3D simulation: an effective tool based on an

Int. J. Design Engineering, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx

3D simulation: an effective tool based on an anthropocentric approach and its application in kitchen design Cédric Leborgne H3DT, 11 rue Paul Baudouin 76000 Rouen, France E-mail: [email protected]

Benoit Roussel ENSGSI, 8 rue Bastien Lepage 54000 Nancy, France E-mail: [email protected]

Dominique Millet* SUPMECA, Quartier Mayol, 83000 Toulon, France E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Améziane Aoussat ENSAM, 151 Boulevard de l’Hôpital 75013 Paris, France E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Ergonomists are faced with two main challenges in terms of the innovative design: the discrepancy between activity and uses and the paradox of design ergonomics. Our anthropocentric approach proposes a method by which the design ergonomist may best identify customer needs and expectations and take them into account when designing innovative products. In order to study them as yet non-existents, we analyse the results of introducing an activity simulation tool in order to anticipate future possible uses of such products. The case study developed in this work is a kitchen design project, and one of the main contributions is the re-conceptualisation of the activity analysis, to a ‘lozenge layout’ which allows to reduce the distance covered by kitchen users. The results also contribute to the design process improvement and the possibility of exploring innovative alternatives in the simulation tool proposed in this work. Keywords: man-systems interaction; product design; user centric engineering; innovative technology integration.

Copyright © 200x Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

1

2

C. Leborgne et al. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Leborgne, C., Roussel, B., Millet, D. and Aoussat, A. (xxxx) ‘3D simulation: an effective tool based on an anthropocentric approach and its application in kitchen design’, Int. J. Design Engineering, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.000–000. Biographical notes: Cédric Leborgne completed his PhD in Industrial Engineering in 2001, with a new approach of integrating ergonomics and 3D simulation in the design process. He is now the Manager of H3DT, a consulting firm in France, specialised in ergonomic design. He is also an Auxiliary Professor at the University of Human Social Sciences (Rouen) and a Trainer for CEGOS (European leader in vocational training). Benoit Roussel is Researcher and Teacher in University of Lorraine in France. He is Ergonomist and Designer, and work on industrial design and innovation for 15 years. He has undertaken numerous research programmes on product innovation management oriented usage linked with different industrial sectors. He participate actively to the creation and development of physical and collaborative virtual ‘innovation platforms’ (Cre@ction ,’Centr’Ino’, ‘I-Créa’ European programme with 12 partners) to practice researches, training, project development and to improve industrial innovation. Dominique Millet teaches Ecodesign at the Engineers School SUPMECA/USTV in Toulon. He is the Director of the E.O.S. (Ecodesign and Optimization of Systems) research team within LISMMA laboratory. He has undertaken numerous research programmes on LCA, DFR and DFE methods, particularly in the automotive sector. He is the main author of the book Intégration de l’environnement en conception; entreprises et développement durable, published in 2003 by Hermès Science Publishing. Améziane Aoussat completed his PhD in Industrial Engineering, where he finalised a new approach of the transverse design process. He has been HDR (accredited to supervise researches) at a French engineering school (INPG, Grenoble, France) in 1996. He is now Professor at ENSAM and Director of the Department of Design and Innovation (LCPI, Paris). His main research fields are modelling of products’ design process and innovation, technologies and projects management.

1

Introduction

French manufacturers stress the need to break new ground in the field of kitchen furniture so as to differentiate themselves from their European competitors. A new approach that would enhance the added value of ergonomics in the design of kitchen equipment must be found. This research originates with the aim to set up methodological and/or practical tools to provide advice and the designing process not only for kitchen equipment, but for the furniture sector in general. It thus aims to respond to the needs of those involved in the design process; furthermore, it is intended as a contribution to knowledge concerning design methods in the field of ergonomics. In design of kitchen equipment the ergonomist is faced with two challenges: first, the discrepancy between activity and uses and second, the paradox of design ergonomics.

3D simulation

3

For the ergonomic improvement of existing kitchen equipment, we observed that the interdisciplinary dimension necessary to any design process (Maxant et al., 2006; Schaffer et al., 2002; Sardas, 2001) can be based on the notion of customised use which enables us to best identify users’ needs and expectations. This notion results in the bridging of the discrepancy between activity and uses. Each profession may define these uses in a different yet complementary manner, encapsulating the different relationships (representations, use, customs, affect…) that the consumer may have with the product. Uses therefore constitute a link, and a reference shared by the designing team and the ergonomist who are thus able to formulate recommendations that correspond to the users’ lifestyles. As far as the design of a new product is concerned, modelling users’ gestures enables the practitioner to envisage the future desirable gesture, but also and above all to integrate future possible uses related to the product being designed. However, as Leborgne (2001) shows in his work, the tool cannot replace direct user trials: its advantage is to precede them and reduce the number of solutions to be tested. This work proposes new tools to achieve this. They enrich the traditional organisation of kitchen designers’ work and take users and their lifestyles into account. This has resulted in new design practices which are cooperative and anthropocentric. It is this focus on the human being that lets the notion of customised use emerge. As a result, it is possible for the ergonomist to provide data at the concept research stage: by integrating future possible customised uses using the simulation tool, he or she can come to the designers’ aid well before the design is implemented. Figure 1

The new tools of the design ergonomist and the anthropocentric approach that we suggest applying to the cycle of kitchen equipment

Traditional design process Ergonomical study

Anthropocentrical approach Ergonomics + Sociology + Marketing

Needs

3D gestural simulation tool

Concepts Functional architecture User tests

ergonomic specifications

bibliographic analysis observations interviews activity analysis sociological study

3D gestural simulation tool

Validation

Production

Distribution

3D gestural simulation tool

Installation

instructions for the setting-up and assemblage

Use Recycling

directions for use sales guidebook training

4

C. Leborgne et al.

Figure 1 shows the ergonomist’s interventions and the tools developed during the design process of new products as shown by Aoussat (1999). It also shows the stages of distribution, installation, use, and recycling of the product in question. This diagram models our approach to kitchen design. This research contributes to changing the status of the ergonomist whose strictly normative role has become one of a true partner of innovation. Our anthropocentric approach adopts the ergonomist’s tools, such as activity analysis and simulation tools, but improves them by adding tools from the social sciences. Customised use serves as the common point of reference and this approach encourages other practitioners to move towards that of the design ergonomist.

2

Scope of the investigation

In this context and in accordance with the literature (Daniellou, 1996, 2005; Engeström, 1999; Rabardel, 1995), we set up an ergonomic procedure based on the analysis of activity actually taking place during the use of kitchen equipment. The aim was to take stock of the constraints related to everyday use of the kitchen in order to make recommendations which could function as a springboard for improving and rethinking product design using ergonomics. However, two elements made us realise that we had to broaden the scope of our investigation if we were to meet the needs of the different actors involved (furniture manufacturers, designers, distributors and installers) and understand the expectations of the end users. The first element was linked to the specificity of the product to be designed. The kitchen is emotionally charged and plays an important part in our everyday lives. It is ‘a place of intimacy’ (Pehkonen et al., 2009; Eleb, 1996). Indeed the ergonomist faced with the problem of innovating a product such as the kitchen, comes up against a stumbling block: the gap between changing life-styles and the very basis of the so-called ‘rational’ design of the household kitchen. Indeed, sociologists such as Fischler (1993) or Flandrin and Montanari (1997) suggest that historically speaking, the kitchen is the reflection of the various changes in society. Surprisingly enough, the rules according to which kitchens are designed and laid-out have remained the same since the beginning of the 1960s. Ergonomic studies have been carried out by researchers such as Salvendy (2012), Rohmert and Schaub (1991), Woodson et al. (1992), or Astre et al. (1993), but these analyses, which are all based on activity analysis, are steeped in their own time-period; this leads us to question the validity of their recommendations over time. Other general specifications for furniture design can be found in handbooks such as Mital and Karwowski (1991). Studies such as those mentioned which use activity analysis, do shed light on physiological needs which correspond to a given moment and they express recommendations as to how these needs are best met. However, these recommendations focus on the way the product is used (in terms of the physical relationship between the object and its user) but they do not take into account either customs or lifestyles; they thus ignore the expectations these entail. This leads us to believe that the practitioner may be confronted with a discrepancy between the ergonomic specifications to be inferred from a traditional activity analysis,

3D simulation

5

and the users’ habits or expectations that the ergonomist alone cannot size up by resorting to such an analysis. In order to bridge this gap, we studied the needs and the expectations of ‘customers’, (Earthy et al., 2001; Akrich, 1998) puts it, through an interdisciplinary approach to design.1 Thus in this study, the customer is defined as the group of individuals who will use the product in a social context. This term covers both the notion of user (the interface vision of the ergonomist) and that of customer (in the sociological sense of the term which includes customs, lifestyles and expectations). We thus imitated the stages of studies on industrial work stations, and decided to include sociological data in the ergonomic analysis of kitchen equipment. The second element prompting us to broaden the scope of our inquiry concerned understanding what future uses and customs are likely to be. A ‘traditional’ ergonomic approach to product design – as defined by Monod and Kapitaniak (1999) – confronts the practitioner with ’the paradox of design ergonomics’ described by Theureau and Pinsky (1984). This paradox is based on the principle according to which the ergonomist derives his or her diagnosis from the observation of the real activity entailed by the use of the product. However, when the product does not yet exist as a functional model, or is totally new, the way it is used is not observable. In such a situation, the ergonomist may intervene too late to be efficient, and this limits the scope of his or her investigation.

3

Problem and hypothesis

The first challenge of this research is to highlight how a design ergonomist may best identify customer needs and expectations and take them into account in the approach to designing innovative products. During this experiment, we will seek to verify the following hypotheses: 1

determining customer needs and expectations with respect to improving the ergonomic efficiency of an existing product requires an anthropocentric approach which resorts to the notion of customised use as the system of reference shared by the design team

2

in order to study an innovative product (as yet non-existent), activity modelling and simulation tools are the quickest route to ascertaining future desirable uses and customer expectations.

To support our hypotheses we focus on the epistemology of an anthropocentric approach to innovation based on the notion of customised use, for it is this that we wish to use to test our hypotheses. Our research shows that this notion of customised use seems likely to function as the common system of reference for the designing team, enabling them to take better account of different customer needs and expectations. Furthermore, activity simulation does seem to offer an answer to the paradox of design ergonomics in other sectors, and it is likely to help integrate present and possible future uses into evaluations of new concepts. The epistemology of the anthropocentric approach to innovation that we wish to develop based on the notion of customised use, enabled us to enquire into a research question on a second level: we present a model of this approach to be tested. The validity

6

C. Leborgne et al.

of this model is evaluated by observing how closely the product corresponds to user needs and expectations. The product’s positioning is essential if we are to estimate the contribution of our approach to its ergonomic aspect. Positioning also has an indirect influence on our evaluation of what our research contributes to the designing process. The main protagonists concerned by innovation in the field of kitchen design are: kitchen furniture manufacturers, distributors and of course customers, considered in this instance only as users. At the beginning of this study, the product was positioned close to the expectations of distributors and manufacturers, but far from the needs of customers. The first hypothesis concerns the phase when needs are determined. It aims to demonstrate that an anthropocentric approach based on the notion of customised use as the common system of reference, results in increased capacity to apprehend customer needs and expectations and take these into account to improve the design of common kitchen equipment. The second hypothesis concerns the concept validation stage. It aims to test the efficiency of a simulation tool for anticipating the integration of future possible uses. The following sections present the experiments carried out to test this model.

4

3D modelling tools for innovative products design

We first aim to test the efficiency of an anthropocentric approach based on the notion of customised use as a common system of reference integrating sociological, marketing and ergonomic data to improve existing products. Then, in the area of designing totally new products, we will analyse the results of introducing an activity simulation tool in order to anticipate future possible uses of such products.

4.1 The customised, anthropocentric approach An anthropocentric or human centred approach is an interdisciplinary approach which aims at promoting the design of products and services with a closer fit to real user needs (IDEO, 2011; Brown, 2008; Boujut and Tiger, 2002; Tichkiewitch, 1998; ISO/TR 16982, 2002). Taking account of the various obstacles mentioned previously, we chose to apply an approach based on activity analysis (using the methods used for work station design), and to include findings from a sociological inquiry carried out by W. Detomasi – a sociologist from the AREA office. We next endeavoured to define how each activity could be made easier for the user regarding the various postures he/she was likely to adopt. Following works on the comfort of the user (Villarouco et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2010; Chir, 1987) and referring to recommendations concerning the posture and effort of packers in the Renault guide for the design of work stations (PEGI Renault, 2002), we were able to set up a scale of postural comfort applicable to the activities identified in the kitchen; the scale also included thresholds of frequency and deportment which determine the limits of awkwardness of an activity for the user. Many authors, such as Guerin et al. (1997) or Cazamian (1996) have underlined the complementary nature of ergonomics and sociology for the study of workstations.

3D simulation

7

However, as far as new product design is concerned, we found no articles reporting collaboration between the ergonomist and the sociologist. It turns out that, in practice, certain manufacturers have already understood the benefits of such collaboration for product design, but their studies have not yet found their way to the scientific community. We aimed to come up with recommendations which would integrate user needs and expectations. This has immediate consequences on the work of the ergonomist. The sociologist’s contribution enabled us to define sound recommendations based not only on the activity analysis, but which also took account of deeper expectations expressed verbally. These expectations are not based in the activity itself but rather in its social context and affective aspects. Sociology thus enables the ergonomist to deal with expectations related to the customised uses of the kitchen and to understand their sociological origins. This study tried to establish a new hierarchy of improvements based on user needs and expectations. Certain results of the ergonomic analysis were confirmed and new data were contributed to be integrated into the analysis of the context of customised uses (and not just of use). This should result in a closer fit between the ergonomic recommendations and the actual expectations and needs of the users. Thus, the ergonomist established a ranking concerning improvements according to the activity analysis, that is, a ranking based on usability. This ranking was set against that of the sociologist (which reflects users’ expectations). This comparison resulted in the creation of a new ranking which reflected not only the physiological needs registered during the activity analysis, but also needs in the sociological sense of the term and expectations related to contemporary lifestyle arising from the sociological study.

4.2 3D simulation tools We have already pointed out that the ergonomist faces the paradox of design ergonomics when studying the ergonomics of an innovative product. It is necessary to overcome this paradox to create a situation in which users act in the way closest to the future situation. Our diagnosis will be based on our observations of this situation. With this aim in view, some authors (Beguin, 1997; Maline, 1994) advocate simulating future activities using functional models. The works of Gomes (1999) have shown virtual models derived from modelling tools. At the same time virtual dummies have been created [for example, DELMIA HUMAN, RAMSIS (Heiner et al., 2006), JACK or MAN 3D]. These are meant to represent final users and are endowed with their particular characteristics. The effectiveness and limits of such dummies have been developed by many authors, (Savin, 2010; Arlt and Marach, 1998) with the 3D CAD manikin. Originally, designed for ergonomical studies in automobile construction, this simulation method has been transferred with success in different environment such as in surgical operation room design by Marcos et al. (2006). The possibility of modelling an environment and placing models representative of a population in the position of would-be users constitutes a noteworthy evolution in the work of the ergonomist. Sagot (1999) note that it gives ergonomists a dynamic viewpoint of the product’s ‘desirable future use’ (in terms of health, safety, and efficiency). This environment model exploits various scenarios and aims at assessing the usability of the product according to ergonomic criteria.

8

C. Leborgne et al.

The simulation tool developed in this paper makes it possible to define the comfort of using a product according to the criterion of energy consumption as defined by the AFNOR X 35-205 norm (2005) entitled ‘Determining the production of metabolic heat’. This avoids resorting to a heavy instrumentation which is complex to implement in real environment with real humans. This tool therefore makes it easier for the practitioner to take into account the anthropometric diversity of users and their environments and above all, the diversity of present and future probable uses and customs (thanks to activity scenarios). It also enables the ergonomist to intervene at an earlier stage of the designing process. As far as kitchen equipment is concerned, the ergonomist only normally steps in during the validation phase, once real models have been created. With this new tool at hand, the ergonomist can participate in the phase of concept research and also on the product being designed to modify it if necessary in a repeated validation phase.

5

Case study

5.1 Kitchen activity analysis An activity analysis was carried out by video observation of 13 volunteer households comprising 16 persons in all. The households were observed preparing a meal and cleaning up the kitchen afterwards. In order to obtain a sample representative of the diversity of the French population, several criteria were crossed: (age, size of household, children, type of accommodation – apartment, house) and the resulting sample approved by the sociologist. The observations were followed by verbal exchanges entries of charge to clear up the very few points of disagreement. Following the example of the behaviour analysis techniques used by most social sciences and similarly to different authors (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998; Mucchielli, 1991), a qualitative study was carried out focusing on the diversity rather than the representative nature of a sample in relation to a population. The results of this activity analysis are of different types. First, this study enabled us to identify and organise four families of kitchen related activity into a hierarchy according to the time spent on the various activities and their frequency: preparation (41% of time), storage (20%), washing (12%), and spatial movements (9%). Our attention was drawn in particular towards repetitive activities (such as storage) or towards those that required staying in the same position for a long time (chopping, for example). We focused on the sequences of activities and found the same ones evoked by Astre et al. (1993): •

delivery and storage – refrigerator

•

preparation – cutting – washing

•

cooking – preparation – presentation

•

serving – consumption

•

washing dishes and equipment – storing.

Spatial movements are not the same. These movements are traditionally schematised by the ‘activity triangle’ developed in the USA in 1962 by Steidl (1962) and in the same

3D simulation

9

year in Germany by Stubler (1962). The optimisation of this triangle (which links the hot, cold and damp areas), still conditions kitchen layout today, as reported by the Building Research Council Staff (1993) in the Kitchen Planning Standard. However, our observations question the validity of this triangle. We propose instead the notion of activity lozenge to describe and optimise spatial movements which links the following: areas ‘work-top/preparation’, sink, storage (refrigerator included) and cooking elements (see Figure 2). This ‘lozenge layout’ should reduce the distance covered by kitchen users. Figure 2

The activity triangle which has conditioned the rational design of kitchens to date is no longer true to life (see online version for colours) Hot

work-top Evolutions of uses Sink

Optimize Damp

Optimize

Cooking

Cold Storages Activity Triangle

Activity Lozenge

Note: It has been replaced by the activity lozenge.

In her book about kitchen planning, based on studies performed at the Department of building function analysis (BFL) at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Thiberg (2007), confirms this result by including storage in her optimisation of movements in the kitchen. The observations highlight the fact that for kitchen use, posture is conditioned by visual information, a sense of precision or of things being beyond reach (prehension). The results of this experiment show that users spend 25% of time using the kitchen in an awkward position. The layout of the observed kitchen in question entailed a certain unease of posture, in particular during storing and preparing activities.

5.2 Sociological study of the customised use of the kitchen area The sociological dimension of kitchen use was investigated to determine needs and expectations more precisely and to find criteria to gauge whether the product is satisfactory. To explore this dimension, a qualitative enquiry was carried out among 23 households chosen for their diversity (size, social and occupational group, geographical situation). This enquiry was subcontracted to Mr. Detomasi (AREA Agency) a sociologist. The enquiry resulted in a segmentation of representations concerning kitchen equipment and highlighted several shortcomings and needs whose importance had been underestimated in the activity analysis. For example, during interviews, dealing with household refuse appeared as the most problematic activity; however the activity analysis did not identify any major problems in this field. On the other hand, spatial movements,

10

C. Leborgne et al.

whose study was based on the activity triangle, did not represent a major source of discontent. The results also show that users are partly aware that a discrepancy between kitchen fittings and the way they are used may have side-effects on health. The second step was to compare the results of the sociological study with the first ergonomic recommendations following from the activity analysis. Integrating the results of the two studies enabled us to establish a hierarchy in the recommendations concerning, for example, dealing with and getting rid of household refuse, ventilation systems and clearly identified sources of danger So, as to reduce spatial movements and facilitate switching from one activity to another, we recommend rethinking tomorrow’s kitchens by concentrating the various functions within areas of activity. We identified four of these as far as kitchen equipment is concerned: the dry preparation area, the damp preparation area (including washing activities), the cooking area and the storage area. These areas should concentrate the equipment and elements to allow easy switching from one activity to a related one while of course leaving enough space for easy handling. For instance, the dry preparation area should concentrate and optimise switching from food storage and getting rid of household refuse, to cutting, wrapping and seasoning. Although each of these areas has a specific designation, certain adjustments should be allowed for. These specifications meant for designers were presented over a whole day to more than 120 professionals of the furniture industry, the household appliance industry, the hardware business and designers and architects. The ergonomist’s judgement takes into account physiological criteria for each activity, especially the time spent in an awkward position compared to the time spent on using the kitchen in general. The sociologist’s recommendations result from the analysis of interviews. Table 1 set the two rankings side by side and shows the differences in priority established by the two professionals. Table 1

Comparison of the rankings of the recommendations of the ergonomist and those of the sociologist

Ergonomist:

Sociologist:

1

Preparation

1

Getting rid of household refuse

2

Storing in bottom units

2

Hygiene and maintenance

3

Washing of dishes

3

Discomfort due to the sound of the extractor hood

4

Cutting up

4

Layout of the cupboards and the workshop (range of reach, vision, size)

5

Storing in top units

5

Light and plugs

6

Storing in dishwasher

6

Lack of adjustability (cooking, cold, storing, energy flux)

7

Storing away of household refuse

7

Linen

8

Storing in the refrigerator

8

Communication

Table 2 ranks the first 10 items for improvement according to criteria of usability and acceptability.

3D simulation Table 2

11

New ranking of the items for improvement according to criteria of usability and acceptability

Usability + acceptability criteria 1

Storing in bottom unites (layout of the cupboards, getting rid of household refuse, refrigerated storage places, respect of handling space)

2

Preparation, layout of the worktops (height, space, hygiene, light, cooking)

3

Cutting up (security, hygiene, maintenance)

4

Storing in top units (visual accessibility, optimisation, handling accessibility…)

5

Storing in dishwasher

6

Use of the sink

7

No sound related discomfort (extractor hood)

8

Adjustability (light, plug, cold storage places, layout and location of furniture)

9

Linen management

10

Communication

In other words, this ranking tries to meet both usability and acceptability standards for the design of future products. Moreover, this comparison highlights the different conceptions and definitions made by the members of the design team according to their respective professions (practical use for the ergonomist, lifestyle for the sociologist and to a certain extent for the architect and the designer). These conceptions turned out to be complementary and enabled us to adopt the notion of use as the main system of reference shared by the designing team to best define final user needs and expectations. Furthermore, within the scope of our research, these modelling tools seemed to be an appropriate way of integrating uses and lifestyles into the design of future kitchen equipment. Our collaboration with a research team in ERgonomics and COnception (ERCO) of the Université Techonolgique de Belfort Montbeliard enabled us to add a modelling tool currently being developed [based on 3DSMAX (Kinetix)] to the tools of the FCBA software [French Institut of technology Forest-Wood-Cellulose-building-Furniture (FCBA)]. For the needs of our research, a set of 23 three-dimensional dummies was elaborated. This set enabled us to represent, in line with the intended target, the French, European or world adult population and a population of four to 16 year old children. A set of three-dimensional ‘use’ environments was also developed. Finally, based on the findings of the activity analysis and the sociological study, we created a set of elementary scenarios representing the activity involved in using kitchen equipment. The consequences of using the simulation tool on the traditional process of kitchen design are of paramount importance. Until now, verifying a new concept meant constructing a functional model on a scale of 1, a highly time-consuming activity (weeks or months). However, adopting this tool to simulate desirable future gestures enabled us to reduce the total verification time to one week, while also increasing our ability to make modifications in the design process.

12

C. Leborgne et al.

Figure 3

Example of application of the modelling tools: determining user comfort during the use of two dishwashers of different heights according to criteria of energy consumption (see online version for colours)

Reference Indicators of metabolic consumption (J)

Concept

5 000 4 500 4 000 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0

J J J J J J J J J J J

4828 J 2896 J

Reference

Concept

In the example given in Figure 3, the level of energy consumption has been defined for a 50th centile (in size) mannequin during a short sequence where dishes are being loaded into the dishwasher. Two heights were tested: that in general use and 60 cm above ground (not yet available on the market at that time). The simulation indicated that the energy consumption involved in the second configuration was 25% lower than the first. It is therefore possible with this tool, and by complementing the metabolic indicator by an indicator of postural comfort, to optimise dishwasher height (in terms of user-comfort) taking account of the manufacturers’ constraints (supply and draining of fluids, optimisation of trimmings in the panels supporting the appliance). Those measurements have been also made for a 5th centile female, and a 95th centile male. This way, the optimum height of each device can be easily calculated in order to fit to 95% of the French population.

6

Discussion and perspectives

From the feedback we received after presenting the tool in exhibitions or to manufacturers, we concluded that it was a good way of enhancing the added value that ergonomics can bring to kitchen equipment. The tool is appreciated not only because it gives insight into user comfort, but also because it is dynamic, innovative and realistic. It helps to integrate the ergonomic approach at an earlier stage of the design process and thus enables ergonomics to become a differentiating element. Indeed, an analysis of the activities of different users in real situations, synthesise and integrate them, add visualisations of comfort (reached areas, energy consumption,..) and simulations with software facilitates cooperation with engineering designers. The method and the tools presented in this paper have been used in different industrial cases thus as design of commercial plane seats. The French Institute of technology FCBA has integrated this method in his ergonomics design service.

3D simulation

13

However, it must be recognised that although this tool enables us to integrate future probable customised uses, it can never replace real user trials and testing. It will be useful in enabling the designer to choose the most convincing solutions according to ergonomic criteria. These will then be set against real uses to be validated or not. It can also be a good start to communicate the importance of ergonomics to the final users (the costumers) by integrating customisable 3D manikins (or at least 3 of them, the most representatives) in the current software of kitchen design (for example, IKEA kitchen planner). This way, the choices could be made by both the sales consultant and the customer on ergonomics criteria. In the same way, we notice that qualifying acceptability with ergonomics and sociologist criteria is not enough. Indeed, this research could be supplemented by other researchers in innovation centred usage, marketing, technical engineering, industrial and artistic design (Stoeltzlen et al., 2006; Maxant et al., 2006; Roussel et al., 2009). To conclude this document, we would like to reposition our contribution within the field of industrial engineering. Tessier and Wallet (1996) reckons that “engineering expects a transfer of skills that can only follow from social sciences”. The author introduces the notion of ‘fit to use’, in other words the analysis of social demand as a pre-condition for engineering innovative products/services. This analysis is, for the time being, only roughly outlined. We would like the anthropocentric approach based on customised uses that follow from our research, as well as the tools we adopted, to contribute to this transfer of knowledge and to anthropocentric engineering. We hope that such a transfer will result in products which better meet users’ needs and expectations; this in turn should guarantee the usability and acceptability of products ultimately conceived. Our research has underlined a number of shortcomings, questions and issues of evolution concerning the role of the design ergonomist in new product design. It would be interesting to set up a quantitative indicator showing the adoption of our approach by the designers themselves. Further, the use of tools such as canvassing or analysing use trends (Bouchard et al., 2008; Christofol et al., 2000) would help to complete the data resulting from our anthropocentric approach during the concept research stage. Finally the manufacturers themselves have expressed interest in the development and simplification of the simulation tool. This would enable them to introduce it into their distribution networks and use it as a basis for their list of ergonomic selling points.

Acknowledgements This research was carried out at the ENSAM laboratory for the Design of New Products and Innovation; partners included French Institute of Technology FCBA, and The National Union of Furniture Manufacturers (UNIFA).

14

C. Leborgne et al.

References Akrich, M. (1998) ‘Les utilisateurs, acteurs de l’innovation (Users, innovation actors)’, Education permanente, No. 134, pp.79–89. Aoussat, A. (1999) ‘Contribution à la modélisation du processus de conception de produits industriels (Modeling of new industrial products design process)’, HDR Report, ENSAM 1996. Arlt, F. and Marach, A. (1998) ‘CAD modelling of a human 3D child body’, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 22, Nos. 4–5, pp.333–341. Astre, M.C., Font, C. and Lapoirie, J.J. (1993) Précis d’ameublement. Aménagement du cadre de vie (Furnishing Handbook), 2nd ed., pp.40–58, AFNOR, Paris. Beguin, W-F. (1997) La simulation en ergonomie: connaitre, agir et interagir (Simulation In Ergonomics: Know, Act and Ineract), Octares, Toulouse, France. Bouchard, C., Omhover, J.F., Mougenot, C., Aoussat, A. and Westerman, S.J. (2008) ‘Trends a content-based information retrieval system for designers’, in Gero, G.S. and Goel, A.K. (Eds.): Design Computing and Cognition ‘08, pp.593–611. Boujut, J.F. and Tiger, H. (2002) ‘A sociotechnical research method for analysing and instrumenting the design activity’, The Journal of Design Research, No. 2, Inderscience. Brown, T. (2008) ‘Design thinking’, Harvard Business Review, June 1, pp.84–92. Building Research Council Staff (1993) Kitchen Planning Standards, circular series C5.32, The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Cazamian, P., Hubault, F. and Noulin, M. (1996) Traité d’ergonomie (Ergonomics Handbook), Octares, Toulouse. Chir, M.C. (1987) Aménagement dimensionnel du poste de travail (Workspace Building), Medical PhD, Université de Nancy. Christofol, H., Bouchard, C. and Roussel, B. (2000) ‘Le raisonnement analogique, un fondement de la créativité stylistique, ergonomique et technologique (Analogical reasoning, base of the stylistic, ergonomic and technological creativity)’, Proceeding of IDMME 2000, 16–19 mai, Montréal, Canada. Daniellou, F. (1996) Questions épistémologiques autour de l’ergonomie (Epistemological Questions about Ergonomics), L’ergonomie en quête de ses principes, débats épistémologiques, Octares, Toulouse. Daniellou, F. (2005) ‘The French-speaking ergonomist. Approach to work activity: cross-influences of field intervention and conceptual models’, Theorical issues in Ergonomics Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.409–427. Earthy, J., Jones, B.S. and Bevan, N. (2001) ‘The improvement of human-centred processes – facing the challenge and reaping the benefit of ISO 13407’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp.553–585, Elsevier. Eleb, M. (1996) ‘Implication, situation transférentielle et recherche sur l’espace domestique (Implication, tranferential situation and research on domestic space)’, in Wittner, L. and Welzer-Lang, D. (Eds.): Les faits du logis, coll. Vie et Société, pp.17–29, Aléas, Lyon. Engeström, Y. (1999) ‘Activity theory and individual and social transformation’, in Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.): Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp.19–38, Cambridge University Press. ISO/TR 16982 (2002) Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems. Fischler, C. (1993) L’homnivore : le goût, la cuisine et le corps, pp.149–226, Seuil, Paris. Flandrin, J.L. and Montanari, M. (1997) Histoire de l’alimentation, pp.867–887, Fayard, Paris. Gomes, S. (1999) Contribution de l’analyse de l’activité au processus de conception de produits innovants, PhD, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine.

3D simulation

15

Guerin, F., Laville, A., Daniellou, F., Durafourg, J. and Kergelen, A. (1997) Comprendre le travail pour le transformer, La pratique de l’ergonomie, col. Outils et Méthodes, ANACT, Paris. Heiner, B., Engstler, F., Fritzsche, F., Mergl, C., Sabbah, O., Schaeffer, P. and Zacher, I. (2006) ‘The development of RAMSIS in past and future as an example for the cooperation between industry and university’, International Journal of Human Factors Modelling and Simulation, December, Vol. 1, No. 1. IDEO (2011) Human Centered Design, 2nd ed. Leborgne, C. (2001) Proposition d’une démarche anthropocentrée de conception de produits nouveaux basée sur l’usage et destinée a une meilleure intégration, par l’ergonome, des besoins et des attentes des usagers, PhD, ENSAM, Paris. Maline, J. (1994) Simuler le travail : une aide à la conduite de projet, ANACT, Montrouge. Marcos, P., Seitz, T., Bubb, H., Wichert, A. and Feussner, H. (2006) ‘Computer simulation for ergonomic improvements in laparoscopic surgery’, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.251–258. Maxant, O., Roussel, B. and Piat, G. (2006) C4 Innovation Method, Innovation Engineering, the Power of Tangible Networks (ouvrage collectif), 18p, Hermes Sciences Publishing, Londres. Mital, A. and Karwowski, W. (1991) ‘Workspace, equipment and tool design’, Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp.3–27, Elsevier, New York. Monod, H. and Kapitaniak, B. (1999) Ergonomie, Masson, Paris. Mucchielli, M. (1991) Les méthodes qualitatives, Que sais-je coll., PUF, Paris. PEGI Renault (2002) Guide d’aide de l’ergonomie des machines et installations industrielles-GE75-021R (Handbook for the Ergonomics of Machines and Work Spaces), Renault. Pehkonen, I., Takala, E.P., Ketola, R., Viikari-Juntura, E., Leino-Arjas, P., Hopsu, L., Virtanen, T., Haukka, E., Holtari-Leino, M., Nykyri, E. and Riihimaki, H. (2009) ‘Evaluation of a participatory ergonomic intervention process in kitchen work’, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.115–123. Rabardel, P. (1995) Les hommes et les technologies , approche cognitive des instruments contemporains, A. Colin, Paris. Reid, C.R., McCauley Bush, P., Karwowski, W. and Durrani, S.K. (2010) ‘Occupational postural activity and lower extremity discomfort: a review’, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.247–256. Rohmert, W. and Schaub, K. (1991) Ergnonmiestudie zur köpergerechten individuellen Planung von Einbauküchen, Institut für Arbeitswissenschaft an der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt fur AMK. Roussel, B., Stoeltzlen, N. and Truchot, P. (2009) ‘From cooperative innovation by usage to the creation of innovation platforms: the example of three INPL platform – ‘Cre@tion, Innocité and I-Cré@’, International Conference on Designing Products and Interfaces, DPPI, Compiègne France. Sagot, J.C. (1999) Ergonomie et conception anthropocentrée, HDR, INPL. Salvendy, G. (2012) Handbook of human factor ans ergonomics, 4th ed., Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. Sardas, J-C. (2001) ‘Organizing cooperation between different expertise in design’, Darses, Modéliser les activités coopératives de conception, Actes du 10ème Atelier du Travail Humain, pp.183–194. Savin, J. (2010) ‘Contributions and limits of digital anthropometric models in the ergonomic evaluation of work stations’, INRS Research Scanning studies, Study managed by the division ‘Work equipment engineering’ [online] http://en.inrs.fr.website (accessed 10 June 2010). Schaffer, C., Funk, K. and Cothrel, J. (2002) Learning to Innovate, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation.

16

C. Leborgne et al.

Steidl, R.E. (1962) Trips Between Centers in Kitchen for 100 Meals, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Bull., 971, Ithaca, New York. Stoeltzlen, N., Roussel, B. and Vallette, T. (2006) ‘Innovative collective process around graphic intermediate representation in the early stage of the design process: toward a conceptual framework to improve the collective exploration of innovation’, Journal of Design Research, Special Issue: Fostering innovation during early informal design phases, 25p, Indersciences Publishers. Stubler, E. (1962) Einfürung in das Arbeitsstudium in der Hauswirtschaft, REFA – Fachausschus Hauswirtschaft, Beuth – Vertrieb, Berlin/Köln/Frankfurt am Main. Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1998) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ. Tessier, D. and Wallet, M. (1996) ‘Architecture et ergonomie, positions et pratiques (Architecture and ergonomics, point of view and practices)’, Performances Humaines & Techniques, September–October, Vol. 84, pp.29–34. Theureau, J. and Pinsky, L. (1984) ‘Paradoxe de l'ergonomie deconception et logiciel informatique (Paradox of ergonomics in design and computer software)’, Revue des Conditions de Travail, No. 9, pp.25–31. Thiberg, A. (2007) Kök – planering och utformning, SIS Forlag, Stockholm. Tichkiewitch, S. (1998) ‘Ingénierie simultanée, ingénierie concourante : le point de vue du chercheur (Simultaneous and concurrent engineering, the researcher ponit of view)’, Proceedings L’Ingénierie simultanée, Pôle régional de Conception et d’Innovation, Belfort, 11–12 mars, Vol. 2, pp.1–6. Villarouco, V., Soares, M., Costa, A.P.L. and Andreto, L. (2012) ‘Evaluation of a work space based on an ergonomic design methodology of the built environment’, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.203–224. Woodson, W.E., Tillman, B. and Tillman, P. (1992) Human Factors Design Handbook, pp.214–226, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Notes 1

Using the term ‘customers’ avoids prior judgements as to what the designs of the analyst will be. The latter can just as well be interested in the buyer as in the consumer, or in the user in the quasi-technical sense of the term.