Considering Human Variability When Implementing Product Platforms

  • Christopher J. Garneau
  • Gopal Nadadur
  • Matthew B. Parkinson
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Design for Human Variability (DfHV) is the practice of designing artifacts, tasks, and environments that are robust to the variability in their users. Designs often incorporate adjustability and/or offer several sizes to account for the different requirements of the target user population. There are several situations where DfHV can provide platforming opportunities that might otherwise be overlooked. This chapter provides a brief introduction to DfHV, outlines some basic techniques, and provides a description of scenarios where platforming and modularity might be a good approach.

Keywords

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Product Family Middle Finger Product Platform Product Portfolio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Charlotte de Vries, Eliza Detweiler, and the research assistants and alumni of the OPEN Design Lab at Penn State University.

References

  1. Ahonen EQ, Benavides FG (2006) Risk of fatal and non-fatal occupational injury in foreign workers in Spain. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(5):424–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annis JF (1996) Aging effects on anthropometric dimensions important to workplace design. Int J Ind Ergon 18:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bittner AC (2000) A-CADRE: advanced family of manikins for workstation design. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society, Long Beach, CA, pp 774–777Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan S, Vossenas P, Krause N, Moriarty J, Frumin E, Shimek JAM, Mirer F, Orris P, Punnett L (2010) Occupational injury disparities in the us hotel industry. Am J Ind Med 53(2):116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) National health and nutrition examination survey 2007-2010. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MDGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaffin DB, Andersson GBJ, Martin BJ (1999) Occupational biomechanics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Chengular SN, Rodgers SH, Bernard TE (2004) Kodak’s ergonomic design for people at work, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Clauser C, McConville J, Young J (1969) Weight, volume and center of mass of segments of the human body. Technical Report AMRL-TR-69-70, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OHGoogle Scholar
  9. Colombo G, Cugini U (2005) Virtual humans and prototypes to evaluate ergonomics and safety. J Eng Des 16(2):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Economic and Social Affairs—Population Division (2002) World population ageing: 1950-2050. UN DESA, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewangan K, Owary C, Datta R (2008) Anthropometric data of female farm workers from north eastern India and design of hand tools of the hilly region. Int J Ind Ergon 38(1):90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diffrient N, Tilley A, Bardagjy J (1981) Humanscale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Drillis R, Contini R (1966) Body segment parameters. Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Engineering and Science, New York, NY, cited in Clauser et al. (1969)Google Scholar
  14. Elders L, Burdorf A, Ory F (2004) Ethnic differences in disability risk between Dutch and Turkish scaffolders. J Occup Health 46:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flannagan C, Manary M, Schneider L, Reed M (1998) Improved seating accommodation model with application to different user populations. In: Proceedings of the SAE international congress and exposition, vol 1358. SAE, Warrendale, PA, USA, pp 43–50Google Scholar
  16. Fromuth R, Parkinson M (2008) Predicting 5th and 95th percentile anthropometric segment lengths from population stature. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences, New York, NY, DETC2008-50091Google Scholar
  17. Garneau C, Parkinson M (2007) Including preference in anthropometry-driven models for design. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences, ASME International, Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  18. Garneau C, Parkinson M (2011) A comparison of methodologies for designing for human variability. J Eng Des 22(7):505–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garneau C, Parkinson M (2012) Optimization of product dimensions for discrete sizing applied to a tool handle. Int J Ind Ergon 42(1):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gite L, Majumdar J, Mehta C, Khadatkar A (2009) Anthropometric and strength data of Indian agricultural workers for farm equipment design. All India Coordinated Research Project on Ergonomics and Safety in Agriculture, Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, MPGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon CC, Churchill T, Clauser CE, Bradtmiller B, McConville JT, Tebbetts I, Walker RA (1989) 1988 anthropometric survey of US Army personnel: methods and summary statistics, Final report. Technical Report NATICK/TR-89/027, US Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Grant KA, Habes DJ, Steward LL (1992) An analysis of handle designs for reducing manual effort: the influence of grip diameter. Int J Ind Ergon 10:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haslegrave CM (1986) Characterizing the anthropometric extremes of the population. Ergonomics 29(2):281–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawes MR, Sovak D, Miyashita M, Kang SJ, Yoshihuku Y, Tanaka S (1994) Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort. Ergonomics 37(1):187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. HFES 300 Committee (2004) Guidelines for using anthropometric data in product design. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Information Center NHS (2009) Health survey for England. Department of Health, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  27. Jarman J, Blackburn R, Racko G (2012) The dimensions of occupational gender segregation in industrial countries. Sociology 46(6):1003–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kong YK, Lowe BD (2005) Optimal cylindrical handle diameter for grip force tasks. Int J Ind Ergon 35(6):495–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehnerd A (1987) Revitalizing the manufacture and design of mature global products. In: Guile B, Brooks H (eds) Technology and global industry: companies and nations in the world economy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 49–64Google Scholar
  30. Lin YC, Wang MJJ, Wang EM (2004) The comparisons of anthropometric characteristics among four peoples in East Asia. Appl Ergon 35(2):173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCulloch C, Paal B, Ashdown S (1998) An optimisation approach to apparel sizing. J Oper Res Soc 49(5):492–499MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer M, Lehnerd A (1997) The power of product platforms. Free Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  33. Michalek J, Ceryan O, Papalambros PY, Koren Y (2006) Balancing marketing and manufacturing objectives in product line design. ASME J Mech Des 128(6):1196–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mital A, Kilborn A (1992) Design, selection and use of hand tools to alleviate trauma of the upper extremeties: part ii—the scientific basis (knowledge base) for the guide. Int J Ind Ergon 10:7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mital A, Pennathur A (1999) Chapter 8: Hand tools. In: Kumar S (ed) Biomechanics in ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Mohammed YAA (2005) Anthropometric characteristics of the hand based on laterality and sex among Jordanians. Int J Ind Ergon 35(8):747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nadadur G, Parkinson M (2009) Using designing for human variability to optimize aircraft seat layout. SAE Int J Passeng Cars Mech Syst 2(1):1641–1648Google Scholar
  38. Nadadur G, Parkinson M (2010) Consideration of demographics and variance in regression approaches to estimating body dimensions for spatial analysis of design. ASME J Mech Des 132(2)Google Scholar
  39. Nadadur G, Garneau C, de Vries C, Parkinson M (2011) A real options-based approach to designing for changing user population of long-lifetime products. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences. ASME International, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48712Google Scholar
  40. Osteras T, Murthy DNP, Rausand M (2006) Product performance and specification in new product development. J Eng Des 17(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parkinson M, Reed M (2006a) Improved head restraint design for safety and compliance. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences, ASME International, Philadelphia, PA, DETC2006-99429Google Scholar
  42. Parkinson M, Reed M (2006b) Optimizing vehicle occupant packaging. Technical report SAE Technical Paper No. 2006-01-0961, SAE International, Warrendale, PAGoogle Scholar
  43. Parkinson M, Reed M, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros P (2007) Optimizing truck cab layout for driver accommodation. ASME J Mech Des 129(11):1110–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reed M, Flannagan C (2000) Anthropometric and postural variability: limitations of the boundary manikin approach. Technical Paper 2000-01-2172. SAE Trans J Passeng Cars Mech Syst 109Google Scholar
  45. Reed MP, Manary MA, Flannagan CAC, Schneider LW (2000) The effects of vehicle interior geometry and anthropometric variables on automobile driving posture. Hum Factors 42(4):541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Research Institute of Human Engineering for Quality Life (1997) Japanese body size 1992–1994. Osaka, Japan. http://www.dh.aist.go.jp/bodyDB/s/s-01-e.html
  47. Roe R (1993) Occupant packaging. In: Peacock B, Karwowski W (eds) Automotive ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 11–42Google Scholar
  48. SAE International (2006) Automotive engineering handbook. SAE International, Warrendale, PAGoogle Scholar
  49. Statisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2004) Mikrozensus. http://www.destatis.de/DE/Meta/-AbisZ/Mikrozensus.html
  50. Sundin A, Ortegren R (2006) Chapter 39: Digital human modeling for CAE applications. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New Jersey, NJGoogle Scholar
  51. The State Bureau of Technical Supervision (1989) Human dimensions of Chinese adults (GB 10000-88)Google Scholar
  52. Tryfos P (1985) On the optimal choice of sizes. Oper Res 33(3):678–684CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Tryfos P (1986) An integer programming approach to the apparel sizing problem. J Oper Res Soc 37(10):1001–1006MATHGoogle Scholar
  54. UGS (2007) Tecnomatix Jack UGSGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Vegte W, Horvath I (2006) Including human behavior in product simulations for the investigation of use processes in conceptual design: a survey. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences, ASME International, Philadelphia, PA, DETC2006-99541Google Scholar
  56. Walker RA (1993) The impact of racial variation on human engineering design criteria. NAPA Bull 13(1):7–21. doi: 10.1525/napa.1993.13.1.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang L, Shen H, Wu G (2007) Racial differences in respirator fit testing: a pilot study of whether american fit panels are representative of chinese faces. Ann Occup Hyg 51(4):415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. You H, Ryu T (2005) Development of a hierarchical estimation method for anthropometric variables. Int J Ind Ergon 35(4):331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zou T, Mahadevan S (2006) Versatile formulation for multiobjective reliability-based design optimization. ASME J Mech Des 128(6):1217–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Garneau
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gopal Nadadur
    • 1
  • Matthew B. Parkinson
    • 3
  1. 1.OPEN Design LabThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Army Research LaboratoryAberdeen Proving GroundAberdeenUSA
  3. 3.OPEN Design Lab Engineering Design, Mechanical Engineering, and Industrial EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations