DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF USABLE CONSUMER PRODUCTS: PART I - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Majorkumar Govindaraju and Anil Mital

Industrial Engineering University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH 45221-0116

ABSTRACT Survival of a company in these times of increased global competition depends upon developing high quality products at usable are changing to encompass its entire life cycle. These changes in usability need to be reflected in the design of a product and the selection of processes to achieve its manufacture. This article, part I of a twopart paper, defines product usability in the context of the global market and reviews tools and guidelines available in the published literature to produce usable products.

affordable cost. It calls for a strategic approach to developing usable and needed products by integrating product planning, its design, and manufacturing. A hard to use product, even one with many functions, will fall by the way side. Usability of a product is generally determined by how easily and completely it meets the users needs. The criteria for usability have, however, been gradually changing. Recent trends, such as increased customer demand to personal needs, are forcing satisfy the

1.- INTRODUCTION
Product design is the process of creating new and improved products for people to use. Consumer products are products

designed for use by the general public whereas commercial products are products used to produce goods and services. Consumer products are different from commercial products in several respects as far as the user is concerned: (a) the user is generally untrained, (b) the user often works unsupervised, and (c) he/she is part of a 1

manufacturers to design a variety of usable products customized to individual needs. Also, as a result of an increased

environmental awareness, customers are seeking products that are environment friendly, energy efficient, and recyclable. Thus, the attributes of a product that make it

diverse population (Cushman, 1991). The process of designing and manufacturing consumer products is greatly influenced by the needs and demands of the customers. In the early twentieth century,

determining its usability. Figure 1 shows the various phases in the life cycle of a product.

consumer products were primarily designed to provide functionality. Later, the form and appearance began to be emphasized. Though this resulted in nice looking products with an array of features, such products were often difficult to use (Ulrich, 1995). During the 1980s, designers started emphasizing user friendliness of consumer products. Requirements such as product-user interface design and safety were incorporated into the design. Concern for the environment and resource utilization in recent years has stimulated new awareness among users to seek products that pose minimal risk of environmental pollution, consume less Recently, designers are emphasizing customizing the products to meet the demands from the users to satisfy their individual tastes and preferences. The following may be regarded as the criteria for designing and manufacturing usable consumer products: 1. Functionality 2. Ease of operation 3. Aesthetics 4. Reliability 5. Maintainability/Serviceability 6. Environment friendliness 7. Recyclability/Disposability 8. Safety and 9. Customizability The needs and wants of customers listed above are linked to the product design and 2
Figure 1: Life Cycle Analysis of a Product

energy, have very little toxic emissions during use, and are recyclable when disposed. For making products usable by making designers them need environmentally to emphasize friendly, energy

efficiency, recyclability, and disposability. This calls for considering all life-cycle phases of a product, i.e., design, production, distribution, usage, maintenance, simultaneously and in

disposal/recycling,

manufacture. To fulfill these needs and wants, consumer products need to be designed to incorporate those features that meet the user requirements and then manufactured by appropriate selection of materials, processes, and tools (Figure 2).

The design activity is usually preceded by obtaining information about the needs and wants of the users through market research (McClelland, 1990). Figure 3 shows a structured approach to obtaining information pertaining to user needs in the design process for developing usable consumer products (Mital, 1992). Conceptual design deals with the activities that happen early in the product development (Dika, 1988). It involves creation of synthesized solutions in the form of products that satisfy users perceived needs through the mapping

between the functional requirements in the functional domain and the design parameters
Figure2: Usability Criteria Manufacturing Factors and Design /

in the physical domain, through proper selection of design parameters that satisfy

The purpose of this paper (part I of a twopart paper) is to review published literature pertaining to design tools, methodologies, and guidelines that are available to design and manufacture usable consumer products. How the usability criteria may be linked to manufacturing attributes is shown in Part II.

the functional requirements. This mapping is not unique and the outcome depends on the creative process of individual designer. Many techniques have been advanced to enhance the creative process, including: (1) trigger-word technique, (2) checklist

technique, (3) morphological technique, (4) attribute-seeking technique, (5) Gordon technique, and (6) brainstorming technique (Suh, 1990).

2.- Criteria for designing and manufacturing products:

2a. FUNCTIONALITY 3

usable

consumer

determine the independent parameters that are involved. Each of these parameters is then considered separately for possible alterative methods. All methods are

tabulated in a matrix which can be cross correlated to produce possible solutions to the problem. In the attribute-seeking

technique, all essential characteristics (i.e., attributes), that comprise a possible solution to the problem, are singled out and analyzed individually using either trigger-word or checklist approach. The Gordon technique deals with the basic underlying concepts involved
Figure 3: Design flow for Product Usability

in

the

situation,

instead

of

considering the obvious aspects of the given problem. This approach compels the

designer to take a much broader view by In the trigger word technique, the verb word in the problem definition statement is analyzed recursively to create different set of connotations and ideas to solve the problem. The checklist method consist of a series of standard set of question; each question can have more related questions. The checklist serves to focus at various ways of looking at the problem and to stimulate the imagination to explore less obvious concepts surrounding the problem. The morphological chart technique involves analyzing the problem to 4 analyzing the reasons why the problems exist in the first place. For example, when designing home-disposal appliance, one may seek to eliminate the cause of trash rather than dealing with the disposal of trash. Brainstorming is a group-ideation technique usually consisting of 6 to 8 individuals who are conversant with the field. A moderator defines the situation and provides

interpretation of the problem. The success of this technique depends on the compounding effect of each person in the group

responding to the ideas expressed by others.

Umeda

et

al.

(1997)

proposed 5.

network structure. Then, a qualitative reasoning

Function-Behavior-State (FBS) modeling and a conceptual design-support tool called FBS Modeler based on it. The FBS modeler has knowledge bases for function

subsystem simulates behavior. As a result of the simulation, the system might discover inconsistencies between the FBS model constructed by the designer and the result obtained. The system will then indicate phenomena that will not occur even though the

prototypes, physical features, and physical phenomena. With these knowledge bases, the FBS Modeler supports conceptual design as follows: 1. The designer selects required

designer specifies it in the initial FBS module. The main deficiency of the FBS method is that it does not explicitly deal with the geometry and kinematics of the product which are essential concepts in mechanical design. The approach by Chakrabarti (1996)

functions from the function prototypes knowledge base. 2. of Aided by decomposition knowledge function prototypes, a designer

decomposes the required function and sub-functions. 3. The features designer that can chooses physical each

relates functions to the relative motions of parts, unlike most approaches where

embody

subfunction. After instantiating physical features, the designer might discover that some features cannot occur. In such a case, a subsystem, Qualitative Process Abduction System (QPAS), reasons out candidates for the missing physical features conditions. 4. Next, the designer connects the instantiated physical features to to satisfy the physical

functions are related to the components. These tools help designers develop the physical design of a product given the functional requirements specified by the user. Any such conceptual design needs to be further evaluated to determine whether it is easy to use by consumers.

complete the functional hierarchy. This process constructs the behavioral-level 5

2b. EASE OF OPERATION A product is considered user friendly if the functions allocated to humans are within the limitations of their abilities and constraints, and the product-user interface is physically comfortable and mentally not stressful (Haubner, 1990, Nielsen, 1993a). The system should be easy to learn, easy to remember and relatively error free (Nielsen, 1992; Nielsen, 1993b). Lee et al. (1997) have devised a formal and systematic approach for

including design variables, such as human characteristics, human-product product interface functions, variables, and are

performed using a checking procedure. By systematically analyzing the evaluation

results, many High Touch solutions such as new product ideas, new product functions, and design improvement are generated. As the user-product interaction is becoming less physical and more cognitive, it is essential to understand the cognition of the product semantics, i.e., the symbolic interaction between users and products. Lin et al.(1996), using multidimensional scaling (MDS), present an approach that can be used to study product semantics in product design. MDS is a process whereby a matrix of distance, either psychological or physical, among a set of objects can be translated into a representation of those objects in space. The results from MDS analysis provide designers with an idea of how to concentrate their efforts in using product semantics for consumer product design. The consumer electronic products are becoming more graphical user interface intensive in recent years (Shneiderman, 1998) that is made possible by incorporation of growing size of embedded software (Tervonen, 1996). Product quality in such 6

integrating the user needs and demands in product design through a process called High Touch. Once the customer needs are obtained by appropriate tools such as focus group methodology (Caplan, 1990), High Touch process can be used for consumers implicit needs and potential demands on a product into design details. It includes hierarchical structure of design variables, relationship matrix among design variables, and systematic evaluation of potential product functions. The High Touch process consists of a series of ergonomic analysis of the product. A group of expert ergonomists systematically evaluates the product through focused group interviews, task analysis, and field test from the consumers viewpoint. Based on the results, ergonomic analyses

products is greatly influenced by the software quality (Kitchenham, 1996). Zerodefect software can be obtained only by emphasizing quality during all the phases of software development analysis, cycle involving

The customers feeling about a product are broken down into a tree structure to get the details about the design of the product. Type II utilizes current computer technologies, such as expert systems, neural network models (Ishihara, 1995), and

requirement

protype-software

development, architecture and component design, realization, and testing (Rooijmans, 1996). The consumer product can be finally tested for its ease of use by usability testing procedures such as thinking aloud method where users work on a prototype (Jorgensen, 1990).

genetic algorithms (Tsuchiya, 1996), and is called computer assisted Kansei Engineering System basically (KES). has The four KES architecture Kansei

databases:

Database, image database, knowledge base, and design and color database. A consumer inputs his image words concerning the desired product in KES. The KES receives

2c. AESTHETICS A customers perception of a products value is, in part, based upon its aesthetic appeal (Logan, 1994). An attractive product may create an aesthetic appeal and a sense of high fashion, image, and pride of ownership (Akita, 1991). The design of products should induce a positive sensual feeling (Hofmeester, 1996). Kansei Engineering is a technology that translates consumers feelings and image for a product into design elements (Nagamachi, 1995). Kansei Engineering (KE) technology is classified into three types: KE Type I, II, and III. KE Type I deals with design elements of new products. 7

these words firstly through Kansei word database and tries to recognize them. The inference engine in this stage works by matching the rule-base and the image database. Then, the inference engine

determines the design details and the KES controller displays the part and color details of the product on the screen. Type III is the mathematical logic model 1995). The Hybrid KES, a new framework of KES, supports both the consumers and designers. It consists of Forward Kansei Engineering and Backward Kansei (Nagamachi,

Engineering. In the Forward KES, the designer obtains the desired design through

an input of the Kansei words and outputs the product design details. In the Backward KES, the designer draws a rough sketch on the computer screen and the computer system recognizes the pattern of the design input by the designer and shows the estimated level of Kansei about the design (Matsubara, 1997). Functionality and user-friendliness, designed into the product as indicated above, implies that the product is able to perform the desired functions without posing excessive demands on the user at any given time; the ability of the product to function satisfactorily over a period of time is indicated by its reliability. 2d. RELIABILITY Reliability of a product is the probability that it will perform satisfactorily for a specified period of time under a stated set of conditions (Anderson, 1991). Mean time to failure (MTTF) is used as a measure of reliability. MTTF is the average or mean lifetime for a population of products. Failures per billion operating hours (FITS), a reciprocal of MTTF, is also used as a measure of reliability. Thayer (Thayer, 1986) describes a three step process to improve the reliability of a product during the concept design, 8

design

verification phases. of the

and First

production step of is an each

verification estimation

reliability

subsystem of the existing design. The product is depicted in the form of a chart showing the structural The hierarchy of are

subassemblies.

subassemblies

further divided into field replaceable units (FRUs) identified by a certain numbering scheme. Failure data are collected by part number during the field diagnosis along with an estimate of operating time to failure. The failure analysis during the first step

identifies those low reliability subsystems that should be designed out of the next generation. During the second step involving design verification a prototype is tested to evaluate the design concepts. Engineering changes are made to replace weak parts and subassemblies and any reliability

improvement is verified through reliability growth tests. Duane plots are a plot of the log of cumulative test time vs the log of either mean time between failure or the failure rate. They are very effective in predicting the ultimate reliability of the product at the completion of the engineering design phase. The design is found

satisfactory if the engineering changes are effective in improving the reliability by

increasing the time between successive failures to an acceptable level. The third step is to release the finalized design to production and test the reliability of units built with the production tooling and labor. The reliability testing is performed by Weibull plotting of failure data. The Weibull plots are usefull in predicting the mean time between failure of the final product and in identification of failures due to 7.

during operation. The reliability of the individual components comprising the product standard should parts be and improved. materials Use with

verified reliability ratings (Priest, 1988). Design products with redundant, duplicate or backup systems to enable them to continue operation should a primary device fail. Use component derating to improve the ratio of load to capacity of the components. The

manufacturing errors, wearout, or chance. Reliability improvement is usually achieved through continuous improvement in materials, product design, manufacturing processes and use environment (Alonso, 1990, Comizolli, 1990). Reliability growth test management is a critical component of the product assurance function (Bieda, 1992). Computer application such as 8.

operation of a part at less severe stresses than those for which it is rated is known as derating (Alexander, 1992). Give priority to improving weak components than other parts. Design to avoid fatigue failures such as corrosion fatigue (Rao, 1992). Stress concentration points are most prone to fatigue failures. Designers should eliminate sharp

knowledge based decision support system (DSS) are often used to assist in

internal corners as they act as stress concentrators. The prime cause of reduced service life of electronic

quantification and monitoring of reliability growth during the product development phase (Nasser, 1989). The following choices are available to a design engineer to optimize reliability: 6. Simplify the design as much as possible. The design with the least complexity generally and exhibit fewer higher parts will 9.

products is overheating. Adequate means such as ventilation or heat sinks must be provided to prevent overheating. Reduce the adverse effects of the environment in which the product must operate by: (a) providing insulation from sources of heat, (b) providing seals 9

reliability

against

moisture,

(c)

using

shock

2e.

SERVICEABILITY

absorbing mounts, ribs, and stiffeners to make the product rugged against shock, and (d) providing and shield against

MAINTAINABILITY Maintainability / serviceability is the

element of product design concerned with assuring the ability of the product to perform satisfactorily throughout its intended useful

electromagnetic

electrostatic

radiation (Bralla, 1996). It is either technically difficult or

life span with minimum expenditure of effort and money. Maintenance can either be preventive maintenance (regular or routine service required for preventing operating failures) or breakdown maintenance (repair service after some failure or decline of function has occurred). Designing for good serviceability means providing for ease of both these kinds of maintenance (Blanchard, 1995). There is a strong overlap between the objective of achieving high product

prohibitively expensive to produce fail proof products. Every consumer is aware of the fact that during the life span of the product, repair or maintenance service will be needed. However, when a product fails it should fail safely and the down time should be as short as possible. A product that can be repaired or serviced easily and quickly has a high maintainability. Serviceability and maintainability equivalent terms. can be considered as

serviceability and other desirable design objectives such as reliability and ease of assembly/disassembly. Easy serviceability can often compensate for lower reliability. If a component is prone to failure but can be easily replaced or repaired, the

consequences of failure are less severe. The availability of product for use depends both on the reliability and serviceability. High availability means that the product is ready for full use a high percentage of the time because failure of components is rare or 10

because replacement of failed components is rapid or both (Smith, 1993). Berzak (1991) has developed a methodology to rate a product design for its serviceability based on the calculation of the total cost to service a product. The three major independent contributors to the service cost are cost per part, the failure distribution and the labor associated with the repair. The first two contributors are interrelated. The failure distribution can be reduced by raising the quality of the product through selecting better materials, choosing higher factor of safety in the design, or applying more rigorous quality assurance methods. However, all these measures will increase the cost per part. The labor associated with repair can be reduced by easing the accessibility to those parts which have to be serviced often, selection of appropriate method of assembly and

10.

Design

the

product

so

that

components prone to wear or failure are easily visible and accessible for

inspection, testing, and easy replacement (Mital, 1995). The covers, panels and housings should be easy to be removed and replaced. The product must be designed so that the parts with high reliability are assembled first and in a lower, less accessible position and those with less reliability are assembled last so that they are closer to the cover and in an accessible position when the cover is removed. High-mortality components should be located such that they can be replaced without removing or changing the settings of the other parts.The product should be repairable by the user rather than demanding attention of a specialist. For easy field replacement and repair the design should require commonly available standard types of tools (Bralla, 1996). 11. Use quick disconnect attachments and snap fits to join the high-mortality parts, or those that may need frequent replacement or removal for service. Funnel openings and tapered ends and plug-in or slip fits facilitate easy disassembly. Avoid press fits, adhesive 11

sequence of assembly. Calculation of cost and frequency associated with any given service enables a designer to identify problematic areas and to correct them before the product is produced, rather than devising methods of dealing with them after the product is already in the market. A designer has many options available to facilitate effective and economical service.

bonding, riveting, welding, brazing, or soldering of such parts. 12. Consider the use of modules which are easily replaced when necessary and easily tested to verify their operability. As a module is a self-contained unit comprising a group of components and subassemblies serving a particular

tests

can

be

made

with

standard

instruments, (b) incorporate built-in test capability and, if possible, built-in selftesting devices in the product, (c) make the tests themselves capable easy of and being

standardized,

performed in the field, (d) provide accessibility for test probes: for example, make test points prominent and provide access parts or tool holes, and (d) make modules testable while still assembled to the product (Anderson, 1991).

function, they all can be easily installed or replaced as one unit at the same time (Moss, 1985). Testing and other

maintenance is also facilitated especially when it is advantageous to do this when the module is removed from the basic product. Modular design makes it easier to isolate faults. If spare modules are available, the defective one can be removed and repaired while it is replaced with a spare, thus putting the product back in service much more quickly. The use of modules, however, is not always preferable. Modules are effective when testing and replacement are rapid and when the accompanying parts in the module are not expensive (Karmarkar, 1987). 13. Design the product for easy 2f.

ENVIRONMENTAL

FRIENDLYNESS The accelerated flow of waste and emission due to explosion in industrial activities spurred by rising

demand for consumer products is causing an increase in the pollution of the eco-system. The consumers are demanding green products as a result of a new environmental awareness and the responsibility of the manufacturers is gradually expanding over the entire product life cycle (Tipnis, 1993). A design that has minimal or no harmful effects during manufacture, use and disposal is considered environment friendly (Kaila, 1996). Life cycle assessments (LCA) tools have been developed to analyze and compare the 12 environmental impact of

testability. Some testability principles are: (a) as much as possible, design the product and its components so that these

various product designs (Hoffman, 1997). LCAs review a product by summing up the influence of all the processes during the life of a product on various envrionmental impact classes such as ozone depletion, global warming, smog, acidification,

procedure should be removed by (1) eliminating materials environmentally from the unfriendly and

product

manufacturing process, (2) if elimination is not possible, reducing the quantity of such materials, (3) designing the product so that components can be reused with or without refurbishing, and (4) designing the product so that such materials can be recycled (Glantschig, 1990). Some of the options that a designer has in enhancing environmental friendliness are: 14. Use of toxic materials in the product or in the production processes should be avoided. Eliminate use of substances such as CFCs or HCFCs . Reduce

eutrophication, heavy metals, pesticides and carcinogenics. The disadvantage with life cycle analysis is that in order to evaluate the environmentally responsible product rating every LCA tool needs substantial database for process information of all stages of the life cycle and for various impact classes with weighting factors for all materials, emissions and other reaction products during the product design stage itself (Nissen, 1997). Some simplified procedures use mass and energy used in a product or processes as indicators instead of looking at the often diffuse environmental impact properties of a design. This is based on the assumption that an ecologically undesirable product will consume large material and energy resources during its manufacture and usage, and will need additional resources to suppress the side effects during product disposal. The design deficiencies identified during the environmental assessment 13

manufacturing residues such as mold scrap, cutting scrap and minimize the use of solvents, oils and acids during the

manufacturing process. Minimize equipment cleanouts that generate liquid or solid residues (Billatos, 1997). 15. Avoid product materials which are restricted in supply. Avoid product materials which have disposal problem. Use recycled materials rather than virgin

materials if possible (Ashley, 1993). Minimize the amount of periodic materials disposal such as of solid 2g.

molded in color eliminates the need for painting. RECYCLABILITY /

cartridges,

DISPOSABLITY Thousands of consumer goods come to the end of their useful life every day and joins the waste stream. It is estimated that more than 10 million vehicles reach the end of their useful lives every year and an estimated 150 million discarded personal computers will have been landfilled by the year 2005 (Chen, 1993). To deal with such a situation it is imperative that the products are designed for recyclability. Product recycling reduces adverse impact on the environment by reducing the volume of materials deposited in the landfills, and conserves scarce natural resources (Tipnis, 1994, Pnueli, 1997). The steps involved in a recycling program are (1) collection of worn-out products, (2) disassembly of the product and sorting of incompatible

containers and batteries. Design to utilize recycled consumables from outside suppliers. Design products to minimize liquid

replenishment such as coolants and lubricants. Design products to minimize gaseous emissions such as carbon dioxide or tetraethyl lead (Bralla, 1996). 16. Design products to consume less energy. Also, choose the form of energy alternative which has the least harmful effect Design on the

environment.

should

include features such as sleep mode which conserves energy during the time when the product is not in use(Shiovitz, 1997). 17. Designs requiring spray-painted finishes should be avoided

materials, (3) cleaning, shredding, and grinding of materials as necessary, and separation of high value materials such as steel for reclaiming, (4) conversion into quality-consistent, usable material, and (5) discarding the fluff to the waste stream or landfill. The considerations for design for recyclabilty 14 often overlap with the

(Lankey, 1997). The need for environmentally damaging

solvents can be avoided by using powder coating, roll-coating or dip-painting for surface finishing of metals. Plastic parts which are

considerations for design for disassembly (Zussman, 1994). Srinivasan has developed a disassembly tool to support product design for recyclability (Srinivasan, 1997). It identifies the abstract design modules that need to be developed to build a geometric virtual disassembly tool. The modules are software programs executed as part of four step design process involving (1) product analysis, (2) disassemblability analysis, (3) optimal disassembly sequence generation, and (4) design rating. The product analysis step involves selection of components that need to be disassembled and the appropriate de-manufacturing application. The

disassembly

rating

and

design

recommendations. A typical rating index depends on the number of components disassembled, ease of disassembly,

complexity of path, and time taken for disassembly. The design recommendations focuses on enhancing the product design by minimizing the disassembly cost and time involved in the overall product cycle. Chen (1993) presents a cost benefit analysis as another tool for assessing the economics of designing for recyclability. The cost of recycling includes cost of disassembly, shredding, material recovery and dumping. The total benefit from recycling includes revenue from used parts, revenue from used parts and recovered material, and benefit of emission reduction from energy saving. The guidelines that help in reducing the cost and increase the revenue due to recycling are: 18. The product and its components should be designed such that they can be reused. The major components should be designed to be remanufactured or

information regarding the components to be disassembled is obtained from the (1) knowledge-base which consists of material, environment and application domain

database, and (2) the user requirements. The disassemblability analysis step consists of determining the disassemblability

components and analyzing all possible disassembly methods and the selection of an appropriate disassembly that best fits the user requirements. The third step consists of generating an optimal disassembly sequence and disassembly directions for the 19.

refurbished rather than reclaimed only for its materials. Minimize the number of parts it contains as fewer parts make sorting of materials easy for recycling. Avoid the 15

components to be disassembled. The final step involves disassembly evaluation,

use of separate fasteners, if possible. Snap-fit connections between parts are preferable because they do not introduce a dissimilar material and often easier to disassemble with simple tools. The number of screw head types and sizes used in fasteners in one product should be minimized so that changing of the tools used to loosen and remove fasteners is reduced during recycling (Bralla, 1996). Use of fewer number of fasteners reduces the disassembly time. Modular design simplifies disassembly. 20. Minimize the amount of material in the product. The less the amount of material involved, the simpler the

Boateng,

1993).

As

thermoplastic

materials can be recycled by melting, they are preferred to thermosetting materials. For joining plastics solvent, friction, or ultrasonic welding is

preferable to adhesive bonding and for metals welded joints are preferable to brazed or soldered joints (Dewhurst, 1993). If adhesive bonding can not be avoided, an adhesive material that is compatible need to be used when the components are recycled. For labels water-soluble adhesives facilitate

separation during recycling.

2h. SAFETY The increasing number of injuries filed each year in courts due to personal injuries while using consumer products indicates that safety may be the most basic consideration in product design from human as well as cost standpoint (Heideklang, 1990; Ryan, 1983). Safety implies absence of hazards or the minimal exposure to them during entire life cycle of the product (Bass, 1984). Schoone-Harmsen (1990) developed an iterative three step method to detect and solve safety problem during product design. It consists of (1) analysis of the problem, (2) identification of critical factors, and (3) 16

eventual disposal problem when the product has reached the end of its useful life. Less material also means that, eventually, the product will need less landfill space. By designing for near-netshape manufacturing processes that

minimize material scrap, designers can achieve benefits comparable to

designing smaller and lighter parts. 21. Reduce the number of different materials in a product. Use of dissimilar materials that can not be separated or are difficult to separate from the basic materials should be avoided (Berko-

synthesis. The analysis step is used to evaluate the product on their safety, by gaining insight into possible accidents connected with either the product, the actions of the user, or environmental conditions. The second step consists of identifying the factors that are critical among those found in the analysis. If a critical factor is related to the product, the hazard can be removed by changing the corresponding characteristics of the product. If actions or posture of the user or environmental conditions cause the hazards, the designer should change the product features connected with such critical factors. During the synthesis step a structured list of solution strategies to the detected safety problems is developed. Correcting a critical product feature is done through selection of a different working principle, deactivation during use before injury or damage occurs, separation of the user from the source of danger, and limitation of the possibility of the user to modify the product. Correcting a critical action associated with the user or the environment is achieved by influencing the actions of the user through the product, selection of the user by anthropometric or cognitive characteristics, and influencing the selection of place of use through the 17

product. The effectiveness of the design solutions can be found by performing the analysis step again. If the improvement is not sufficient or new hazards have been identified the whole process can be repeated till all the hazards are either eliminated or are found acceptable, and all the safety standards are complied with (Wilson, 1984). Standard techniques such as fault tree analysis, failure mode analysis and sneak circuit analysis can be used to design safety into a product (Hammer, 1980). Safety concerns often overlap with

reliability and ease of use. The following considerations are intended to aid the designer in creating a safe product: 22. The products should be fail-safe. As users can occasionally make mistakes in the operation of a product the design should allow for human error. When such human errors happen, or when there is failure of mechanism, it should not result in an accident. Products

should be designed to be user-friendly and to operate with the human

capabilities to minimize the possibility of human errors that can cause accidents (Chow, 1978). 23. Parts that require service should be freely accessible, easily repairable and

replaceable without causing interference with other assemblies and without posing hazards to the user. To avoid shearing or crushing points in which hands or other parts of an operators body might be caught or injured adequate clearances should be provided between moving parts and other

swallowable flammable packaging

by

children.

Use

of

materials materials

including should be

minimized. Avoid the use of materials that are a hazard when burned, recycled, or discarded (Bralla, 1996).

2i. CUSTOMIZABILITY So far, the aim of product design and development has been to create a product that satisfies the needs of the average customer. No consideration has been given to differences in individual tastes and preferences. Often, customers are willing to pay more if their individual needs are better satisfied. Design for mass customization (DFMC) is a new approach to producing an increasing requirements variety without of a customers corresponding

elements. Design should replace sharp corners with liberal radii as sharp external corners are hazards during operation product. 24. The design of the product should be robust enough to withstand adverse environment in which it will be used and provide safeguards against those and maintenance of the

environmental factors such as corrosion, vibration, pressure changes, radiation, and fire which could create safety hazards (Witherall, 1985). Reduce the level of noise (Lyon, 1994) and vibration (Fraser, 1993) to avoid their harmful effects on users. Provide adequate ventilation and lighting. 25. Make the product from high-impact or resilient materials so that it does not break, when dropped accidentally, into small fragments with sharp edges or sharp points that are potentially 18

increase in the cost and lead-time (Tseng, 1996). Providing products and services which best serve the customers needs while maintaining mass production efficiency is a new paradigm of for each industries. customer as The an

recognition

individual and the subsequent production of products with tailor-made features is the basis of this new approach. The core of DFMC is to develop a mass customization oriented product family architecture (PFA)

with a meta level design process integration as a unified product creation and delivery process model. The inherent repetition in product marketing, design, and

possible by Strategic Information Systems (SIS) has been in use as a strategy to achieve this (Hitomi, 1991). Now, agile

manufacturing is an emerging concept in industry that aims at achieving flexibility and responsiveness to changing customer needs. Agile manufacturing systems seek to produce efficiently a large and variety of products to

manufacturing can be recognized through the establishment of patterns. Once patterns are identified and formulated into a product family architecture, scale of economy can be applied for efficiency. The formulation of PFA enables the optimization of

are

recongfigurable

accommodate changes in the product mix and design changes (Kusiak, 1997).

reusability/commonality in both product design and process selection from the product family perspective. It also provides a basis to facilitate in order the to front-end fulfill the

3. DESIGN SUPPORT TOOLS / METHODOLOGIES

Besides the design approaches and guidelines discussed so far, the following design methodologies and tools are also widely used: (1) Design for Producibility, (2) Design for Assembly, (3) Robust Design, (4) Group Technology, and (5) Quality Function Deployment. Genetic algorithms (Balakrishnan, 1996; Balakrishnan, 1995) and Conjoint analysis (Kohli, 1987) methods are mathematical tools associated with product design.

configuration

individual requirements of the customers (Tseng, 1997). While product customization enables the design of products and processes to meet individual customer needs, it is essential to note that such needs change frequently, forcing frequent modification in product design. This calls for a dynamic

reconfiguration of manufacturing systems to accommodate the swift changes in product design. Development of Integrated

Manufacturing Systems (IMS) aimed at multi-product, small-batch production, fast and optimized design, speedy product development, and just-in-time delivery made 19

3a. Design for Producibility: The design of an individual component will have a strong effect on the attributes of the product in which it is used. Design for producibility

emphasizes that design of detailed parts cannot be independent of the manufacturing process (Burhanuddin, 1992). Design

Simplify the design of each part as much as possible (Stoll, 1988). Use simple shapes instead of complex contours, undercuts, and elaborate appendages. Parts of simple shape have less opportunity to be defective. Use the most liberal tolerance

principles and guidelines for a part that is made with one process may not apply if another process is used. For example, if a part is to be die cast, the suitable materials, the wall thickness, shape, complexity, size, dimensional tolerances, and other

possible, consistent with the quality and functional requirements of the part and with the capabilities of the manufacturing processes involved. Tolerances appropriate to the

characteristics will be significantly different from those applicable to a metal stamping or a part made from metal powder. The resultant part attributes, such as strength, temperature resistance, and corrosion

primary operations eliminate the need for costly secondary operations to control dimensions and refine surface finishes (Billatos, 1990).

resistance, may also be different. The selection of part features and the processes should occur simultaneously. There are many guidelines for the design of individual parts based on the manufacturing processes used. Table 1 shows various processes and the characteristics of parts made using them and the variables that control the part quality compiled from various manufacturing

Select near-net-shape processes that are capable of producing a part to or near final dimensions with a limited number of operations, particularly minimum injection machining, molding and such as

powder

handbooks (Bralla, 1986; Cubberly, 1989; Dallas, 1976). The design principles given below can however be applied to component parts regardless of the process.

metallurgy. An injection molding part can have all final dimensions, identifying nomenclature, finish, and color

provided in one operation. A powder metal part can be complete with precision bearing 20

surfaces after only two or three highproduction operations. Standardize parts

features and minimize their number. Avoid designs that require machining operations. Often another process can be substituted for one that primarily involves machining with significant savings. For example, sheet metal processes can be used to provide parts with bearing surfaces, holes, reinforcing ribs, etc. Extruding, precision casting, cold rolling or the other near-net shape processes may provide the precision needed for elements and surfaces that otherwise would require machining (Bralla, 1996). Use materials formulated for easy manufacture. For example, free-machining alloys for machined parts, or high-ductility materials for drawn part can be used.

reliability (Boothroyd, 1992; Boothroyd, 1994). Processes such as injection molding and die-casting permit very complex parts that result when separate parts are combined into one. By selecting flexible material and making wall sections thin hinges and springs can be incorporated in plastic parts. Integral snap-fit elements, tabs, crimped sections or catches, press fits and rivets can be used to replace threaded fasteners (Joines, 1995). With some manufacturing processes, it is possible to incorporate elements such as guides and bearings in the basic part by selection of appropriate materials and processes. Due to their natural lubricity many plastic materials can be used in

3b. Design for Assembly: In this approach, the overall assembly is analyzed primarily to determine if components can be eliminated or combined leading to a simplified product assembly. Service and recycling are

applications

involving

bearing

surfaces

when the velocity and pressure involved are low. For more demanding bearing surfaces powder metal part with sufficient precision and porosity can be used as it can retain the lubricating oil within itself (Bralla, 1996). As modularity improves

facilitated when a product is simplified. A product which is easy to assemble is normally easier to disassemble when

serviceability and reliability, the design should include modular subassemblies while avoiding too many levels of subassembly at the same time (Karmarkar, 1986). Adopt layered and top-down assembly whereby each successive part in the product can be added to the assembly from above rather than from the side or bottom. Design parts 21

maintenance, repair, or disassembly or recycling take place (Eversheim, 1991). Simpler assemblies can often be brought to market sooner because of fewer parts to design, procure, inspect, and stock with less probability that a delay will occur. Products with fewer parts will also have higher

such that they are self-aligning and that they can not be inserted incorrectly. Design very small or highly irregular parts that are manually assembled for easy handling by adding a grasping element to the parts.

3c. Robust Design: Robustness of a design refers to the design that ensures that the product will never fail to perform its intended function during its useful life. Robust design methodology, popularly

known as Taguchi Technique, provides a way to develop specifications for robust design by using the design of experiments theory. The procedure attempts to find out the settings of product design parameters that make the to products performance variables,

insensitive

environmental

product deterioration and manufacturing irregularities. It is often more costly to control causes of manufacturing variations than to make a product or process

insensitive (or robust) to these variations (Juran, 1974).

22

three stages: system design, parameter design, and tolerance design. System design is the application of scientific to produce and a

engineering

knowledge

functional prototype. This prototype model defines the basic product/process design characteristics (parameters) and their initial settings. The goal of parameter design is the identification of settings that minimize variation in the performance characteristic and adjust its mean to an ideal value. Tolerance design is a method for

scientifically assigning tolerances so that total product manufacturing and lifetime costs are minimized (Nevins, 1989).

3d. Group Technology: Group Technology procedure attempts to classify the system into subsystems and subdivides them into part families based on design attributes and manufacturing similarities (Chang, 1991). Group technology can be used for product design and manufacturing system design. For product design, components that have similar shape are grouped into design families and a new design can be created by simply modifying an existing component design from the same family. Using a coding method, each part is given a numerical or alphabetical code based on its geometrical Taguchi separates off-line quality planning and improvement activities into 23 shape, complexity, dimension, accuracy and raw material. By using this concept,

composite components can be identified. Composite components are parts that

instruction sheet. The purpose of the product planning matrix is to translate customer requirements into important design features. The individual customer needs are ranked for importance and the cumulative effect on each of the design features is obtained. A product deployment matrix is then made for each of the product features down to the subsystem and component level. The

embody all the design features of a design family or design subfamily (Farris, 1990). For manufacturing purposes, parts with similar processing requirements comprise a production family. Since similar processes are required for all family members, a machine cell can be built to manufacture the family. As a result the production planning and control is made much easier and the cycle time to manufacture a product is greatly reduced even while maintaining product variability. Thus, planning using group technology method can be used in production environment for manufacturing goods for mass customization. (Shetty, 1993).

product deployment matrix shows to what extent the relationship between component and product characteristics are critical and affordable. If a component is critical, then it is further deployed and monitored in the design, production planning, and control. The component deployment matrix expands the list of components or the exact parameters required to design a complete component. The operating instruction sheet

3e. Quality Function Deployment (QFD): This is a methodology of translating the requirements of the customers into product and process design (Akao, 1990). The QFD technique, using the house of quality, is used to translate customer views systematically into key engineering characteristics,

is the final key document that basically defines the operator by the requirements actual as

determined

process

requirements, the process checkpoints, and the quality control points (Day, 1993). Thus QFD tries to achieve quality products by using the philosopy of concurrrent

planning requirements, and, finally, into production operations (Bergquist, 1996). It is achieved through its four key documents which are the product planning matrix, the product deployment matrix, component deployment matrix, and the operating 24

engineering (Parsei, 1993) which integrates product design, process design, and process control (Maduri, 1993).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The various desirable usability objectives and their realization through appropriate product design and manufacture have been reviewed in this article. The paper lists various usability criteria and briefly reviews the design and manufacturing issues for each one of the them individually. As one may note, in many cases, the design guidelines serve and enhance more than one design objective. For example simplifying the design to incorporate a smaller number of parts and using modular design improves reliability as well as serviceability. Designs that enhance safety often reduce the need for physical exertion for the users, making such designs easy to operate. Products which are biodegradable are both recyclable and environment friendly. However, the design

to the environment. Hence the product and process design recommendations should be examined together for their effect on enhancing or optimizing various usability objectives. Such an examination calls for a unified approach aimed at simultaneous evaluation of various design options and integrating the various phases of product design, i.e., planning, concept design, and process design. In Part II of this paper (Govindaraju, 1998) we illustrate how QFD matrices can be used for implementing an holistic approach to product design.

REFERENCES
1. Akao, Y., 1990. Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. 2. Akita, M., 1991. Design and ergonomics. Ergonomics, 34(6): 815-824.

recommendations are not always mutual and are often seen to conflict with one another. Using liberal tolerances reduces production costs and eliminates expensive and time consuming secondary operations. Tool

maintenance and quality inspection can be reduced and higher speeds and feeds can be employed. But liberal tolerances can lead to more variations in components causing variations in product performance, quality, and reliability. Paints that enhance external appearance often contain harmful heavy metal elements and solvents which pose risk 25

3. Alexander, S. M., 1992. Reliability Theory, in Industrial Engineering Handbook, by Hodson (ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 4. Alonso, R. Continuous improvement in reliability. pp. 109-114. 5. Anderson, D. M., 1991. Design for Manufacturability. CIM Press, Lafayette, CA. 6. Ashley, S., 1993. Designing for the

environment. March.

Mechanical

Engineering,

14. Billatos, S. B. Guidelines for product design, process selection and manufacturability. pp. 129-136.

7. Balakrishnan, P.V.S., and Jacob, V.S., 1995. Triangulation in decision support systems: algorithms for product design. Decision Support Systems, 14: 313327. 8. Balakrishnan, P.V.S., and Jacob, V.S., 1996. Genetic algorithm for product design. Management Science, 42(8): 11051117. 9. Bass, S., Weis, P, Bass, L., and Noble, T.C., 1984. Human factors affecting safety in product design. ASQC Quality Congress Transactions, pp. 397-401.

15. Billatos, S. M., and Basaly, N. A., 1997. Green Technology and Design for Environment. Taylor and Francis, Washington, DC.

16. Blanchard, B. S., Verma, D., and Peterson, E. L., 1995. Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and Maintenance Management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

10. Bergquist, K., and Abeysekara, J., 1996. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) A means for developing usable products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 18: 269-275.

17. Boothroyd, G., and Alting, L., 1992. Design for assembly and disassembly. Annals of CIRP, 41(2): 625-636.

18. Boothroyd, G., 1994. Product design for manufacture and assembly. ComputerAided Design, 26(7): 505-520.

11. Berko-Boateng, V., Azar, J., de Jong, D., and Yander, G.A., 1993. Asset recycle management-A total approach to product design for the environment. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. IEEEService Center, Piscataway, NJ., pp. 19-31.

19. Bralla, J. G., 1986. Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing: A Practical Guide to Low-Cost Production. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.

12. Berzak, N., 1991. Serviceability by design. Proceedings of 23rd International SAMPE Technical Conference. SAMPE, Covina, CA, USA. v 23. pp. 1060-1071.

20. Bralla, J.G., 1996. Design for Excellence. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

13. Bieda, J. Reliability growth test management in the automotive component industry. pp. 387-393.

21. Burhanuddin, S., and Randhawa,S., 1992. A framework for integrating manufacturing process design and analysis. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 23(14): 27-30.

26

22. Caplan, S., 1990. Using focus group methodology for ergonomic design. Ergonomics, 33(5): 527-533.

NY.

23. Chakrabarti, A., and Bigh, T.P., 1996. An approach to functional synthesis of solutions in mechanical conceptual design, Part III: Spatial configuration. Research in Engineering Design, 8(2): 116-124. 24. Chang, T., Wysk, R.A., and Wang, H., 1991. Computer-Aided Manufacturing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

31. Day, R. G., 1993. Quality Function Deployment: Linking a Company with its Customers. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI. 32. Dewhurst, P., 1993. Disassembly by Design. Assembly, April.

25. Chen, R.W., Navin-Chandra, D., and Prinz, F.B., 1993. Product design for recyclability: a cost benefit analysis model and its application. IEEE, pp. 178-183.

33. Dika, R. J., and Begley, R. L. Concept development through teamwork working for quality, cost, weight and investment. pp. 277-288.

34. Eversheim, W., Baumann, M., 1991. Assembly-oriented design process. Computers in Industry, 17: 287-300.

26. Chow, W., 1978. Cost Reduction in Product Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

35. Farris, J., and Knight, W.A., 1992. Design for Manufacture: expert processing sequence selection for early product design.

27. Comizzoli, R.B., Landwehr, J.M., and Sinclair, J.D., 1990. Robust materials and processes: key to reliability. AT&T Technical Journal, Nov/Dec: 113-128.

36. Fraser, J. W., and Gureghian, R. S., 1993. Controlling shock and vibration in electronic products. Mechanical Engineering, Dec: 82-84.

28. Cubberly, W. H., and Bakerjian, R., 1989. Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Desk Edition. Society for Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI.

29. Cushman, W. H., and Rosenberg, D. J., 1991. Human Factors in Product Design. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

37. Glantschig, W. J. Design for Enviornment (DFE): A Systematic Approach to Green Design in a Concurrent Engineering Environment. AT&T Bell Laboratories, Princeton, NJ.

30. Dallas, D. B., 1976. Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 27

38. Govindaraju, M., and Mital, A., 1998. Design and manufacture of usable consumer products: Part II - Developing the usability-manufacturing linkages.

39. Hammer, W., 1980. Product Safety Management and Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

promoting cognitive Ergonomics, 33(4): 501-507.

ergonomics.

40. Haubner, P. J., 1990. Ergonomics in industrial product design. Ergonomics, 33(4): 477-485.

48. Juran, J. M., Gryna, F. M., and Bingham, R. S., Jr., 1974. Quality Control Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.

41. Heideklang, H. R., 1990. Safe product design in law, management and engineering. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.

49. Kaila, S., and Hyvarinen, E., 1996. Integrating design for environment into the product design of switching platforms. IEEE, pp. 213-217.

42. Hitomi, K., 1991. Strategic integrated manufacturing systems: the concept and structures. International Journal of Production Economics, 25: 5-12.

50. Karmarkar, U.S., and Kubat, P., 1987. Modular product design and product support. European Journal of Operational Research, 29: 74-82.

43. Hoffman III, W.F., and Locascio, A., 1997. Design for environment development at motorola. IEEE, pp. 210-214.

51. Kitchenham, B., and Pfleeger, S. L., 1996. Software quality: the elusive target. IEEE Sofware, Jan: 12-21.

44. Hofmeester, G.H., Kemp, J.A.M., and Blankendaal, A.C.M., 1996. Sensuality in product design: a structured approach. CHI, Apr: 13-18.

52. Kohli, R., and Krishnamurthi, R., 1987. A heuristic approach to product design. Management Science, 33(12): 15231533.

45. Ishihara, S., Ishihara, K., Nagamachi, M., and Matsubara, Y., 1995. An automatic builder for a Kansei Engineering expert system using selforganizing neural networks. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 15: 13-24.

53. Kusiak, A, and He, D.W., 1997. Design for agile assembly: an operational perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 35(1): 157-178.

46. Joines, S., and Ayoub, M.A., 1995. Design for assembly: an ergonomic approach. Industrial Engineering, Jan: 42-46 47. Jorgensen, A. H., 1990. Thinkingaloud in user interface design: a method 28

54. Lankey, R., McLean, H., and Sterdis, A., 1997. A case study in environmentally conscious design: wearable computers. IEEE, pp. 204-209.

55. Lee, M.W., Yun, M.H., Jung, E.S., and Frievalds, A., 1997. High Touch:

Ergonomics in a conceptual design processCase studies of a remote controller and personal telephones. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19: 239-248.

56. Lin, R., Lin, C.Y., and Wong, J., 1996. An application of multidimensional scaling in product sementics. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 18: 193204.

63. Mital, A., 1995. Is the background knowledge of ergonomists important if ergonomics is to succeed within a simultaneous engineering (SE) environment? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16: 441-450.

64. Moss, M. A., 1985. Designing for Minimal Maitenance Expense. Marcel Dekkar, New York, NY.

57. Logan, R. J., Augaitis, S., and Renk, T., 1994. Design of simplified television remote controls: a case for behavioural and emotional usability. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting: 365-369.

65. Nagamachi, M., 1995. Kansai Engineering: A new ergonomic consumeroriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15: 3-11.

58. Lyon, R. H., 1994. Engineering for sound quality. NOISE-CON 94: 3-8.

59. Maduri, O., 1993. Design Planning of an Off-Highway Truck - A QFD Approach, in Quality Through Engineering Design, by Kuo, W., and Pierson, M. M. (ed.). Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

66. Nasser, S. M., and Souder, W. E., 1989. An interactive knowledge-based system for forecasting new product reliability. Computers and Engineering, 17(1-4): 323-326.

67. Nevins, J.L., and Whitney, D.W., 1989. Concurrent Design of Products and Processes. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

60. Matsubara, Y., and Nagamachi, M., 1997. Hybrid Kansai Engineering System and design support. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 19: 81-92.

68. Nielsen, J., 1992. The usability engineering life cycle. Computer, Mar: 1222.

61. McClelland, I., 1990. Marketing ergonomics to industrial designers. Ergonomics, 33(4): 391-398. 62. Mital, A., and Anand, S., 1992. Concurrent design of products and ergonomic considerations. Journal of Design and Manufacturing, 2: 167-183. 29

69. Nielsen, J., 1993. Iterative userinterface design. Computer, Nov: 32-41.

70. Nielsen, J., 1993. Usability Engineering. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.

71. Nissen, N.F., Griese, H., Middendorf, A., Pottor, M.H., and Reichl, H., 1997. Environmental assessments of electronics: a new model to bridge the gap between full life cycle evaluations and product design. IEEE, pp. 182-187.

79. Shetty, D., 1993. Production oriented design: an integrated approach in design for manufacturing. Design for Manufacturability, 52: 123-128.

72. Parsei, H. R., and Sullivan, W. G., 1993. Concurrent Engineering: Contemporary Issues and Modern Design Tools. Chapman & Hall, London, SE1 8HN, UK.

80. Shiovitz, A., Craig, E., 1997. Using data to determine design for environment product goals. IEEE, pp. 105-108.

81. Shneiderman, B., 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.

73. Pnueli, Y., and Zussman, E., 1996. Evaluating the end-of-life value of a product and improving it by redesign. International Journal of Production Research, 35(4): 921942.

82. Smith, D.J., 1993. Reliability, Maintainability and Risk. Practical Methods for Engineers. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford OX2 8DP, U.K..

74. Priest, J.W., 1988. Engineering Design for Producibility and Reliability. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.

83. Srinivasan, H., Shyamsundar, N., and Gadh, R., 1997. A virtual disassembly tool to support environmentally conscious product design. IEEE, pp. 7-12.

75. Rao, S. S., 1992. Reliability-Based Design. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 84. Stoll, H. W., 1988. Design for Manufacture. Manufacturing Engineering, Jan: 67-73.

76. Rooijmans, J., and Aerts, H., 1996. Software quality in consumer electronics products. IEEE Software, Jan: 55-64.

85. Suh, N.P., 1990. The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York. 77. Ryan, J. P., 1983. Human factors design criteria for safe use of consumer products. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society- 27th Annual Meeting, pp. 811-815.

86. Tervonen, I., 1996. Support for quality-based design and inspection. IEEE software, Jan: 44-54.

78. Schoone-Harmesen, M., 1990. A design method for product safety. Ergonomics, 33(4): 431-437.

87. Thayer, S.B., 1986. Three steps to improve product reliability. ASQC Quality Congress Transactions. pp. 301-306. 30

88. Tipnis, V.A., 1993. Evolving issues in product design life cycle design. Annals of the CIRP, 42(1): 169-173.

Avoid Product Liability Lawsuits and Damages. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ.

89. Tipnis, V.A., 1994. Challenges in product strategy, product planning and technology development for product life cycle design. Annals of the CIRP, 43(1): 157-162.

97. Zussman, E., Kriwet, A., and Seliger, G., 1994. Disassembly-oriented assessment methodology to support design for recycling. Annals of the CIRP, 43(1): 9-14.

90. Tseng, M.M., 1996. Design for mass customization. Annals of the CIRP, 45(1): 153-156.

91. Tseng, M. M., 1997. Mass customization - opportunities and challenges for high value added products and services. International Conference in Industrial Engineering and Practice. pp. 19-27. 92. Tsuchiya, T., Maeda, T., Matsubara, Y., and Nagamachi, M., 1996. A fuzzy rule induction method using genetic algorithm. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 18: 135-145. 93. Ulrich, K.T., and Eppinger, S.D., 1995. Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

94. Umeda, Y., and Tomiyama, T., 1997. Functional reasoning in design. IEEE Expert, Mar-Apr: 42-48.

95. Wilson, J.R., 1984. Standards for product safety design: A framework for their production. Applied Ergonomics, 15(3): 203-210.

96.

Witherall, C. E., 1985. How to 31