6.1. Introduction

The exchange of goods and services are becoming more intricate because of advanced technologies, complex user demands and stakeholder interactions. This requires design projects to be more context-driven with varied interests due to the (personal) ambitions and limitations of the different stakeholders. This phenomenon indicates that contextual issues and pluralistic objectives dictate the planning and implementation of the respective projects, emphasizing the importance of prospective ergonomic intervention in strategic or systems design projects. Positivist and constructivist worldviews have been adopted in these context-driven projects, supported by problem solving, hermeneutic, participative and reflective modes of design reasoning to anticipate future plural needs and objectives within the systemic quadrant. These plural needs and objectives within the context of business management and design comprise a balance among profit maximization, increased usability, work efficiency and effectiveness, human well-being, etc.

In the first stage of the analysis, cases will be cross-compared within each quadrant of the generic strategy framework [WHI 01]. Comparisons will be made according to the following criteria:

• – positioning (domain, specialization, intervention);
• – worldview;
• – design reasoning mode and method;
• – practice and stakeholder involvement;
• – value creation.

In the second analysis stage, cases will be compared across the different quadrants, based on how each case is classified according to ergonomic and design intervention as well as how they are being mapped alongside the axes of “process” and “outcome” (see Figure 6.2). Figure 6.1 recaps and color codes the different projects according to ergonomic interventions. Besides that, it also highlights the domain and specialization of each project.

6.2. Cross-comparison of cases within the context of deliberate/planned processes and targeted outcomes profit maximization/problem solving

In this section, selected cases will be compared within the context of deliberate/planned processes and targeted outcomes pertaining to profit maximization and problem solving. Table 6.1 shows the cross-comparison from a classical strategy perspective.

In all these projects, a positivist worldview has been adopted because of the use of prescriptive and structured methods and processes to achieve strategic service or design results. Ergonomic intervention is mainly corrective and preventive because the contexts have been predetermined for the projects reported in the case studies. This also implies a problem-solving approach as a way to reason about design.

PE, which has been advocated in the “product planning and positioning” case, is strategic and builds upon prescriptive methods and tools. These prescriptive methods and tools have been used to determine the innovative content of educational and real-life projects, either from a “what to design” or “how to design” approach. For example, Ansoff’s PMT-matrix and Cagan and Vogel’s positioning maps were frequently used to classify and frame the objectives of the different collaborative projects. However, in terms of design reasoning, this case also advocates participatory design beyond a problem-solving approach to discover hidden needs and anticipate future ones.

Using product planning and product positioning methods and tools contributes significantly to the value of strategic design and PE while taking into consideration user, organization and business ecosystem levels of involvement.

From a system and human-centered design approach, an abundance of collective processes and methods have been introduced to manage complexity and to involve different stakeholders in strategic design projects.

With respect to the NPS case, few difficulties were experienced in defining the system’s outer boundaries because the logistic structure of the system was partly determined by the nature of the project. However, more difficulties were encountered when determining intermediate boundaries and interface connectivity between the elements of the system, concerning overlapping scenarios and products.

In the design of a downtown check-in work system, formal anthropometric and interview methods are still very relevant to develop new knowledge. Hereby, the use of digital human models was a suitable platform to facilitate knowledge creation, design activity and communication among a broader network of stakeholders, enhancing the business ecosystem.

Using a work system simulation, spatial relationships among virtual humans, check-in facilities and the workplace within an external environment can be easily manipulated.

In the embarkation and disembarkation project concerning bus shelters, research contributed to architects’ and LTAs’ insights into designing universally accessible facilities. From a positivist worldview, observations and interviews were mainly used to determine design guidelines.

6.3. Cross-comparison of cases within the context of emergent processes and targeted outcomes: profit maximization/problem solving

In this section, selected cases will be compared within the context of emergent processes and targeted outcomes pertaining to profit maximization and problem solving. Table 6.2 shows the cross-comparison between the projects and criteria.

In the adoption of an evolutionary strategy perspective, the two cases were characterized by a physical product or product-service offering. Although strategic design was emphasized in the USB project, the ergonomic intervention was corrective in nature. The constructivist/pragmatic worldview dictates an evolutionary perspective, which does not propel the development of new products and services into the realm of PE.

Moreover, as design developments are emergent in nature, carefully planned processes and the use of structured methods have been absent in both cases. Instead, hermeneutic and reflective reasoning have taken center stage in design and development activities.

Stakeholders were actively involved in the design process but were not subject to participatory design methods. Value creation is short- and mid-term based and is determined by increased work efficiency, cost minimization and profit maximization. This is exemplified by the FRC project, where the Singapore Police Force has opted for adaptive instead of integrative customization of on-board equipment and interior design.

6.4. Cross-comparison of cases within the context of deliberate processes and pluralistic outcomes

In this section, selected cases will be compared within the context of deliberate processes and pluralistic outcomes. Table 6.3 shows the crosscomparison between the projects and criteria.

From a value creation perspective, profit making or cost saving is not the only objective in these systemic projects. User experience and developing networks with stakeholders are equally important if not more so. For example, in the rucksack bag project, structured research and design methods were adopted to systematically develop and suggest optimal ways of packing, considering the experience of different type of travelers, as well as the contexts they are traveling in.

The above example illustrates that cases, which are situated in specific contexts, require to a certain extend planned and structured processes as well as prescriptive methods to determine the outcome of the project.

This justifies that a positivist worldview is central in systemic cases, which is characterized by extensive stakeholder participation.

Concerning the prospective ergonomic/strategic design interventions, participative and problem solving reasoning modes were prevalent if the design project suggests a democratic participation of their stakeholders. If the design project is very much influenced by the views and opinions of the designer, pluralistic outcomes are being reached by hermeneutic or reflective practice modes of design reasoning.

An example of a democratic case is the “Fish-Health Monitoring” project. The co-creation workshops focused on the context of “sea-based fish-farming”, where students addressed problems and solutions related to monitoring fish health for an information service provider.

Using a toolkit, the primary objective of the participatory workshop sessions was to reveal interesting problem areas and business opportunities for a fish health surveillance interface for the company and its stakeholders, as well as to encourage these participants to co-create new ideas in terms of technology implementation, content and service provision.

Cases that deviate fully or partly from deliberate and prescriptive ways of research and design are (1) the development of culture-driven design concepts and (2) CAD as an idea and concept generation tool in the early design stages.

In the “Culture-Drive-Design Concepts” case, extreme cultural and behavioral trends and developments in nations’ social, technological, economical, environmental and political situations, positioned on a bipolar spectrum, were instigators for strategic and innovative product and service planning. A cultural understanding of societies and regions supported these trends and developments.

This methodology, which is constructivist in nature, requires a diverse database of cases to be developed. Moreover, cases are to be refined and categorized from time to time based on typical contexts and events. Furthermore, to be prescriptively applied as a source for external analysis in the generation of innovative system/product ideas, characteristics of case studies need to be structured and formalized.

To exemplify the value of a cultural approach, a systematic and context-based design process has been applied in the “Classroom Systems” and “Interior Concept for Small Space Living” projects. In these projects, hermeneutic and reflective practice modes complement a problem-solving approach. Hereby, the way a system should look is very much influenced by how the designer interprets and translates the formation of a specific context into a holistic system of interacting elements. However, as the ergonomic intervention is preventive, the immediate environment and stakeholders determine the aims of the project and their system constraints.

In the CAD and Idea/Concept Generation Tool case, the debate is how to balance the development of practical skills and thinking aptitudes. Participation in the Electrolux Design Lab competition has revealed that students, who were admitted only upon good grades, were generally poor in (manual) sketching and drawing. However, due to their solid academic capabilities, they were capable of envisioning future needs and effectively mastering different CAD systems in a short period of time. This proves that students were able to practice design thinking from different modes of design reasoning; a hermeneutic and constructivist mode in terms of idea generation and goal finding, as well as a structured problem solving mode in learning and using CAD in a versatile manner. Furthermore, the compilation of CAD and conventional representations in the early stages of the design process facilitated the involvement of other stakeholders in the network.

6.5. Comparison of case clusters across the four quadrants

Figure 6.2 gives an overview of how the different cases are positioned within a generic strategy map [WHI 01]. Most of the cases are positioned within the systemic and none in the processual quadrant. Cases characterized by a prospective ergonomic intervention are strategy- or systems-driven and mainly systemic in nature. This indicates that contextual issues and pluralistic objectives dictate the planning and implementation of the respective projects. Positivist and constructivist worldviews have been adopted in these projects, supported by problem solving, hermeneutic, participative and reflective modes of design reasoning. Expressed in a simplified manner, the exchange of goods and services are becoming more intricate because of advanced technologies, complex user demands and stakeholder interaction. This requires design projects to be more context-driven with varied interests due to the (personal) ambitions and limitations of the different stakeholders. What bind the projects together from a prospective and preventive ergonomic intervention are their aims to anticipate and satisfy future user experience. Projects, which are research-driven and where their design scope has been predetermined, are classified within the classical quadrant. Corrective and preventive ergonomic interventions aimed at, for example, solving a particular problem or maximizing profit were specific and required structured planning to achieve them. Hereby, the designer adopted a problem solving approach toward design based upon a positivist worldview. The product planning versus product positioning case is also positioned in the classical quadrant because some of the strategic design projects were accomplished using a prescriptive product planning and goal finding process.

6.6. Qualitative analysis of cases according to intervention, worldviews, models of design reasoning and generic strategies

In this section, a qualitative assessment of the 12 cases will be presented. The assessment is based upon the juxtapositioning of the different ergonomic and design interventions with worldviews, models of design reasoning and generic strategies (see Table 6.4).

Since most of the cases carry two or more perspectives on the type of intervention, worldview, mode of design reasoning and strategy, a qualitative approach has been used to analyze trends rather than to specifically pinpoint qualitative results.

Prospective ergonomic intervention happened in only four out of the 12 projects, which were positivist and/or constructivist in nature. Positivist because planned processes have been used but constructivist because outcomes, due to contextual reasons and bounded rationality, are plural. This undoubtedly implies that the wide range of design reasoning models from problem solving to participative design are suited to be used with each other. On a management level, the dualistic nature of these cases, which in some instances are positivistic and in other instances are constructivist, aligns well with a systemic generic strategy.

An example of such a case is the “CAD as an Idea and Concept Generation Tool in the Early Design Stages”. Although CAD has extensively been used as a tool in the generation of detailed concepts for the Electrolux Design competition by most of the participants, the thinking behind the concepts is mostly hermeneutic and reflective in nature. However, this case can be classified as systemic because the themes and deliverables for the competition are predefined and the outcomes are plural: cost reduction in design/development, enhanced user experience and stakeholder involvement.

Similarly, cases where strategic or systems intervention took place were mostly positivistic and constructivist in nature. In these strategic/systems design cases, problem solving, reflective and hermeneutic modes of reasoning have been adopted to develop design solutions, mostly tied to specific contexts. This signifies that a majority of the strategic- and systemsintervened design cases are also systemic in nature but driven by context rather than bounded by human rationality.

Moreover, a combination of preventive ergonomic and systems design intervention was present in the following cases:

• – mail production at the Norwegian Postal Service;
• – classroom systems for elementary school pupils;
• – the interior concepts for small-space living project.

In each of these cases, a design brief has been presented at systems level. The scope of the projects determined the boundaries of the system.

There are some similarities between cases which were subjected to industrial design and preventive ergonomic intervention. Mainly, a positivist worldview has been adopted in the development of design solutions. Complementary to a problem solving mode of reasoning, elements of reflective and hermeneutic thinking were present. These cases, which encapsulated a preventive ergonomic and industrial design intervention, also aligned well with a systemic view of strategizing because the design briefs determine their design space, limitations and possibilities.

A typical example, which embodies a preventive ergonomic and industrial design intervention, is the “Interior Customisation of Singapore Fast-Response Police Car”. However, in this typical case, the project is constructivist in nature and very much driven by a hermeneutic, reflective practice and participatory modes of design reasoning. From an evolutionary strategy perspective, cost savings, operational effectiveness and enhanced user experiences are values which have been targeted.

For cases, which have been intervened from a corrective ergonomic perspective, a positivistic/pragmatic worldview complemented by problem solving and reflective modes of reasoning has been adopted. Related generic strategies are mainly classical and evolutionary because these cases are aimed at “concrete business and design objectives” through redesign.

The case “Digital Human Models in Work System Design and Simulation” shows how corrective ergonomic and partly detail design interventions have been applied in developing design guidelines for baggage check-in at mass rapid transit stations in Singapore.

Two cases were positioned in the evolutionary quadrant. In these cases, the designer used an emergent constructivist and pragmatic approach to meet the design goals. Reflective reasoning with the business context was an important impetus for taking an opportunistic design and development approach in the USB project and a trial and error approach in the customization of the Singapore police car interior.

Figure 6.3 complements Figure 6.2 by showing how the 12 cases are positioned according to worldview and design reasoning mode. Although no direct correlations can be made with types of interventions and generic strategy positioning, it can be said that most projects were positivistic in nature and were subjected to a diversity of design reasoning approaches to achieve conceptual or tangible results. However, a group of projects were characterized as constructivist and pragmatic. Designers adopted foremost a reflective practice and hermeneutic approach in formulating the final design brief or in creating a materialized design solution.

When adopting a prospective ergonomic view, only the “culture DDC” project was constructivist in nature, where hermeneutic and reflective reasoning prevailed. This shows that PE interventions foremost rely on prescriptive processes, methods and tools.

To conclude this chapter, 12 cases have been mapped according to ergonomic and design intervention. Figure 6.4 provides a summarized overview of the relationship between ergonomic and design interventions.

The mapping exercise has shown that PE as well as strategic/systems intervention took place in four out of 12 cases. Four projects were broadly defined with no clear system boundaries of the product or service. Three out of the 12 were the result of strategic/systems design and preventive ergonomic intervention. In these three cases, the project brief and system boundaries have been clearly predetermined. A preventive ergonomic intervention has mainly been adopted in the creation of system elements (products). An exceptional case is the USB project. The business case is strategic in nature but the design of the product, which embodies the business intent, is a redesign of existing USBs. In two out of 12 cases, straightforward industrial design and preventive ergonomic intervention led to novel design outputs which have never been referenced to previous designs before.

The “Bus shelter” and “DHM” case are industrial design projects with a tendency to be more detail design oriented. In both cases, the scope of ergonomic intervention has been narrowly defined. In the “Bus shelter project”, it is about investigating and solving the embarkation/disembarkation gap, while in the DHM acceptable queuing standards based upon body ellipse theories has been investigated. Given this predefined and rather narrow context, these cases are characterized as “corrective ergonomic” interventions.

On a final note, prospective and preventive ergonomic interventions alongside strategic and systems design interventions are prevalent in a majority of the cases (seven out of 12). Both interventions adopt a human-centered approach in the design and development of innovative products and concepts, focusing on increased usability, work efficiency and effectiveness and human well-being. The main difference between a preventive and prospective ergonomic intervention in strategic design projects is that the former accepts a given context or brief while the latter redefines them, as well as their outcomes, and how to achieve these outcomes.