or Desmet, Pieter MA, and Anna E. Pohlmeyer. 2013. "Positive Design: An Introduction to Design for Subjective Well-Being." International Journal of Design 7 (3): 5–19. or Zöller, Susan Gretchen, and Sandro Wartzack. 2017. "Considering Users' Emotions in Product Development Processes and the Need to Design for Attitudes." In Emotional Engineering, Vol. 5, 69–97. 

 

P3.L136 "Customer-driven design and manufacture at the core of MC systems" - in this subsection, the authors focus on manufacturing issues with no customer-driven design examples. I suggest seeing the works I mentioned above. 

 

P4.L157 I would like examples and citations supporting each of the statements. For instance, CNC is so broad that it can be almost anything; how the authors frame it in the context of MC?

 

P5.L216-219 Are there alternatives to the use of the specific software?

I'm sure there are (e.g., Blender also using generative algorithms). It would be good to have a brief overview of existing software packages.

 

P5.L235-237 "Therefore, in this paper the authors propose a new framework to approach 235 the creation of eyewear based on algorithmic and parametric CAD software to provide 236 an effective design tool that allows the customisation or personalisation of this type of 237 products. "

This paragraph sounds very strange in the section of the literature review.

 

Speaking of the subsequent sections, i.e., methodology and results, I doubt that the proposed method can be generalized. It is a case study, not a framework in any case. 

The authors suggest using ML for data collection and analysis, but this is the key problem, and I see the specific results are hardly generalized. 

How will MC work on the example of this single case? Collection and analysis of the parametric head/face data with AI is the main challenge. Therefore the authors offer no solution to this major issue.

 

I don't see this paper will bring anything new conceptually. It's a rather interesting case study. Maybe if the authors reframe it as the application case, it has potential. Not in its current form. 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

#1. The paper builds on the remarkable idea of approximating the face geometry by direct feature parameters, and then linking face parameters to eyewear dimensions. The goal is creating individual face models to support the customized design of eyewear. The idea can be traced back to different published works, but the manuscript fails to clearly delimit the previous from the novel contributions.

#2. According to the last paragraph of Section 2, the paper “covers a preliminary evaluation of three scanning methods used to capture head/face features (i.e., photogrammetry, somatosensory and laser scanning), and the development of a parametric based strategy that is proposed for the design of personalised eyewear.” However, the manuscript does not include clear conclusions on whether one of the three approaches is better, or some of them should be combined to get the best results. The reader must discover which is the strategy adopted by the authors, and guess, to some extent, which were the reasons behind their decisions.

#3. First paragraph of Section 3 seems to describe most of the contributions of paper [47]. New contributions should be highlighted, while approaches and methods borrowed from previous published paper should be mentioned as such.

#4. The first paragraph of page 8 explains that a set of key feature points were selected (“In order to determine the required key feature points for the eyewear design (Fig. 4), different types of eyewear products were analysed, and key feature points were correlated to head/face measurements as shown in Figure 5a and 5b.)” However, the approach used to select those points is neither described nor referenced. Besides, the points seem similar, but not identical, to those defined in reference [47].

#5. It is unclear for this reviewer how the authors made the decisions to correlate eyewear dimensions with face key feature points, as described in the fourth step of Figure 1 and in Table 1.

#6. The good fit test seems interesting, but quite preliminary. The approach is poorly explained (“After completing the parametric design of the eyewear, detailed design work can be done to further refine the product and prepare it for manufacturing.”) Hence, a clear description of the intended goals, the current limitations, and the problems faced so far could help readers to understand the current state of the development. How, and how long, is user comfort guiding the design of the eyewear?

#7. Section 5 seems to contain more ideas on future developments than conclusions on the work contributed in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a sufficient illustrative excursus about the design phase in the modern era. 

Only some remarks about references. It would be nice also to refer not only to the product design but also to the process design, to do so, please refer to:

• Rinaldi et al. 2021 and Caterino et al. 2021 in Macromolecular Symposia;
• Greco et al. in Applied Science 2020;
• Fera et al. in Applied Science 2020.

 

Author Response

Response: The entire manuscript has been edited, and within the changes the authors have tried to capture the reviewer suggestions. However the intent of this work was to present the MC framework from a product design perspective and we believe that exploring such interesting topic as “process design” requires by its own merit a complete work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed previously raised comments in a good manner.