Search results

Because of the importance of the product design process, a good control of it is of vital importance. It is shown how design tests can be defined and executed that are able to identify quality problem. Emphasis will be on the early detection of reliability problems. The quality control method itself and the results reached at Philips Electronics Industries‐Consumer Electronics Division (PEI‐CED) in Taiwan will be discussed. First, the organisation of a design process and design reliability evaluation program in general will be considered. Next, it will be explained what opportunities for improvement of reliability control in the design process at PEI‐CED were detected. A risk analysis, aimed at identifying reliability risks and analysing them, will be the basis for the reliability tests that will be elaborated next.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a methodology to integrate both the dynamics of competitors' performance and the dynamics of customer preference, along with their interaction, into a quality function deployment (QFD) analysis.

A systematic dynamic benchmarking methodology is proposed with an illustrative example.

The analytic hierarchy process's (AHP's) relative measurement might serve as a better way to elicit the customer's judgment over time in the QFD, not only in the importance rating part, but also in the competitive benchmarking part. It is also possible to quantitatively model the AHP priorities' change over time, and incorporate it in the QFD decision‐making process.

It might take a certain amount of time and efforts to collect the necessary data over time. However, it might be justified considering the improved accuracy of the QFD results. It is also important that the data collection should be carried out in a specific customer segment.

QFD practitioners may find a more systematic method to continually evaluate the current performance, identify areas for improvement, and eventually set goals for the future.

There are two novel approaches used in the methodology. First, it is the use of an exponential smoothing‐based forecasting technique to model the trend of the AHP‐based importance rating values and the competitive benchmarking information. Second, it is a strength‐weakness‐opportunity‐threat‐based competitive weighting scheme, which serves as a more systematic way to substitute the traditional QFD customer competitive target setting and sales point value determination.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a Living Lab protocol to evaluate interventions for people with dementia in context. The number of people with dementia is continuously growing, resulting in all kinds of societal challenges. As there is no cure for the diseases today, there is a need to look at alternative ways to combat these challenges, like the design of suitable interventions. These can support people with dementia to live more independent, with a higher quality of life. The protocol is developed over three Living Lab cases. In this, the authors focus on how to involve people living with dementia and the Living Lab stakeholder network.

Over three Living Lab cases, 26 people with dementia, and their caregivers, participated. In these cases, the authors focussed on three different interventions, namely: a reminder system, a daylight lamp and a mobile interface. Yet, a similar protocol was implemented that was built upon insights from its previous case. Hereby, the authors gathered hands-on insights concerning the design and implementation of a Living Lab protocol. Finally, the authors propose a protocol for those interested in pursuing similar goals.

For the resulting proposal, the authors found that it is important to actively involve the relevant Living Lab stakeholders from the start of the process. Because, first, care stakeholders protect participants as gatekeepers, and have a general interest in the interventions. Second, for industry stakeholders, the in-context Living Lab set-up needs to be aligned with their needs to gather usable insights for their interventions. Finally, the authors propose to keep the users engaged beyond the studies by facilitating a Living Lab community. This leads to a higher user engagement and a wider pool to select from for future Living Lab sessions.

However, the authors have to be careful to base conclusions on this protocol, due to the limited number of participants and, therefore, the authors suggest this is investigated further. Additionally, the authors feel the role of stakeholders, and who is in the lead, should be investigated further.

By reflecting on three Living Lab cases, the authors propose a ready-to-use Living Lab protocol that can be applied by anybody who is interested to design more suitable interventions for impaired users.

The building of a community as a basis of a Living Lab provides opportunities for all relevant stakeholders, and could reach beyond the development of interventions.

The paper provides hands-on insights on applying and developing a Living Lab protocol. This is done by structurally involving relevant stakeholders, while continuously adapting to the user’s needs. Only by continuing to do so, the societal challenges can successfully be addressed.