1. Conceptual design of services: experimental findings Maya Kaner - Ort Braude College Reuven Karni – Shenkar College of Engineering and Design Reuven Karni – Shenkar College of Engineering and Design The Second Ort Braude College Interdisciplinary Research Conference July, 2006 ORT BRAUDE COLLEGE המכללה האקדמית להנדסה אורט בראודה

2. Conceptual design - definitions A conceptual design is a qualitative description of a future system in terms of abstract objects (the functionally essential system components), depicted by nominal attributes, and qualitative values for these attributes. Design requirements correspond to the objectives the system is intended to achieve, and the conditions under which the system is intended to operate. Design specifications lay out how the system is to be built.

3. Requirements and Specifications Examples The objective of the service repair facility is to serve many customers. Design requirement: Attribute = “ Number of customers ” Possible values = “ few ”, “ many ” It was decided by the designer that no charge will be taken for customer calls. Design specification: Attribute = “ Charge for customer calls ” Possible values = “ none ”, “ per call ”, “ per minute ”

4. Description of the experiment 52 students from a Product and Service Design course 52 students from a Product and Service Design course Design case: a service facility for a new type of athletic shoe with a power-producing element in the sole Design case: a service facility for a new type of athletic shoe with a power-producing element in the soleathletic shoe with a power-producing element in the soleathletic shoe with a power-producing element in the sole A “ guided ” group of students (29 subjects) was provided with a set of attributes and values and the instructions to supplement the set A “ guided ” group of students (29 subjects) was provided with a set of attributes and values and the instructions to supplement the set An “ unguided ” group of students (23 subjects) was required to ideate a set of attributes and possible values An “ unguided ” group of students (23 subjects) was required to ideate a set of attributes and possible values Both groups were required to decide whether each element was a requirement or specification Both groups were required to decide whether each element was a requirement or specification

5. Research questions Our aim was to study the following aspects of guided and unguided conceptual design: (Q1) Does the unguided design group propose a larger set of attributes than the guided design group? (Q1) Does the unguided design group propose a larger set of attributes than the guided design group? (Q2) Is the partitioning of attributes into “ CAIOPHYKE ” structure ( “ customers ”, “ aims ”, “ inputs ”, “ outputs, processes, human enablers, physical enablers, knowledge, environment ” ) different for the two groups? (Q2) Is the partitioning of attributes into “ CAIOPHYKE ” structure ( “ customers ”, “ aims ”, “ inputs ”, “ outputs, processes, human enablers, physical enablers, knowledge, environment ” ) different for the two groups? (Q3) Is the partitioning of attributes into “ design requirements ” and “ design specifications ” different for the two groups? (Q3) Is the partitioning of attributes into “ design requirements ” and “ design specifications ” different for the two groups? (Q4) Does each subject within the unguided design group propose a different conceptual design? (Q4) Does each subject within the unguided design group propose a different conceptual design? (Q5) Which approach leads to better conceptual design performance? (Q5) Which approach leads to better conceptual design performance?

6. General findings 150 different elements/attributes (43 in the prompt list) 150 different elements/attributes (43 in the prompt list) “ CAIOPHYKE ” system topological structure (customers, aims, inputs, outputs, processes, human enablers, physical enablers, knowledge, environment) “ CAIOPHYKE ” system topological structure (customers, aims, inputs, outputs, processes, human enablers, physical enablers, knowledge, environment) 50% of all elements are classified under “ processes ” (20%) or “ knowledge ” (30%), 2% of all elements are classified under “ outputs ” 50% of all elements are classified under “ processes ” (20%) or “ knowledge ” (30%), 2% of all elements are classified under “ outputs ” 25% of elements ideated by the “ unguided ” group are classified as requirements and 75% as specifications 25% of elements ideated by the “ unguided ” group are classified as requirements and 75% as specifications

7. Research questions and answers - Q1 Does the unguided design group propose a larger set of elements than the guided design group? Does the unguided design group propose a larger set of elements than the guided design group? 31 different elements were proposed by guided design group (in addition to 43 given). 31 different elements were proposed by guided design group (in addition to 43 given). 125 different elements were proposed by unguided design group. 125 different elements were proposed by unguided design group.

8. Research questions and answers - Q2 H 0 1 : there is no difference in the CAIOPHYKE partitioning for guided and unguided design groups H 0 1 : there is no difference in the CAIOPHYKE partitioning for guided and unguided design groups H 1 1 : there is a difference in the CAIOPHYKE partitioning for guided and unguided design groups H 1 1 : there is a difference in the CAIOPHYKE partitioning for guided and unguided design groups We could not reject H 0 1 (p-value=0.247). This reinforces our assertion that these classes can be regarded as common.

9. Research questions and answers - Q3 H 0 2 : there is no difference in requirement/specification partitioning for guided and unguided design groups H 0 2 : there is no difference in requirement/specification partitioning for guided and unguided design groups H 1 2 : there is a difference in the requirement/specification partitioning for guided and unguided design groups H 1 2 : there is a difference in the requirement/specification partitioning for guided and unguided design groups We could reject H 0 2 (p-value=0.027) at 5% confidence. The unguided group focused more on specifications.

10. Research questions and answers - Q4 Does each subject within the unguided design group propose a different conceptual design? Does each subject within the unguided design group propose a different conceptual design? An average of 24.3 elements was proposed by each subject. Of these, 1.74 (6.5%) were unique to each subject. This implies a large degree of commonality. Thus we conclude that there is a large amount of overlap between designs. An average of 24.3 elements was proposed by each subject. Of these, 1.74 (6.5%) were unique to each subject. This implies a large degree of commonality. Thus we conclude that there is a large amount of overlap between designs.

11. Research questions and answers - Q5 H 0 3 : there is no difference between the performance means of guided and unguided group H 0 3 : there is no difference between the performance means of guided and unguided group H 1 3 : the performance mean of unguided design groups is less than that of guided group H 1 3 : the performance mean of unguided design groups is less than that of guided group We could reject H 0 3 (p-value<0.001). We could conclude that the performance of unguided design is better than that of guided design.

12. Conclusions The students have been able to conceptualize a service in terms of its constituent elements/attributes The students have been able to conceptualize a service in terms of its constituent elements/attributes Allowing the students to brainstorm ideas for elements seems to be more productive than providing a prompt list and requiring them to add elements Allowing the students to brainstorm ideas for elements seems to be more productive than providing a prompt list and requiring them to add elements Despite the freedom afforded by brainstorming, most of the student designs showed a large degree of commonality Despite the freedom afforded by brainstorming, most of the student designs showed a large degree of commonality We were able to categorize all the suggested elements within the generic CAIOPHYKE scheme We were able to categorize all the suggested elements within the generic CAIOPHYKE scheme

13. Current and future research Knowledge management system (9 major classes, 75 main classes, 351 minor classes ….) Knowledge management system (9 major classes, 75 main classes, 351 minor classes ….) Causal relationships between different elements (i.e. “ Competitive service facilities ” influences “ Effect of delay in providing service ” ) Causal relationships between different elements (i.e. “ Competitive service facilities ” influences “ Effect of delay in providing service ” ) Design process using knowledge management methods (models, cases) Design process using knowledge management methods (models, cases) Further experimental research Further experimental research

14. Conceptual design of services: experimental findings Thank you! Maya Kaner - Ort Braude College Reuven Karni – Shenkar College of Engineering and Design Reuven Karni – Shenkar College of Engineering and Design The Second Ort Braude College Interdisciplinary Research Conference July, 2006 ORT BRAUDE COLLEGE המכללה האקדמית להנדסה אורט בראודה

15. Athletic shoe with a power-producing element in the sole