Selecting materials in product design

Selecting materials in product design

Thesis
Delft University of Technology,
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering

ISBN: 978-90-5155-040-5
Subject headings:
Materials selection, product design, user-product interaction, techniques and tools

Illustrations and cover design: ir. Sytse Goverts

Editing: drs. Karen Gribling - Laird
Paranimfen: ir. Barbera Keukens, ir. Boukje Koch

© Ilse van Kesteren, 2008

[email protected]

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronically or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage
and retrieval system without permission from the author.
Selecting materials in product design

PROEFSCHRIFT
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. dr. ir. J.T. Fokkema,
voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 7 januari 2008 om 10:00 uur

door

Ilse Engel Heleen VAN KESTEREN

ingenieur industrieel ontwerpen,

geboren te Haarlem
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotoren:
Prof. dr. ir. J.C.M. de Bruijn
Prof. dr. P.J. Stappers
Prof. dr. P.V. Kandachar

Samenstelling promotiecommissie:
Rector Magnificus, voorzitter
Prof. dr. ir. J.C.M. de Bruijn, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Prof. dr. P.J. Stappers, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Prof. dr. P.V. Kandachar, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Prof. K.L. Edwards, University of Derby, UK
Prof. dr. ir. I. Verpoest, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, België
Prof. ir. B. Ninaber van Eyben, Technische Universiteit Delft
Dr. G.E. Berendsen, Dow Chemical, Terneuzen
Reservelid:
Prof. dr. P.P.M. Hekkert, Technische Universiteit Delft
 ‘you know that we are living in a material world
and I am a material girl’

- Peter Brown & Robert Rans
 Table of
contents

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Pleasing users in a changing consumer market 11
1.2 Opportunities in materials selection 12
1.3 Research objectives 15
1.4 Thesis outline and research approach 17

Part 1 Background of user-centred materials selection

Chapter 2 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

2.1 Materials in the user-product interaction 21
2.2 Materials, user-product interaction and other decisions 26
2.3 Information for the materials selection decisions 32
2.4 Conclusions 38

Chapter 3 A user-centred approach for improving materials selection

3.1 Design process, techniques and tools 39
3.2 Materials selection process, techniques and tools 43
3.3 Development approach for an improved technique 46
3.4 Conclusions 49


 Part 2 Analysis of materials selection practice

Chapter 4 Creating a model for materials selection activities

4.1 Interview method 53
4.2 Activities in materials selection 55
4.3 Description of the model 60
4.4 Conclusions 64

Chapter 5 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

5.1 Objectives of the study 65
5.2 Case study method 66
5.3 Results 71
5.4 Reworked MSA model 77
5.5 Conclusions 80

Chapter 6 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

6.1 Objectives and expectations of the study 81
6.2 Case study method 83
6.3 Results 84
6.4 Discussion 93
6.5 Conclusions 96

Part 3 Synthesis of new techniques and tools

Chapter 7 Proposal for a user-centred materials selection technique

7.1 Directions for an improved materials selection process 99
7.2 Tactics for achieving the suggested improvements 102
7.3 A technique for the analysis phase in materials selection 103
7.4 Conclusions 107

Chapter 8 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

8.1 Tools for the Materials in Products Selection technique 109
8.2 Three communication tools 110
8.3 Relation sheet for sensorial and physical properties 119
8.4 Usability study in a design brief meeting 126


8.5 One combined tool for the MiPS technique 135
8.6 Conclusions 136

Chapter 9 Evaluating the tools in design practice

9.1 Objectives and expectations of the study 137
9.2 Case study method 140
9.3 Case descriptions 144
9.4 Discussion of the results 156
9.5 Implications of the results for the MiPS technique 160
9.6 Conclusions 163

Chapter 10 The Materials in Products Selection technique

10.1 Revised MiPS technique 165
10.2 Revised tools 169
10.3 The MiPS technique in relation to design methods 174
10.4 Workshop for explaining the MiPS technique 178
10.5 Conclusions 182

Chapter 11 Findings and implications

11.1 Results of this thesis  183
11.2 Current materials selection process 184
11.3 Materials in Products Selection technique and tools 188
11.4 Recommendations for further research 190
11.5 Final conclusions 191

Summary 193
Samenvatting 195
References 197
Appendices 207
Curriculum Vitae 235
Publications 237
Acknowledgements 239


 Figure 1.1
Finding an MP3 player that suits you has become complicated. Electronics stores offer an increasing
number of models that differ mainly in appearance.

10
 Chapter

1 Introduction

My favourite product is my mobile phone. Not because I am a frequent caller - I

actually dislike being so available all the time – but because I like this product. I like
it for the materials that it is made of. It has a high gloss red cover and a soft, mother-
of-pearl, flexible inside. Every time I open my phone, I enjoy the little resistance of the
spring and the feeling of the buttons. I am a user who is pleased by the considerations
the designer made before he selected these specific materials for my phone. I am
also a design researcher who is curious about the product designers’ approaches of
selecting these materials.

1.1 Pleasing users in a changing consumer market

Consumer products, such as the portable MP3 players in figure 1.1, do not only
differ from other products in the way they perform, but also in the way they please
users. Design researchers as well as the people involved in product development
acknowledge that, in the western world, we are nearing the limits of a technology
driven and marketing-pushed era . For most people, the design and exterior of
products becomes the determining factor for buying it and not the newness of the
technology in the product. End-users expect a product to function properly and to
be easy to use. Additionally, users prefer to be emotionally touched by the product in
some way. This means that not only the functional qualities of products are important
but equally the qualities of the user-product interaction. Furthermore, the quality
of the sensations and emotions perceived by the end-users, while using consumer
products, requires special attention nowadays.
Product manufacturers increasingly need to listen to the needs of end-users and, as
Gonález & Palacios (2002) put it, firms that do not attend to their customer’ needs
in today’s highly competitive environment, will not survive. McDonagh et al. (2002)

1 E.g. Bonapace, 2002; Desmet, 2002; Fenech & Borg, 2006; Formosa, 2005; Jordan, 2000; Jordan & Green,
2002; Ljungberg, 2003; McDonagh et al., 2002; Sanders, 2001.

11
Introduction

explain that in this environment many products are developed by different brands
with similar functionality, but different in usability and appearance. Likewise, Bloch
et al. (2003) state that superior designs distinguishes products from competitors and
help to gain recognition in a crowded marketplace. Hence, product manufacturers
have started to realize that they need ways to get into the hearts and minds of their
customers and optimize their designs to stay in business.
The changes in the consumer market lead to enormous challenges for the product
design profession. The product categories in which consumers have a choice to use one
product over another, e.g. small electronics, cars or kitchen appliances, require design
approaches in which the user-product interaction takes a central position. The process
in which the needs and limitations of the user of an interface or product are given
extensive attention at each phase of the design process is referred to as ‘user-centred
design’ (ISO 13407, 1999). The aim of this process is to optimize the interaction that
the user can have with a product.
To be able to create products that satisfy the users’ needs, product designer do
not only need knowledge about the user, but also about the materials, shapes and
technology available. Wallace & Burgess (1995, page 430) explain that: ‘the industrial
scene continues to change and modern product designers are subject to demanding
pressures, including: intense international competition, rapidly changing technology,
increasingly complex technical systems, rising customer expectations, shorter life
cycles, greater environmental accountability; severe product liability legislation and
working in large, multi disciplinary teams’. An effective product development process
is indispensable to withstand these pressures; however, keeping the process effective
requires continuous studies and improvements in the process. The rising expectations
of the end-user, and the possibilities of applying material technology in products to
match these expectations, are of particular interest in this research project.

1.2 Opportunities in materials selection

The quality of a product is highly influenced by the materials it is made from. The
materials enable the product to function, to be durable, to have certain costs, to
provide feedback and to give experiences among other things. As a consequence,
the selection of materials plays an essential role in the design process of products
(Doordan, 2003).
Materials selection in user-centred design is a relevant topic, as an effective materials
selection process can help to embody the desired user-product interaction qualities.
When users interact with products, the users’ senses are in contact with the materials
that make up those products. Users see the colours of materials, feel the texture
and the weight and hear the sounds materials make when moving the object. These
sensory perceptions determine the usability of the product and the experiences of
the user (Hekkert, 2006). Product designers use materials to create these sensory

12
 Introduction

perceptions. In addition, product designers select materials directed at eliciting certain

associations. An example is the metal used in a Rolex that expresses status (Jordan,
2000). Hodgson and Harper (2004) state that materials considerations are pervasive
in design, as the substance through which product designers’ intentions are embodied.
Likewise, Gant (2005) emphasizes that the strategic use of materials is one of the
most influential ways through which product designers create deeper, more emotive
connections between their products and their users.
Above mentioned aspects go beyond the technology aspects of materials and are in
this thesis characterised as the user-interaction aspects of materials (figure 1.2). The
technology aspects of materials are the characteristics that define how the product
will be manufactured and how well it will function. The user-interaction aspects of
materials are the aspects of materials that influence the usability and experiences an
end-user can have with a product. For example, the transparency of a material used in
a camera lens influences the image quality of a photo (technology aspects); shininess
can influence how well users can read from a display, while colours work to create a
personality that influences how users experience a product (user-interaction aspects).
For high quality products, product designers should select materials that comprise in
both aspects.
Hence, materials are considered more and more as a distinguishing factor in a
successful user-interaction with a product. To facilitate the selection of materials,
many material libraries are being build all over the world, such as MaterialConnexion
(www.materialconnexion.com), and many design agencies have a collection of material
samples in house. Furthermore, design researches, e.g. within the Design and Emotion
society2, put effort in understanding the relation between product experiences, such

luxury colours
waterproof

scratch resistant experiences

functionality expensive cars
smooth, strong
clear, transparent
isolated senses
pressure on buttons

technology user - interaction

aspects of materials aspects of materials

Figure 1.2
Categories of aspects considered in materials selection.

13
Introduction

as emotions, and the materials from which a product is made. However, as the field
is new, hardly any models or strategies on the materials selection process include
user-interaction aspects in a systematic way.
On the other hand, the technology aspects have been studied widely in materials
selection and many tools and information sources are available to support materials
selection based on technology (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). For example, researchers in
the field of materials selection have developed models that describe and prescribe
materials selection strategies (e.g. Ashby, 1999; Cornish, 1987; Farag, 1989). Their
procedures consist of analytical approaches towards selecting materials and mainly
involve describing the mechanical engineering field. An exception is the work of Ashby
& Johnson (2002, 2003), who focus on materials selection in industrial and product
design. They emphasize that materials play a role in the perception of products and
thus in the user-interaction aspects. However, the balance between the materials
selection techniques for the technology side and the user-interaction side in materials
selection is poor. The challenge is to improve this balance with the intention that
product designers are able to select materials for products with high functional and
high user-interaction qualities.
An opportunity for improving the balance between technology and user-interaction
qualities of materials is the continuous development of new materials (Dobrzanski,
2006). New materials offer designers chances for new or improved technical and

2 The Design and Emotion Society raises issues and facilitates dialogue among practitioners, researchers,
and industry in order to integrate salient themes of emotional experience into the design profession
(www.designandemotion.org).

Defined: Products, materials and people

Products - designed objects that have functionality, interaction possibilities and appearance, e.g.
a phone, spectacles or a waiting chair
Materials - the physical substances from which products are made, e.g. plastic, metal or glass
User - the person that interacts with a product, e.g. you or me
Product designer - the person or team that develops a product from initial idea to the full
sets of specifications needed for production, a person with a background in design processes,
engineering and user-product interaction
Design agency - a company that develops products for external clients
Client - the person or company that employs a product designer to develop a product
Manufacturer - the person or company that fabricates products or parts
Material supplier - the person or company that develops and sells materials
Material specialist - a person with a background in material science or chemistry

14
 Introduction

aesthetical behaviour (Ashby & Johnson, 2002, van Kesteren et al., 2004). Furthermore,
Dobrzanski (2001) explains that developments of surface technologies significantly
increase the competitiveness of products. Hence, using the potential of new materials
offers a chance to enhance products both with regard to technology and user-
interaction aspects, but can also lead to new products and functions. On the other
hand, new product requirements, for example on user-product interaction, can lead to
the development of new materials.
Often there is a lengthy incubation stage between the discovery of new materials
and their full exploitation in the market (Burchitz et al. 2005; Eager, 1995). Doordan
(2003) explains that the efforts of product designers is to help match new materials
into existing needs. Furthermore, he states that the appreciation of new materials
depends to a large extent on consumers who shape the cultural understanding of
materials. The role of the product designers in getting new materials into the market is
expanding as the competitive nature of the materials industry grows. Communicating
and cooperating with technologists and material suppliers in a design project is
therefore expected to increase.
Ashby & Johnson (2002) outline, that the first step in improving the balance between
technology and user-interaction aspects in materials selection, is exploring how
product designers use materials in their design process and exploring the nature of the
information that they require. The next step is to explore methods and tools that bring
together the two fields. This is what this thesis intends to do.

Defined: Materials selection

Materials selection is a concept used to refer to many things. For example, it refers to a group
of materials that is selected for a certain purpose. Furthermore, it can refer to a specific phase
in the development of an artefact, e.g. the materials selection phase. It then indicates a certain
time period in a project. The term materials selection is defined in this thesis as an activity:
Materials selection are the activities and steps that product designers perform and take from
the moment they receive a new assignment until the materials are specified in a document that
describes how a new product will be manufactured, how it will function, how it can be used and
how it can be experienced.
In this definition, materials selection is referred to as the things that product designers do to
reach a certain goal, which are specified materials. Elaborating on this definition, an effective
materials selection is defined as:
The activities and steps that results in a materials specification that includes materials which are
the best available options for not only the product’s functionality but also its interaction with
the user. These steps follow the shortest possible path.

15
Introduction

1.3 Research objectives

Product designers find themselves in a field where consumers demand more of their
products, where the competition between product manufacturers is fierce and where
new materials become available everyday. This leads to more custom-like products
as consumers wants a product with a special identity. The emphasis of the design
decisions necessarily shifts away from technology, towards the user-interaction
aspects, to cope with the new appreciations of consumers for the aesthetic values of
materials (Abbaschian & Marshall, 2006). Product designers need to enhance their
materials selection activities to include these aspects in their materials selection
processes. Furthermore, the number of new materials that become available requires
another approach to classifying and selecting of materials (Addington & Schodek,
2005).
In practice there is little knowledge about the effect of material choices on user-
interaction aspects of products or the knowledge is not adequately adjusted to the
approaches of product designers (van Kesteren, 2008; Karana et al., 2008; Ashby &
Johnson, 2002). Product designers are therefore unable to sufficiently predict the
results of their material choices on costs and product quality in functionality and
user-product interaction. Furthermore, the materials searches cannot follow the most
effective path. The development time increases and it becomes more difficult to secure
a competitive advantage (Wallace & Burgess, 1995).
The objectives of this research project are to explore the issues that hinder an effective
materials selection process – effective in a sense that it leads to high quality products -
and to improve the techniques to effectively include user-interaction aspects in this
process. The underlying idea is that, with an improved materials selection process, the
user-product interaction qualities of a product can be improved. The main question is
therefore:

Main question How can product designers effectively include

user-interaction aspects in their materials selection processes for
user-centred design projects?

The key questions in this thesis were answered in four main studies and address:

Question 1 What is the theoretical role of materials selection in

user-centred design?

Question 2 How do product designers currently select materials

and what are the problems they encounter?

Question 3 How can product designers effectively select

materials in the future?

16
 Introduction

These questions are important to the product development field for the reason that the
insight can improve the effectiveness of materials selection process and improve the
qualities of products. However, although many studies have been directed at improving
user-centred design and on materials selection in general, not many studies have
considered the combination of these fields. New empirical and explorative studies are
therefore necessary. Part of the originality of this work lies in the cross-disciplinary
approach that focus on strengthening the connections between the materials field and
the user-centred design field.

1.4 Thesis outline and research approach

Three main sections can be distinguished in this thesis, namely a background section,
a section on analysis and a synthesis section (figure 1.3). Each of the sections copes
with one of the key questions in this project. The background section deepens the
understanding about the relation between user-product interaction qualities and the
role and selection of materials (chapter 2) and focuses the context in which we try
to improve the materials selection process (chapter 3). After this, the more detailed
approach for the improved materials selection technique is explained in section 3.3.

1 Introduction

Part 1 Background Part 2 Analysis Part 3 Synthesis

of user-centred materials selection of materials selection practice of new materials selection tools

Question 1 What is the theoretical role Question 2 How do product designers Question 3 How can product designers
of materials selection in user-centred design? currently select materials and what are effectively select materials in the future?
the problems they encounter?

Literature and interviews (study 1): Interviews (study 2):

2 User-interaction in 4 Creating a new materials 7 Proposal for an improved
materials selection selection model selection technique

8 Designing materials
3 Approach for improving and case studies (study 3): selection tools
materials selection
5 Validating the Materials
Selection Activities model Usability test (study 4)
6 Exploring critical factors 9 Evaluating the tools in
in materials selection design practice

10 The Materials in Products

Selection technique

11 Findings and
implications

Figure 1.3
Outline of the thesis.

17
Introduction

The current materials selection activities of product designers and the critical factors
that hinder an effective process were identified and described in the analysis section
(chapter 4 to 6). The proposed techniques for materials selection in the future are
discussed in the synthesis section. This section starts with the outlines for an improved
technique (chapter 7). After that, two chapters describe the design and evaluation
of new tools that support this technique (chapter 8 and 9). Chapter 10 closes the
synthesis section with the final considerations on the improved technique. It embeds
the technique in other design methods and proposes a workshop to translate the
results of this study into a practical answer to the objectives of this project.
Four main studies were performed in this project (figure 1.3). The first study deepens
the understanding about the complexity of the user-centred materials selection
process (chapter 2). The requirements for the improved materials selection technique
were obtained by studying the materials selection activities of product designers. To
this end, a second study was performed to create a new materials selection model
based on interviews with product designers (chapter 4). In the third study, this model
is validated and used to evaluate the materials selection steps in different finished
user-centred design projects (chapter 5 and 6). In the synthesis part, the fourth study
took place to evaluate the tools that were developed in this thesis (chapter 9).
The work in this thesis continuously relied on the input from product designers
dealing with user-interaction aspects in materials selection. As the field is new,
studying current practice was required to be able to generate knowledge about
user-centred materials selection. Product designers were interviewed to deepen the
understanding of the field and to create materials selection models. In addition, they
helped to outline cases and evaluated the tools that were developed to support the
improved technique.
Besides product designers, many other people provided input in this thesis, such as
producers, material developers, manufacturers and academic researchers. Their input
was required to understand the complex relationships that product designers maintain
to select materials. Many of the decisions made in this thesis do not only rely on the
results of the studies, but also rely on the input provided by these other people.

18
Background of
user-centred
materials selection

Part 1
 Section 2.2 is based on:
I.E.H. van Kesteren, P.J. Stappers, P.V. Kandachar (2005) Representing product personality
in relation to materials in a product design problem. In: Mazé R (ed). Proceedings of ‘In
the making’: 1st Nordic design research conference, Copenhagen 2005

Section 2.3 is based on:

I.E.H. van Kesteren (2008) Product designers’ information needs in materials selection
Materials & Design. Volume 29 (1) page 133–145

20
 Chapter

2 User-interaction aspects
in materials selection

The materials a product is made of influence how users can interact with it. For
example, materials with a high thermal conductivity can make kettles difficult to
handle as they become hot when containing hot water, and woody materials could
create a natural and pure look. Product designers use materials to increase the quality
of the interaction with the product. In order to do so, it is necessary to carefully select
the user-interaction aspects of materials, which are the properties that influence
the use and personality of a product. As mentioned in chapter 1, these effects are
becoming more important in the highly competitive consumer market. At the same
time, little is known about how the user-product interaction aspects relate to the
materials from which products are made and where to find information about these
aspects.
This background part sets the stage for the exploratory research in this thesis. This
chapter focuses on the role of materials in the user-product interaction and the
decisions and information required for designing the interaction qualities of products.
Chapter 3 explains the materials selection process and tools and techniques available
herein.
Section 2.1 explains and defines, based on literature, the user-interaction aspects of
materials. Materials selection, however, include the considerations about these aspects
and the technology aspects. The theoretical relations between the different aspects
considered in materials selection are therefore explored in section 2.2. To make the
interrelated decisions in the materials selection process, product designers have
specific information needs. These needs, as explained during interviews, are presented
in section 2.3.

2.1 Materials in the user-product interaction

Materials contribute more than technical quality for products; they impact on the
way users can interact with the product. In the literature, many acknowledge the

21
Background of user-centred materials selection

significant role of materials in creating user-interaction qualities of products1. This

section explains the user-product interaction and explains how materials contribute to
the user-interaction qualities of products. Furthermore, it defines the terminology for
material characteristics as used in this thesis.

User-product interaction
The user-product interaction consists of several steps that begin with coming across
the artefact. Thereafter, a user senses the product, perceptually analyses it, compares
it with the previous cases, classifies it into a meaningful category, and consequently
interprets and appraises it (Hekkert, 2006). The user needs these interpretations and
appraisals to understand how to use a product and to experience it in a certain way.
Like MacDonald (2001, page 43) phrase it: ‘we seek delight and reassurance through
our senses that we have made the right decision and that we are embarking on the
right course of action’. The experiences with products are defined as the entire set of
effects that are elicited by the interaction between user and product (Hekkert, 2006).
The quality of this interaction influences how easy and joyful it is to use the product
and the pleasantness of the experiences.
Sensing a product is key in the interaction and is enabled by the product’s appearance
(its form and materials). Our senses inform us about the properties of the environment
that are important for our survival (Goldstein, 2002). Similarly, senses transmit
information about the properties of a product to enable interaction (Ludden et al.,
2004; Crilly et al., 2004). Fenech & Borg (2006) emphasize that during the interaction
with the material world, senses serve as a medium that gives rise to perceived
sensations, which act as a stimulus for emotions. Furthermore, visual and tactile
properties of products strongly contribute to the first overall quality judgement of a
consumer (Giboreau et al., 2001, Sonneveld, 2004). Hence, the sensorial aspects of
materials highly influence the user-product interaction.
The simplified representation of the user-product interaction in figure 2.1 shows
that the product is sensed via its materials, which can be considered as the product’s
interface (Rognoli & Levi, 2004). This sensing results in an understanding of the
product. Two aspects are distinguished in this understanding, which are firstly, the
understanding of the use (‘this is a button’) and secondly, the understanding of the
product personality (‘luxurious feeling’). The product personality is defined as the
set of product characteristics that creates the experiences the user might have while
interacting with the product.
Although material properties activate the senses similarly for different people, the
perception and pleasure attained from sensorial stimuli is not the same (Adank &

1 E.g. Arabe, 2004; Cupchik, 1999; Ferrante et al., 2000; Gant, 2005; Karana et al., 2008; Lefteri, 2001
- 2004, 2005; Ljungberg & Edwards, 2003; MacDonald, 2001; McDonagh et al., 2002; Rognoli & Levi, 2004;
Wastiels et al., 2007; Zuo et al., 2005.

2 Double Income, No Kids Yet.

22
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

Warell, 2006). It is influenced by contextual factors such as previous memories and

experiences, expectations and skills, cultural and social values (e.g. such as explained
by MacDonald, 2001). This means that the materials used in a product stimulate the
user’s senses in a somehow predicable way, but the perceptions, associations and
emotions following the sensory interaction are much more person dependent and
therefore difficult to predict. However, when the contextual factors are alike – in, for
example, a group of ‘dinky’s’2, living in an urban area in the Netherlands, in the 21
century, graduated from a technical university - the product experiences are somewhat
similar. For this reason, product designers have to use their experience, together with
expertise from market researchers and end-users to predict and evaluate the user-
interaction qualities with a product for predefined target groups.

Materials and user-interaction qualities

Several studies and examples can be found that investigated the relation between
materials and user-interaction qualities of products and how users appraise materials.
In the textile field, for example, studies try to classify the visual and touch dimensions
of different textiles (cf. Giboreau et al., 2001) and even the sound dimensions (Ui et
al., 2002). Giboreau et al. (2001) note that instrumental machines have been available
since the 1970s, that were to use physical objective means (compression, bending,
extension, shear) to predict sensory dimensions (dry, thick, rough, warm) for textiles
(e.g. the Kawabata Evaluation Structure). These machines combine the sensory
perceptions of a test panel with the objective measurements.
In another example, Zuo et al. (2001, 2004a) try to find relations between texture and
emotions of materials. They found a relation between smoothness of a material and

on / off - button...
luxury...
usability
and product
experiences

use and product sensorial

personality experiences

materials

Figure 2.1
The role of materials in the user-product interaction.

23
Background of user-centred materials selection

positive emotions such as lively, modern, elegant and comfortable. Roughness evoked
negative emotional responses such as depressing, traditional, ugly and uncomfortable.
Furthermore, MacDonald (1999) and Manzini (1989) explain the relation between the
weight of a product and the perception of quality. People are used to associate a certain
weight with a certain product and when this differs, the sense of quality is different.
An example of a study that investigates how people appraise materials is the study of
Karana & van Kesteren (2006). We studied to what extent people take materials into
consideration when describing the qualities of products. The results of this study show
that people only mention materials when they are specifically asked to describe a
product that they selected on the criteria that they liked or disliked its materials. When
describing their favourite product, materials did not appear in their descriptions.
Furthermore we found that while describing the materials of products, people
concentrated on labelling the materials, the physical characteristics of materials and
on the sensorial characteristics of materials. Picard et al. (2003) had similar results
about the vocabulary that people use to describe tactile aspects of the materials of a
car seat. Hence, people are able to recognize the materials from which a product is
made, but do not use that to explain the user-interaction qualities of it.
Sonneveld (2007) found, in a blindfolded test, that people try to identify the materials
a product is made of first when asked to describe the tactile experiences with a
product. Furthermore, Klatzky & Lederman (1995) found that tactile aspects of a
product enable people to recognize products even at a haptic glance. Hence, it seems
that people need to perceive the materials to form a judgement about the user-product
interaction, but evaluate it as a combination of product characteristics in relation to
its functioning and experiencing. Wastiels at al. (2007) found a similar result with
architects who do not think in terms of materials, but rather in terms of the experience
they want to create and the attributes needed for that. The words that architects use
for describing materials and spaces are similar e.g. friendly materials and friendly
rooms.
The examples described above show that the relation between materials and the
user-interaction qualities is a relevant research topic. However, some fields are studied
more extensively (e.g. textiles) than others (e.g. influence of materials on the usability).
Anyhow, the studies demonstrate that materials influence the sensorial interaction
with a product and thereby influence the use and experiences. Therefore, it can be
reasoned that there is a relation between the materials used and the user-interaction
qualities of a product.

Definitions of material characteristics used in this thesis

Materials are the substance from which products are made and influence the user-
product interaction with its characteristics. Various descriptions can be used to classify
these characteristics and the ones that are used in this thesis are described hereafter. A
distinction is made between the properties of materials and aspects of materials (table
2.1).

24
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

Table 2.1
Definitions of material descriptions used in this thesis.

Materials properties
Physical All quantifiable characteristics of materials, like strength, density, conductivity
Sensorial All characteristics of materials that can be perceived by the human senses. For
example, tactile aspects like smooth, cold, or visual aspects like matt, translucent,
shininess and colour. Sensorial properties have physical equivalents
User-interaction aspects of materials
Use Aspects related to use and ergonomics, such as weight, cleanability and slipperiness
Personality
Perceptive Aspects related to what we think about materials after sensing and the meaning we
attribute to materials, like aggressive, pretty, modern and secure
Associative Associations are defined by Ashby & Johnson (2003) as the things a product reminds
you of, the things a product suggests. The associative parameters require the retrieval
from memory and past experiences and finding the things a particular material brings
to mind; such as the association of the early Celluloid billiard balls with ivory
Emotional Aspects of materials that focus on the subjective feelings (Desmet, 2002) e.g. “It
makes me feel comfortable” or “this material surprises me”

The term ‘materials properties’ is used for measurable characteristics of materials

such as transparency and roughness. The materials can have these properties, even
when they are not processed into a product. The term ‘aspects of materials’ is used
for characteristics that are related to the materials’ responses once processed into
a product and used. For example, the manufacturing aspects of a material explain
which techniques can be used to shape the material and the user-interaction aspects
of materials are defined as the characteristics of a material that contribute to how a
person can interact with a product.
Two kinds of material properties are distinguished, which are the ‘physical properties’
and the ‘sensorial properties’. Both properties lead to different clustering of materials.
The physical properties are categorized as mechanical, electrical, thermal, chemical
and optical properties (Ashby, 1999). Clustering materials based on the sensorial
properties leads to groups that have the same visual and tactile characteristics, but
do not automatically include the same materials. For example, the material ceramic
groups closely to aluminium because neither can be transparent (Johnson et al., 2002).
The user-interaction aspects of materials are of interest in this thesis and are divided
in ‘use’ and ‘personality’ aspects of materials. The ‘use aspects’ are related to the
functional use of the product, such as the shininess of a display. The ‘personality
aspects’ of materials enables the experiences that user can have with the product. The
term personality is thus used as a characteristic of an object and the term experiences
as the responses to those characteristics. The definitions of Ashby & Johnson (2003,
page 28) are followed in this: ‘Personality of a product is created by the material’s
aesthetics (colour, form, feel, etc.), its associations (the things it suggests), and the way

25
Background of user-centred materials selection

it is perceived (the emotions it generates in an observer)’.

Use aspects of materials

The functional use of a product can be influenced via the sensorial properties of the
materials used in a product. To enable an end-user to use a product easily, it often
has some visual or tactile clues about where to activate a functionality of the product.
When more functions are present, these clues can indicate the different activators. A
simple example is a remote control or calculator. Different flexibility properties are
used for the materials of the casing and the buttons and different colours indicate the
different functions that can be activated with a button. Furthermore, sound properties
of materials are important for the feedback in use. Imagine a keyboard of your
computer without the auditory feedback when typing. It probably slows down your
typing speed. Even in the simplest products, for example a cup, sensorial properties
influence the interaction. A cup made of flexible materials makes it a challenge to hold
the cup without spilling fluids.

Personality aspects of materials

Ashby & Johnson (2002, 2003) state that materials, as a separate characteristic,
contribute to the experiences a user can have with the product. One material can have
different personalities depending on the product is it used for. For example, plastics
used in food packaging looks cheap, environmentally unfriendly and disposable,
while used in an I-Mac computer it looks cared for, trendy, expensive and happy. But
materials also have a personality of their own, which make them suitable for certain
applications. For example, wool has a warm and nature like personality which makes
it suitable for winter clothing and cosy carpets. Some materials are closely related to
certain design styles, such as plastics with the Pop Art style. Sonneveld (2004) explains
that materials can contribute to the creation of this personality, as materials properties
are often used to characterize people, for example weak, strong, hard, soft, flexible,
rigid. Likewise, product personality can be characterized by the physical properties of
the applied materials.

2.2 Materials, user-product interaction and other decisions

in materials selection
The user-interaction aspects of materials are not the only aspects considered in
materials selection. There are many more, such as costs, shape, environment, use and
function. Product designers use considerations about these and other aspects to guide
them in creating a product form, but not by considering them one by one. Many of the
aspects interact, which makes designing a balancing act between different aspects.
The aim of the exploration presented in this section is to come to an integrated model
that shows the materials – user-product interaction relation embedded in the relations
that materials have with other elements in materials selection. Therefore, different key

26
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

elements were derived from design methodologies. The integrated model was made to
provide insight in the complexity of the relations of the elements in materials selection.

Design decisions in current design methodologies

The design methodologists that will be discussed in this section have formulated
models to make the topics of consideration in a design project comprehensible. The
models show the topics and relate these, e.g. function, form and use. Attention for
user-interaction aspects of materials is relatively new, so not all methodologists
include use and personality in their models. However, many include considerations of
materials. For example, Ashby has studied the interaction between materials, making,
shape and function (Ashby, 1999). Shercliff & Lovatt (2001) developed an approach
for process selection that deals with the complexity of considering materials, design
and manufacturing processes. Ljungberg (2003) stresses that production methods,
function, user demands, design, total price and environmental aspects are important
criteria in the selection of a material. It is assumed that the materials – user-interaction
relation can be combined with the known materials relations to other elements in
design.
Ashby (1999) describes the design process as an introduction to a methodology
for selecting materials. According to Ashby, the starting point for a design project
is function, which dictates the choice of materials and shape. Shape includes both
the external shape (macro-shape) and the internal shape (e.g. honeycombs).
Manufacturing processes give materials their shape, but are influenced by the choice of
materials e.g. their weldability or machinability. These four elements: function, shape,
materials and manufacturing processes interact. Ashby terms these interactions as the
central problem of materials selection.
Ashby (1999) does not mention a ‘use’ element in his model. This can be a result
of the focus on mechanical design in contrast to product design, where users play a
larger role. But there are more aspects that Ashby does not include, such as cost price,
environmental issues or life in service. Pugh (1991) defines a checklist for aspects
that need consideration when specifying a product design. This checklist contains
32 aspects for product designing and is referred to by Pugh as the product design
specification (PDS). Pugh (1991) does mention aspects in the PDS that concern the
user, namely ‘aesthetics’, ‘ergonomics’ and ‘customer’, but only in broad outlines. Some
of the aspects of product personality are covered by the ‘aesthetics, appearance and
finishing’ aspects. Table 2.2 compares these aspects to the elements defined by Ashby
and shows that all aspects fit in Ashby’s model. Although Ashby does not include a use
element, his elements cover the aspects that concern the user.
Roozenburg & Eekels (1995) describe the design process and the role of materials in
this process. They give two conditions for a product to function. Firstly, the product-
form (both shape and materials) and secondly, the way a product can be used. When
designing for these conditions, product designers reason in the opposite direction:

27
Background of user-centred materials selection

Table 2.2
Combination of the four elements of Ashby (1999) and the aspects of Pugh’s Product Design
Specification (1991). Many aspects of the specification influence considerations on more than one
design element. Aesthetics, Ergonomics and Customer are related to the user, but are only broadly
described by Pugh.

Elements by Ashby Aspects of the Product Design Specification of Pugh

Function, Materials, Shape, Product life span, Quantity, Safety, Testing, Environment, Packing,
Manufacturing process Competition
Materials, Shape, Manufacturing Performance, Life in service, Documentation, Standards &
process specifications, Legal, Patents, Quality reliability, Product costs,
Disposal
Materials, Shape Installation, Aesthetics, Maintenance, Weight
Function, Shape Ergonomics, Market constraints, Politics, Customer
Materials, Manufacturing process Company constraints
Materials Materials
Shape Shipping, Size
Manufacturing process Manufacturing facility, Processes
None Shelf life storage, Time scale

based on a needed function they design form and use in such a way that when the
user utilizes the product as defined in the prescription of use the needed function is
realized. Product designers choose the form and the way of use based on the required
functions. A product form is made via the manufacturing processes by making changes
to materials until the designed product form is reached. For example, milling the
product will give it its shape and e.g. hardening processes its material form. During
manufacturing, the shape of an object goes hand in hand with its materials: changes
in one result in (small) changes in the other, although mostly these changes are not
aimed at simultaneously. Roozenburg & Eekels (1995) define this as the core of the
design problem. The elements they define as being part of the design problem are thus
function, use and product form (both shape and materials).
According to Ashby & Johnson (2002) consumers do not only expect the products to
function properly, but also to be usable and to have a personality that is attractive for
consumers. Materials are initially given two roles by them, namely materials make
products function technically and they create a product personality. They state that
balancing between use, function and product personality is key to innovative product
design.
The following elements were derived from the above relations: product personality
(PP), function (F), use (U), material characteristics (M), shape (S) and manufacturing
process (MP). These elements are taken as the main elements for the decisions in the
materials selection process in product design.

28
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

Combined model of considerations in materials selection

In figure 2.2, the interactions between the design elements that were found in the
studied methodologies are summarized in a model termed the Materials Selection
Considerations (MSC) model. This model shows the different topics that are
considered within the project boundaries in a materials selection process. The result of
these considerations is a material choice for a new product.
The interaction of function, materials, shape and manufacturing processes was
adapted from Asbhy (1999). The interaction of function, product personality and
use was taken from Ashby & Johnson (2002), as was the interaction of materials,
product personality and use. From Roozenburg & Eekels (1995), the interaction of use,
function, materials and shape was adapted.
The MSC model shows that almost all decisions are influenced by other decisions.
The only exception is the manufacturing process, which interacts with product
form (materials and shape) which in turn interacts with function and the user-
interaction considerations. The product form thus has an intermediate role between
manufacturing and the elements in function and user-interaction in this model. This
implicates that the creation of a product form includes the consideration of all the
other elements in the model, which makes it the most complex task of the design
process.

user-interaction

PP U

function

product form

M S considerations in the materials

selection process on:
PP product personality
making F function
U use
MP M material characteristics
S shape
MP manufacturing processes

Figure 2.2
The Materials Selection Considerations (MSC) model. This model shows the relations between the
considerations made in the materials selection process.

29
Background of user-centred materials selection

Table 2.3
Examples in the Materials Selection Considerations (MSC) model. For every relation between
two elements a product example is given (No. 1 to 12). Pictures were taken from various Internet
catalogues.

1. Product Personality & 2. Product Personality & Use 3. Use & Function
Function
Serious cassette players have Use and interface differ for a
Party shoes have a festive look another use and interface than basic calculator and an advanced
while running shoes look sportive funny and childlike ones calculator with graph-function
and comfortable

4. Product Personality & 5. Use & Materials 6. Product Personality & Shape
Materials
ABS gives hard keys in contrast A luxurious watch has a different
Transparent and rubbery to the soft flexible keys of a shape to a novelty watch
materials for a sportive look and keyboard made of ElekTex™
metallic for a classy

7. Use & Shape 8. Function & Materials 9. Function & Shape

The shape of these volume Packaging for microwave A bottle with all-purpose cleaner
controls require another way of ovens needs other materials requires another shape than a
using it (pressing or rotating) (polyethylene) than for salads bottle with toilet cleaner
(polystyrene)

10. Materials & Manufacturing 11. Materials & Shape 12. Shape & Manufacturing
Processes Processes
Materials (plastic, metal) cause
Plastics are processed here by a different shape of this dish Extrusion of wood gives another
injection moulding and metals by drainer shape than sawing and milling
sheet forming of wood

30
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

In order to clarify the relation between the materials selection decisions an illustration
of each interaction is given in table 2.3. The comparison of two products that differ
on the elements in the specific interaction, and are similar on the other elements,
illustrates these interactions. For example, for the products that illustrate the
interaction of use and shape, the other elements were kept the same, by choosing
two volume control buttons (same function) that are made of the same materials
(plastics), made by similar manufacturing processes and have a similar personality
(table 2.3, No. 7). It was not always possible to find examples that differed in two
elements only, simply, because the elements interact, not with just one other element,
but with several. As a consequence, some of the examples illustrate the interaction of
two elements, but also differ on the other elements e.g. the dish drainers which are
not only different in shape and materials, but also in manufacturing (table 2.3, No. 11).
Not finding examples that differed on only two aspects illustrates that the elements
interact and that creating these products requires balancing the materials selection
decisions within these interactions.

Discussion
The many relations between design considerations, makes the materials selection
process very complex. This model can therefore aid product designers, especially
those who are learning the skills of designing, to gain insight in their considerations
in the materials selection process and how these considerations interact. The product
examples contribute to understanding the complexity, by helping to visualise the
results of the interaction between two elements. In addition, these examples show
the impact of playing with the elements, for example how playing with material
characteristics can contribute to product personality.
It may be argued that representing only six elements that are considered in materials
selection is too limited. For example, costs, marketing and sustainability, to name a
few, are additional important elements in a design project and influence the decisions
on materials. For that reason, Pugh (1991) explains a larger number of design aspects.
However, visualizing the interaction of the decisions about these aspects would result
in a very complicated model. Besides, as illustrated with the comparison of Ashby’s
model (1999) and Pugh’s aspects of the product design specifications (1991) in
table 2.2, one view does not exclude the other. The costs aspect, for example, can be
explained within the MSC model as follows. Firstly, costs can be considered as a project
boundary, e.g. the marketing value that the product should have. This means that the
considerations in a materials selection process are made within these boundaries.
Hence, a material choice resulting from the considerations on the six topics is
evaluated on the consequences for the objectives on costs and value. A concrete
example is the LG Chocolate phone3, which derives its marketing value from the
considerations about how the materials create the ‘chocolate personality’. Secondly,

3 Chocolate by LG, Bluetooth music phone (us.lge.com/chocolate).

31
Background of user-centred materials selection

the costs of a product is determined by its material costs, manufacturing costs,

handling costs, retail costs, and so on. These different costs aspects are considered
within the different topics. For example, the material costs are considered as one of
the material characteristics and hence considered within the ‘material characteristics’
element. Likewise, the manufacturing costs are considered, within the ‘manufacturing
processes’ element, in relation with the ‘product form’ elements.
Ashby (1999) uses his model, showing the relations between materials, process,
shape and function, as a starting point for materials selection. Dependent on the
design project, the materials selection process starts with one or more elements, e.g.
a combination of materials and shape. The MSC model can also be used in this way:
the product designer can pick a few elements to start with and then fill in the others.
For example, Muller (2001) describes how the appearance of the designed product
is based on the product designer’s knowledge about possibilities and restrictions of
materials and processes and the knowledge about spatial characteristics of shapes in
relation to the intention for use. Designing is thus in a way combining the knowledge
about different design elements. How product designers gain this knowledge is
explained in the following section, which explores the information needs of product
designers.

2.3 Information for the materials selection decisions

Only recently, the materials information society ASM International (www.
asminternational.org) acknowledged that industrial product designers are a new
audience for the materials information society. They recognize that product designers
have special information needs regarding tactile and aesthetic values of materials (in:
Abbaschian & Marshall, 2006).
Product designers use various ways to access information and use different
information sources to acquaint themselves with the material characteristics of
candidate materials (Beiter et al., 1993; Fidel & Green, 2004; Karana et al., 2008;
Ferrante et al., 2000). Information seeking is a part of decision making and problem
solving and used to reduce uncertainty about a relevant topic for the problem (Rouse
& Rouse, 1984). Product designers can fully apply the extensive possibilities of current
and new materials to improve the qualities of their designs if these sources suit their
information needs (Baya & Leifer, 1996; Young, 2003; Martini-Vvedensky, 1985).
In order to explore what sources product designers use to support the decisions they
need to make in the materials selection process, they were interviewed. The purpose
was to understand their information needs concerning the content of the information
and its accessibility. An overview of the information sources that product designers
currently use and their information needs based on these interviews are given in this
section.

32
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

Table 2.4
Information sources used in materials selection. The complete table is presented in appendix 1.

1 Material applications 2 Independent sources 3 Materials on supply

Experience Databases, search engines In person
Knowledge of the client, In-company databases, general Customer advisor of material
colleagues and experts, available databases (e.g. supplier or manufacturer,
experience from former projects CAMPUS Plastics), commercial company visits
databases (e.g. IDEMAT,
Testing Cambridge Engineering Selector), On-line
Knowledge institutions (e.g. search engines (e.g. Google), Internet information of supplier,
Universities), finite elements trade guides (e.g. yellow pages) databases, data sheets
calculations, experimenting for
choosing materials, testing for Sample collections Samples, brochures
verifying choice Samples from former projects Send on request or as
(e.g. Tech Box www.ideo.com), advertisements (e.g. a sample
Example products commercial sample collections box www.plexiglas-magic.com,
Inspiration from shopping, (e.g. Material ConneXion www. newsletters)
competition products, proven materialconnexion.com, Materia
technology, tradeshows (e.g. Tradeshows, magazines
www.materia.nl)
Milan international furniture Presentation of materials
show), magazines about design Books, exhibitions suppliers on plastic fairs,
topics (e.g. i-D Magazine: www. Books for inspiration (e.g. Lefteri magazines (e.g. Materials
idonline.com) series (2001-2004)), Exhibitions Today from Elsevier www.
(e.g. Materials Skills www. materialstoday.com)
materia.nl), seminars organized
by material federations

Currently used information sources

A series of interviews with product designers lead to a list of currently used
information sources. Thirteen product designers from design agencies, production
companies and engineering agencies were interviewed4. Their design experience
ranged from 1 to 13 years with a mean of 5 years of experience. The reason for
selecting these interviewees was to maximize the input of commonly used information
sources. The information sources mentioned in an interview were discussed in the
next interview to verify whether the next interviewee also used this source. Therefore,
it was possible to make a complete list of mostly used sources. Therefore, appointing
a frequency of use was not possible. However, it is recognized that product designers,
with differences in experiences and differences in working situation, may use some
sources more frequently than others.
The information related topics discussed in the interviews were: What information
sources are used during materials selection? How satisfying and useful is the
information provided about materials and how is the information found? At the end of
the interviews, we discussed how the interviewees keep up with new developments in
the material and process technology areas.
The interviewees mentioned dozens of information sources, which are categorized
in the different source types shown in table 2.4 and appendix 1. The categorization

4 The thirteen product designers were interviewed both for this study and the one presented in chapter 4.

33
Background of user-centred materials selection

into types was based on the source from which the information originated, e.g. from
example products or from Internet. An important distinction was made between
information about materials applied in a product and information about characteristics
of raw materials or semi-finished products. Broadly speaking, information in the
‘general materials application’ category is gained by assessing materials in existing
products or models. In the other categories, information obtained from standardized
materials tests and experiments. Information about materials characteristics derives
from independent sources, such as handbooks in the ‘independent sources’ category or
from suppliers in the ‘materials on supply’ category.

General materials application

The interviewees stressed that, although materials are tested for their properties, it is
hard to predict how materials will react when processed into a designed shape. The
same holds for the circumstances to which a product is subjected in during its life
cycle. However, for guaranteeing the reliability and durability of the product, product
designers need to be able to predict the behaviour of the materials in their design.
Therefore, product designers use information about applied materials from different
sources, such as company experience, testing and example products.
In the majority of the design projects it is sufficient to utilize existing materials that
are used in other products. Especially the product designers that are working in a
production company are to work with the materials available in the company. In these
companies the information about the standard used materials is largely available.
Product designers from design agencies need to access more sources to get the same
information. They use both the knowledge about materials gained during previous
projects as the knowledge from their client’s former projects when available.

Independent sources
The independent sources are helpful for the first rough selections. Soon after this,
product designers switch over to information that includes the availability of materials.
The younger interviewees used more general information sources that the more
experienced product designers. More complicated decisions, especially during the
embodied and details design stages, were made by more experienced colleagues.
Young product designers remembered that they used general material selection
software during their education, but in the visited companies, this software was
not available. Most product designers, regardless of their working environment or
experience, mentioned to use general information beyond the concrete question in
a project, for example, for educational purposes or for inspiring current and future
projects.

Materials on supply
Instead of starting with all options, such is the case when using a database with
materials, the interviewees start their materials selection with a small number of
options that is selected based on experience and thereby limiting their options.

34
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

Materials suppliers and representatives are contacted to asses these options on

availability, costs and properties. Design offices often have a few suppliers they work
with, but also the client has often contacts with a selection of suppliers. Material
suppliers are related to businesses that provide information for their own commercial
interests. In some cases, the interviewees found this a drawback because the suppliers
did not want to advice about materials other than their own. However, in other cases
product designers and suppliers or manufacturers combined their interests and
developed parts together.
In summary, there exist many types of information sources related to materials that
are used by product designers. In every design project, several of these sources were
used. The sources reflect on what is important in information about materials, namely
information about availability, about application in products and for inspiration.

Product designers’ information needs

The discussions with the product designers resulted in four themes that represent the
way they require to access information and the content of the information they need.
These are ‘compare’, ‘multiple detail levels’, ‘product related aspects’ and ‘material
samples’ themes (figure 2.3).

Compare
Product designers compare different materials to find optimal candidate materials
for their products. In order to be able to make comparisons, they need information
about several materials and they need this information to be presented in similar
formats. In general databases and in databases from a single company, materials are
presented in a similar format. However, comparing materials from different companies
is more complicated. The material data that companies present differ. An interviewee

need
need
to compare product related
aspects
need
multiple need
detail levels material
samples

design process content

Figure 2.3
Four themes on product designers’ needs for information about materials.

35
Background of user-centred materials selection

explained that some suppliers show their best test results. Therefore, their materials
come out best in comparisons. Showing the best results however, has drawbacks. If
the materials perform slightly less well than predicted by the best test results, they
may cause reliability problems. Therefore, other companies are more moderate and
show mean test results. A concrete example mentioned during the interviews was the
influence of shrinkage of materials on the mould geometry. If shrinkage is different
than expected, the moulds need to be adjusted. Due to the different test results that
are presented by the materials suppliers, product designers have difficulties with
interpreting comparisons of materials. As a consequence, product designers have
frequent contact with different suppliers, which is cost consuming for both parties.

Multiple detail levels

In the design process, materials information is needed in each phase and the nature
of the information differs greatly in the different phases. This is described by Ashby
& Johnson (2002) and Fidel & Green (2004) and equally found during the interviews.
In early phases, product designers make preliminary decisions about materials based
on just a few parameters. In the detailed design phases they assess the suitability
of these materials in depth to be able to make the final decisions. The material
objectives and constraints are formulated in different terminology and details by
the product designers. For example, in early phases they use general and qualitative
search parameters like stiff and transparent. Books with pictures of materials can
be very inspiring during this phase, but these are unsuitable for later phases if more
detail is required. Later product designers use more specific and quantitative search
parameters like a stiffness value and a transparency percentage. Data sheets that
present all material properties of specific material types are suitable in this phase.
However, these data sheets are unusable in early design phases. Hence, information
about materials should be presented in a way that suits the level of detail that is
required in different phases (Baya and Leifer, 1996).

Tech Box
The international design agency IDEO has a well-known collection of material samples and
technologies named Tech Box (Kelley, 2002). The Tech Box is a large cupboard with drawers full
of samples that is placed in a central place in the companies. Every sample (about 360 in total)
has a name, a place to store and a number, which is used to search a database from a computer
on top of the cupboard or on the agency’s intranet. For every item the specifications are listed
including manufacturer, prize and an anecdote by the designers that used the sample in a
project. “The Tech Box is mostly used as a spark for brainstorms when designers bring the demo
samples into a group meeting”. The samples increase the flow during a brainstorm. They show
the strength of a material and what its look and feel is.
Information gathered during a visit of the London department of IDEO on August 31st, 2004
Information about the Tech Box on: www.ideo.com/portfolio/re.asp?x=50035, accessed 18-07-2007

36
 User-interaction aspects in materials selection

Product related aspects

Product designers need to assess how the materials perform in a product throughout
all aspects of a life cycle. However, they mention problems related to product issues
with current information sources. Materials are tested with standard experiments
to identify their parameters. In these tests, temperature, humidity and stress are
standardized, but in real life these factors change during the lifespan of the product,
which influences material performances. Products are manufactured, transported,
stored, sold, used, disposed and recycled and all processes have specific influences
on materials. As a result, for a reliable selection, product designers need information
about how materials perform under these circumstances. Data sheets that only provide
information based on standard tests are therefore not sufficient. Product designers,
together with manufacturers and suppliers, try to predict how materials behave
during the lifespan by lab experiments and finite elements calculations of the concept
products. Furthermore, they seek for information in existing products. The materials
used in these products have proven their performance or show the limitations of
materials if they show imperfections. Product designers use this information to focus
their materials searches. Furthermore, they use experience from former projects, test
materials in products and assess existing products to deal with the lack of product
related information about materials.

Material samples
Product designers use material samples to consider how materials of a product will
influence the senses of the user. They therefore explore material samples with their
own senses. Product designers come across samples via material suppliers or via
organized collections. Material suppliers produce customized samples to demonstrate,
for example, different colours, shapes and visual effects, but also offer standard
combinations. Samples are not only useful for visual aspects, but also for tactile
perceptions such as the roughness or flexibility, and even for auditory aspects such as
the sound materials make. The product designers mentioned that the problem with
material samples is that they have high production costs. Materials suppliers are not
eager to send samples to people that are not a potential client for them. Small design
agencies have trouble with ordering samples because they do not order large numbers
of materials. These are mostly ordered by the client of the design agency.
There are initiatives of collections where designers can browse through material
samples such as Material ConneXion (www.materialconnexion.com) or Materia (www.
materia.nl) and some design agencies have a material collection in house. Product
designers thus rely on material samples for inspiration and communication, especially
about non-technology parameters such as sensorial and personality aspects.
The themes that were found in the interviews indicate what is needed in materials
selection. Literature sources that discuss materials selection issues also raise these
themes. For example, Ashby et al. (2004, page 53) recommend that selection tools
should ‘allow this iterative procedure and accommodate a range of databases

37
Background of user-centred materials selection

appropriate to the various stages of the design’ (multiple detail levels-theme).

Furthermore, Ullman (2002) explains that a support system should communicate
information in the format, level of abstraction, and level of detail needed. Martini-
Vvedensky (1985) mentions that product designers compare data taken from
different sources (comparison theme). Many sources mention the relation between
materials and manufacturing aspects5. However, other product related aspects are not
mentioned extensively. In addition, only a few sources mention that product designers
need material samples to find information about sensorial properties (e.g. Ashby &
Johnson, 2002).
In conclusion, product designers need information about materials that is adjusted
to their design approaches. Information about materials that can be compared
to other materials, is usable in different design phases (multiple detail levels),
contains information about materials related to product issues and, in addition,
shows a material sample, is expected to be best adjusted to the selection process and
considerations of product designers.

2.4 Conclusions
The role of materials in the user-product interaction is via the interface it gives to
products. This interface is perceived by the senses and thereafter translated into
actions of use and experiences such as associations and emotions. The sensorial
properties of materials influence this sensorial interaction and thereby partly create
the use possibilities and personality of a product. Product designers can use materials
to increase the user-interaction qualities of products by considering how the sensorial
properties influence the use and personality of a product; however, other aspects
need to be considered too. Considerations on these aspects, which are shape, function
and manufacturing process, and the before mentioned materials, use and personality,
interact, which makes materials selection a complex task. To make decisions about
these aspects product designers use various information sources, mainly to inform
about the way materials can be applied, which materials are available and to get
inspiration from independent sources, such as materials samples collections. Product
designers have specific needs for the information sources to be able to compare
material options on the different design aspects they need to consider. Furthermore,
they need information that is adequate in different design phases and is physical, such
as material samples.

5 E.g. Ashby, 1999; Ashby and Johnson, 2002; Ashby et al. 2004; Beiter et al., 1993; Dobrazanski, 2001;
Martini-Vvedensky, 1985; Shercliff and Lovatt, 2001; Ullman 2002.

38
 Chapter

3 A user-centred approach for

improving materials selection

In the previous chapter the role of materials in the user-product interaction and
the complexity of the materials decisions have been explained. Understanding the
relations between materials, products and end-users helps to increase the positioning
of user-interaction aspects in the materials selection process, but does not explain how
to deal with it. Therefore, it is needed to understand the process of creating products
and the process of materials selection in this. This chapter describes design and
materials selection methodologies and the techniques and tools that are available for
product designers.
Although the fields of product design and materials selection explain their angles
to the other field, hardly any techniques are available for the integration of user-
interaction aspects in materials selection. However, as will be explained at the end
of this chapter, it is expected that improvements can be made in this. Therefore, this
chapter continues with outlining the approach that is followed in this thesis to develop
such a user-centred materials selection technique.

3.1 Design process, techniques and tools

The user’s role in designing has increased. Sanders (2001) states that experts from
biological and social sciences have infiltrated to serve the design process to enlarge
product designers’ understanding of the user’s interactions with products. The
practice of design started to include physical and cognitive ergonomics, shifted
towards social aspects and emotions and might even include the dreams of users in
the future (Sanders, 2001). To understand the people who will interact with the new
products, it is crucial to include all these aspects. Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005) stress
that especially in the creative phases of the design process, understanding the end-
user’s experiences is of great value for product designers. Likewise, Janhager (2005)
points out that there is a need for design methods that support the synthesis activity
in early product development phases and take end-user aspects into consideration.

39
 Design approach, techniques and tools
An approach describes the means to reach a goal on the highest level. For example, the aim is
to make successful products. A particular approach can be to make many different products and
hope that one is successful. Alternatively, one could follow a user-centred design approach to
understand the user’s needs in successful products and by that means try to predict the success
of the product.
A technique describes the sequence of possible steps taken in an approach. For example, in a
user-centred design approach, a technique can be to involve end-users in the design phase (e.g.
using a focus group technique or brainstorming) or to do usability testing. More techniques can
be followed in an approach.
A tool is an aid in a certain technique. For example, a pencil is a tool for sketching, a checklist is
a tool for interviews and a database is a tool for information storage and retrieval. More tools
can be useful in a technique.

This section explains the product design process and the means that are available to
understand the future users of products.

Product design process

The product design process does not start from scratch, but is guided by a rough idea
or requirements for a new product. Especially when product designers work for
clients, this rough idea is communicated at the start of a project, in a textual document,
by phone or during a first meeting with a client. This rough idea is termed a design
brief, and contains the requirements, intentions and wishes for a new product and the
needs this product will fulfil, what the intended end-users are and how it will be used
(Pasman, 2003).
Based on the design briefs, product designers develop new products, taking several
aspects into account (such as for example explained in section 2.2). Because of the
variety of aspects, a systematic approach is indispensable (Roozenburg & Eekels,
1995). In product design methodology, systematic approaches are proposed for
engineering and product design1. These approaches prescribe design tasks and steps
to achieve optimal product specifications in which materials are also specified. Most
approaches have an iterative character.
According to Roozenburg & Eekels (1995), products are designed to fulfil a certain
need e.g. an end-user or a salesman. Product designers translate these needs into
functions, for which they make a product form (characterized by its shape and its
materials). Hence, product designers thus reason from function to product form in a
sequence of design phases. A frequently used sequence is shown in figure 3.1 (left)

1 E.g. Cross, 2000; Hubka and Eder, 1992; Pahl and Beitz, 1996; Pugh, 1991; Roozenburg and Eekels, 1995;
Wright, 1998.

40
 A user-centred approach for improving materials selection

and consists of ‘clarification of the task’, ‘concept’, ‘embodiment’ and ‘detail’ phases as
described by Pahl & Beitz (1996).
During the clarification of a task, designers define the task as fully and clearly as
possible although not to a full end. Lawson (1994) explains that product designers
come to understand their design problems through their attempts to solve them.
Important questions, for both product designers and clients, in the clarifying phase
are: what is the problem really about, what wishes and expectations are involved
and what paths are open for developments. In the concept phase, product designers
create the principle of a solution. One of the interviewed product designers explained
that a concept design specification does not contain unsolvable difficulties; for
every sub-problem a solution is given. During the embodiment phase more and
more detail is given to more and more characteristics of the product (Roozenburg
& Eekels, 1995). While during the concept phase, rough choices in the material and
manufacturing technologies can be made, during the embodiment phase the materials
and technologies are chosen for all parts of the product with a much higher precision.
In the detailed design phase the final choices are made. All arrangements, forms,
dimensions, materials and surface properties of all the parts are laid down in the
‘specification of production’ (Pahl & Beitz, 1996).
The three design phases - concept, embodiment and detail - organize the design
activities according to the number of design problems that are solved and the details
are known about the solution. The solution space decreases and changes in the course
of action become more drastic once entering the detailing phases.

product design user-centred design

DESIGN BRIEF DESIGN BRIEF

clarification
of task specify user
specify context
of use requirements

concept

iterations

embodiment

evaluation design
detail
iterations

PRODUCT PRODUCT
SPECIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS

Figure 3.1
Examples of the design sequences performed by product designers in a design project as described in
design methodologies (e.g. Pahl & Beitz, 1996, left) and user-centred design (e.g. iso13407:1999, right).

41
Background of user-centred materials selection

In user-centred design, the phases are organized slightly different, namely in ‘design’
phases, in which designs and prototypes are produced, and in ‘evaluation’ phases,
in which user-based assessment of the designs are carried out (ISO 13407, 1999).
Furthermore, user-centred design specifies the ‘clarification of the task’ phase more
explicitly as ‘understanding and specifying the context of use’ and the ‘requirements
of the user’. These phases occur on different detail levels in a cyclic manner (figure 3.1,
right).
In user-centred design, the end-user is involved when needed and possible. Bonapace
(2002) explains that focusing attention on user issues in the user-centred design
cycle is critical to the quality of the product. User tests produce fresh information
that helps to define the design and the needs for the next development stage. Popular
techniques to involve the users are focus groups (for understanding the context of use),
questionnaires and interviews (for requirements and evaluations), usability testing (in
the design and evaluation activities) and participatory design (in the design activity)
(Webcredible, 2006).

Design techniques and tools

To facilitate their designing, product designers utilize a wide variety of design tools,
ranging from sophisticated computerized information support systems such as CAD
systems to inexpensive memory aids such as pencil and paper (Love, 2003). Design
tools enable product designers to structure and formalize parts of their design steps
(Jangager, 2005). Fulton Suri & Marsh (2000) state that product designers want to
have as much inspiration about the user as possible in the conceptual design phases
of a project, to ensure that their efforts are directed appropriately. It is no longer
acceptable to simply evaluate what others design and produce, but product designers
need tools that support the exploring, prototyping and communicating of user-
interaction aspects of new products.
Many generative design tools exist, for example, for co-designing. To understand
the user’s experiences with product use, they are stimulated to make drawings and
collages to express experiences and to discuss them together (Sanders, 2000; Sleeswijk
Visser et al., 2005). The results of these sessions are often presented to a research
audience instead of a designer audience and Sleeswijk Visser is developing tools to
involve product designers in the user-experiences data. They argue that in order to
make such tools successful, it should engage the product designer in the user studies.
Furthermore, the tool should inspire the designer to actually use the data.
Other design techniques encourage the communication between different persons
involved in the product development process. For example, Kleinsmann (2006)
explains that adding a moderator that focuses the decision process to a conversation
can prevent leaps and loops. Task of such a moderator are to structure the design
process (to fill the need for a structural approach) and structuring the content (by
creating shared mental models). She explains that product designers use mood boards
after and during these conversations.

42
 A user-centred approach for improving materials selection

Mood boards support communication and expression beyond linguistic restrictions

about e.g. emotions (McDonagh et al., 2002). Mood boards consist of a collection of
abstract or literal visual images. They are typically made after a design brief meeting to
make a personal interpretation about the discussed product requirements. Drawbacks
of mood boards are that they rely on subjective interpretation and are often
misunderstood by inexperienced users (McDonagh et al., 2002).
Another approach to enhance the design process is to offer product designers
examples from previously designed products. Subsystems and parts that have been
proved to be successful in past designs can improve the quality of new products and
the effectiveness in product design (Amen & Vomacka, 2001). For example, Shahin
et al. (1999) developed such a reuse system in which product concepts, solution
concepts, embodiment and detailed designs are stored. Pasman & Stappers (2001)
focus on the concept phase with ‘ProductWorld’, a system that helps product designers
to form and apply a collection of product samples. The input module of this system is
primarily based on visual assessments to enable product designers to have a loose and
exploratory dialogue between them and the system.
More and more tools are developed and used to understand the end-user’s needs and
to integrate these needs in the design process, however, only a few examples could be
presented in this thesis. Understanding the end-user is becoming more important in
these techniques. The existence of the wide variety of techniques and tools, expresses
that the design process is characterised by the creative use of these.

3.2 Materials selection process, techniques and tools

Gutteridge & Waterman (1986) use an illustrative description of the aim of materials
selection: ‘the identification of materials, which after appropriate manufacturing
operations, will have the dimensions, shape and properties necessary for the product
or component to demonstrate its required function at the lowest costs’ (in: Sapuan,
2001, page 687). The description shows that it is necessary to have a foresight about
how a material will behave once processed into a product when selecting materials.
Before ending up in a product, materials are undergoing many processes, that all
influence the behaviour, such as shaping, joining, hardening or surfacing. Selecting
materials is thus more than just picking a material from a catalogue and requires a
thoughtful approach.

Materials selection process

Many researchers in the field of materials selection focus on analytical approaches
toward selecting materials and are mainly based on materials selection in mechanical
engineering (e.g. Ashby, 1999; Farag, 1989; Cornish, 1987). An analytical approach
generally uses a set of objectives and constraints that are compared with the
properties of a set of existing materials. Materials that match are then selected. For

43
Background of user-centred materials selection

example, Dobrzanski (2001) explains that after defining the requirements for a new
product, these requirements are compared with extensive materials databases for
a preliminary selection of a number of materials that might be applicable. These
materials, acquired from a trade network, are then tested in the particular product.
These materials selection approaches are suitable for the majority of the design
projects in which it is sufficient to select materials from the materials available on the
market.
Selecting materials is more than matching requirements with candidate materials.
Doordan (2003) explains that materials are not just a given to be incorporated in the
design process, but are part of the design problem. The analytical approaches are
therefore less suitable to describe the materials selection process of product designers.
Furthermore, they do not often include user-interaction aspects. One example of a
description of the materials selection process in product design is that of Ashby &
Johnson (2002).
Ashby & Johnson (2002) identify four materials selection methods, all using different
strategies and all having their own information needs. These are the ‘analysis’,
‘synthesis’, ‘similarity’ and ‘inspiration’ method. These methods can be used separately,
but ‘the most effective path exploits the most useful features of each’ (Ashby &
Johnson, 2002, page 130). In the ‘analysis’ method, a list of product requirements is

Strategies for designing a sensorial interaction

Designing a sensorial interaction involves selecting adequate sensorial properties of materials.
Understanding which manipulations of the senses contribute to experiences is important to be
able to create this experience (van Kesteren & Ludden, 2005). A possible strategy for product
designers to design experiences for a product is to see how every single sense can be stimulated
in such a way that the perception contributes to the desired experiences (Ludden & van
Kesteren, 2006). In this, they should be aware that selecting a material based on its tactile value
has consequences for the visual appearance of a product.
When interacting with a product, the different senses get input signals that are used to form a
product experience. Hekkert (2006) explains that people tend to prefer products that convey
similar messages through the different senses. In line with this, he argues that the sensorial
impressions should also be appropriate for the particular product. Product designers could
thus try to make the sensorial interaction through the different senses matching the intended
product experiences.
The experience can be influenced by creating a similar input per sense or by deliberately giving
the senses different inputs. For example, in the cosmetic industry the packaging of the product
tries to give the same message through all senses (Ludden & van Kesteren, 2006). Colour,
roughness, softness and smell are all harmonized. Different inputs through the senses, for
example a high gloss transparent ball (looks like glass) which is flexible might elicit a surprise
effect that makes the product more interesting to interact with (Ludden, 2008).

44
 A user-centred approach for improving materials selection

translated into material objectives and constraints and then a database of materials
is screened. This method requires information about characteristics of available
materials. In the ‘synthesis’ method, product requirements are translated into
required features and then a database of products is explored. The method exploits the
knowledge of other solved problems. The method requires information about previous
materials solutions.
If product requirements are not a starting point for selecting materials, the ‘similarity’
method can be used. For an established material, an attribute profile is generated
that is used to find materials solutions closely related to the established one. Like the
analysis method, information is needed about characteristics of available materials.
Creative thinking fuels the last method identified by Ashby & Johnson: ‘inspiration’. A
database with materials is combined with a database of products and new matches are
generated almost by a random walk.

Materials selection techniques and tools

Literature sources presenting tools for materials selection mainly focus on
computerized materials databases (e.g. Beiter et al., 1993; Martini-Vvedensky, 1985).
Databases can provide quick and appropriate access to state-of-the-art materials
and enable the compatibility of candidate materials to be evaluated when adequately
designed (Beiter et al., 1993). The advantages of databases are that the same data can
be accessed via multiple ways and that data can be presented on different detail levels.
For example, CAMPUS (www.campusplastics.com) combines general information with
information from suppliers.
Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) is a well known computer system developed by
Ashby and co-workers at both Granta Design and Cambridge University Engineering
Department. Ashby and Cebon (2007) explain that the selection of materials has
four basic steps 1) translating the design requirements as constraints and objectives,
2) screen the material world to find materials that cannot do the job, 3) rank the
materials that can do the job best and 4) explore the top rated materials. CES supports
the second and third step herein by presenting the material world in a comparable
way, showing property charts containing all materials and enable finding optimal
materials for certain property combinations.
The databases that are developed differ in the kind of information they present and the
intelligence of the search options they provide. In some databases, sensorial properties
are presented (e.g. www.materialexplorer.com), some provide good practices guide
(e.g. McMahon & Pitt, 1995), while other databases focus on manufacturing aspects
(e.g. CES). Intelligent databases enable its user to combine different requirements
for example, via a dialogue with the system (e.g. Smith et al. 2003), via a decision
matrix (Shanian & Savadogo, 2006) or with a case base reasoning system with flexible
retrieval of its content (Mejasson, 2001).
A large disadvantage of databases is that you need to know what you are looking for.

45
Background of user-centred materials selection

They require search entries that are in the worst case the exact properties needed of
the materials in the end product. Especially in the early phases of the design project,
this information is irrelevant and designers need other tools than databases to support
their materials selection process such as physical materials or example products such
is outlined in section 2.3.
To support product designers with physical materials, several initiatives organize
exhibitions, collections and libraries of materials. For example, the agency Inventables
helps companies to innovate by showing the newest technology and materials in an
inspiring manner (www.inventables.com). Another commercial example of collections
of materials are ‘Material ConneXion’, being the world’s leading knowledge base for
information about new and innovative materials (www.materialconnection.com). They
combine a physical database in several places in the world with a database accessible
for members and consulting services. The number of local material inspiration centres
is increasing, such as ‘Materia’, in Enter and the ‘Materialenbibliotheek’ in Eindhoven,
both in the Netherlands (www.materia.com, www.materialenbibliotheek.nl) and in
Paris, France, ‘Innovatheque’ is situated (www.innovathequectba.com). Furthermore,
universities and academies offer material collections and support to designers.
Examples are the ‘Technotheek’ of Poelman (2005) or the ‘Material biblioteket’ in
Stockholm, Sweden (www.materialbiblioteket.se).
Above examples of tools and techniques in materials selection are mainly about
providing information in a useful and inspiring way. Information is important in the
materials selection process as it supports the product designer to make well-informed
choices (Cornish, 1987). However, these tools enable an individual search, while in the
design activity, more people are involved in the selection process. A materials selection
tool that makes it possible to explore material ideas in teams is Skin, being developed
by Saakes (2007)
The purpose of Skin is to explore whether it is possible to bring considerations of
colour and texture of materials earlier in the design process to enhance a richer idea
generation (Saakes, 2007). Skin is a prototype that projects materials, colours and
textures on white or light coloured objects. These objects can be foam models created
to evaluate the shape of a new product. Skin enables product designers to digitally
explore materials, colours and graphics on physical models. The tool proved to foster
creativity and sharing ideas when it was used in a workshop with packaging designers
(Saakes, 2007).

3.3 Development approach for an improved technique

There are plenty of materials selection techniques available that are meant to increase
the effectiveness in the process, however, there is little effort spent on supporting
the identification of materials in the early stages of design (Deng & Edwards, 2005).
In these early stages the user-interaction qualities can be determined, but product

46
 A user-centred approach for improving materials selection

Table 3.1
Products can be new in function, use or personality.

New function New use New personality Combination of all

Dolphin saver by Cuckoo iPod by Apple. All the Bathroom products Wireless hand-held
company. A floater that input for the interaction by N|P|K for HEMA. device by IDEO for
makes scary noises to is given by the thumb The transparent blue Lufthansa. New
be put on a fishing net on one multifunctional and semi-transparent function, new use
to chase dolphins button white plastics give these and new personality
products its personality (and even newly used
materials: Corian™)

designers are not well supported in the complex material decisions they have to make
in these stages. In addition, the decision to include new materials in the selection
process, and thereby including the opportunity to increase the interaction qualities of
the new product, can be made in the early stages. New materials selection techniques,
specifically developed to integrate user-interaction aspects in materials selection in
the early design stages, are expected to optimize this process. In the rest of this thesis,
such a technique will be developed.
The approach in this development resembles user-centred design, which means
that understanding the materials selection context and critical factors in the current
materials selection process are key steps in the development. This understanding is
created via the studies presented in the analysis section of this thesis. In the synthesis
section thereafter, the technique will be designed and evaluated.

Analyze part: clarifying the context and requirements

The first step in the user-centred design approach is to clarify the context in which
improvements are aimed for, thereafter, the critical factors in this context can be
identified and the requirements for the improvements identified.

Clarifying the materials selection context

The target group for the technique are product designers working in design agencies,
being the persons that bring the functionality and user-product interaction into a
new product. They combine their engineering knowledge with their knowledge about
industrial design in different projects. These product designers work for ‘clients’ that
have a certain need for a new product for which a materials search is needed (table

47
Background of user-centred materials selection

3.1). These product designers are expected to have the possibility to implement the
improved techniques that are developed in this project, because they benefit from
the possible time savings, structure and improved communication provided by these
techniques.
Wood (1997) states, that when the understanding of the potential users’ work and
context is transferred into a descriptive model, this model can be used to guide further
design activities. Several materials selection models were explained from a theoretical
point of view in this chapter, however, to fully understand the context in which product
designers select materials, a new descriptive model, based on design practice is
necessary. The creation of such a model was therefore the first step in clarifying the
context. This descriptive model was to match the materials selection activities that
product designers perform and its creation is based on interviews with 13 product
designers (chapter 4). The model is thereafter evaluated in 15 design projects outlined
by the product designers that performed the materials selection steps in the projects
(chapter 5).

Understanding the requirements of product designers

The descriptive model explains the context in which improvements are aimed for
and forms a structure for the exploration of the problems that product designers are
experiencing when including user-interaction aspects in their materials selection
activities. Fifteen product designers explained the materials selection techniques they
use and the problems they experience (chapter 6). Based on these problems, critical
factors can be identified that decrease the effectiveness in the materials selection
process. These critical factors form the requirements for the improved technique.
The requirements for the techniques are not only based on the result of design
practice, but include some general objectives. Pasman (2003) formulated several
considerations for designing an environment to support early phases in the design
process, based on a contextual inquiry of the form-creation phase of product designers.
According to him, such an environment should support the rapid and rough capturing
of ideas such as done with sketches in the early phases. The environment of the
product designer is scattered with information such as newspaper articles, material
samples, sketches, and is highly personalized. This information is mainly visual
and Pasman explains that these precedent designs embody the design knowledge
which the designer seems to transfer to his own unique design solution. Further
considerations are the designers’ activity of communicating ideas to other people,
and easily shifting between activities and projects in a highly individualistic style.
Furthermore, Baya & Leifer (1996) explain that there is a need for developing tools,
methods and technology which integrates smoothly with the design process and
supports information managements without being cumbersome to use. Therefore,
general starting points for the technique are that they fit well in the current
approaches of product designers as described above.

48
 A user-centred approach for improving materials selection

Synthesis part: designing and evaluating techniques and tools

The technique developed in this thesis tries to give an answer on the critical factors
that were found in the analysis phase. In chapter 7, the critical factors are summarized
and the outline for the improved technique is given. The technique is accompanied by
tools that aim at supporting product designers to use the technique. These tools are
designed and evaluated in the steps explained hereafter.

Design
The tools were designed in several iterative steps of which the main considerations
and results are explained in chapter 8. The sequence of these steps was 1) idea
generation, 2) conceptualization, 3) evaluation of the usability and 4) detailing. In the
idea generation step ideas for tools were generated that were expected to fulfil the
aims in the improved technique and harmonize with the current techniques and tools
of product designers. The ideas were developed together with design students into
the concept versions of the tools. These versions were tested by product designers
and students in a fictitious situation to be able to improve them on usability issues
(achievements, ease of use). In the detailing step these improvements were made.
After the evaluation study, which is explained hereafter, the last revisions for the tools
were made (chapter 10). Furthermore, the technique is fine-tuned in this chapter.

Evaluation
A thorough exploration of the materials selection context, and the critical factors in
the process, helps to predict how the effectiveness can be improved in this process.
However, evaluation of the assumptions made in the creation of these improvements is
necessary to verify whether they indeed increase the effectiveness. Hence, the aim of
the evaluation step in this thesis is to see whether the tools function as designed and
what influence they have on the effectiveness in materials selection. In this step, four
product designers used the tools in their own ongoing projects. They were therefore
able to evaluate the effect of the tools compared to projects in which they did not use
the tools. These results are valuable for the fine-tuning of the proposed technique.

3.4 Conclusions
The product design and materials selection processes are well studied and various
techniques are being developed to support product designers. However, for the
specific aims in this project, which is the inclusion of user-interaction aspects in the
materials selection process, hardly any examples were found. As a consequence,
product designers are not supported in their complex decision making in the materials
selection process for high quality products. Therefore, the challenge is to improve this
by analysing product designers’ problems and develop new techniques and tools for
user-centred materials selection.

49
Analysis of
materials selection
practice

Part 2
 Chapter 4 is based on:
I.E.H. van Kesteren, P.V. Kandachar and P.J. Stappers (2007) Activities in Selecting
Materials from the Perspective of Product Designers. International Journal of Design
Engineering. Vol. 1 (1) page 83-103

And:
I.E.H. van Kesteren, P.V. Kandachar, P.J. Stappers (2006) Activities in selecting materials
by product designers. In: Su, D, Zhu, S (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference
on Advanced Design and Manufacture 8th-10th January 2006, Harbin, China, ADMEC, UK,
page 145-150

52
 Chapter

4 Creating a model for

materials selection activities

The first step in the development of an improved materials selection technique is

to understand the current approaches and the difficulties experienced by product
designers when using these approaches. Several models exist to describe the materials
selection process. However, in the previous chapter is explained that, to find difficulties
in the materials selection activities of product designers, a model that describes
these activities is needed. Existing models do not include user-interaction aspects or
emphasise the results of the activities, rather than the activities themselves. Therefore,
this chapter describes the empirical study that resulted in a new materials selection
model. This model is validated in chapter 5 and used to find critical factors in the
materials selection process in chapter 6.
The objectives of this study were to systematically describe materials selection
approaches of product designers and to organize them into a model of materials
selection activities. Although the literature covers both product development and
materials selection, Stempfle & Badke-Schaub (2002, page 474) state that the
systematic approaches of methodologists ‘...often neglected to look at what people
actually do – simply prescribing a methodology may not meet the needs of a designer
‘out there’.’ An empirical approach was used instead, to be able to describe the
activities as realistically as possible.

4.1 Interview method

Thirteen product designers were interviewed to create the model1. The interviews
were semi-structured, using a list of key questions that covered the main topics of
interest. This approach left room for discussions and more focused questions from
both the researcher and the product designer (Wood, 1997). The following topics were
discussed: the design process in practice with a focus on materials and the materials
selection process and the role of information sources in the materials selection process

1 The thirteen product designers were interviewed both for this study and the one presented in section 2.3.

53
Analysis of materials selection practice

Table 4.1
Topics and questions used in the interviews.

Topics Key questions

Design process What are the design phases you normally follow?
What aspects are mentioned in the design assignment?
What is the role of requirements in the design project?

Materials in the design process In which of the design phases are material decisions involved?
How do you make a material selection?
How are materials defined in the different phases?

Information in the materials Which information sources do you use?

selection process How available is the information, what can be changed?

(table 4.1). Recording devices were not used to encourage the product designers to
speak freely about their projects and about product examples. Each interview session
took between one and one and half hours.

Participants
The product designers were selected as participants based on their educational
background in product development and jobs as professional designers. Three had
studied at a design academy, two had studied product development in professional
institutes and eight had studied industrial design engineering at a university of
technology.
The respondents all held different kinds of jobs, although all were involved in product
development at the company at which they worked. This was done to get input from
different working situations and to maximize the references to materials selection
activities. Although the aim was not to compare different working situations, it was
expected that selecting these participants would result in a more complete overview of
materials selection activities than when interviewing product designers who were all
roughly engaged in the same type of work.
The participants worked for design agencies (#=6), production companies (#=3),
one-man studios (#=2), a multinational (#=1) and an engineering office (#=1). The
participant’s working experience ranged from 1 to 13 years, with a mean of 5 years.
They were all Dutch. Examples of products they worked on ranged from: business gifts,
paint dispensers, a chair lift and a tanning bed, to packaging, bicycles, baby buggies,
bathroom accessories, a mail box, beer crates, photocopiers and furniture.
Interviewing product designers with a wide range of design experience was expected
to lead to a broad overview of materials selection activities. Young product designers
were expected to be knowledgeable about their activities and therefore able to discuss
them during an interview. Experienced product designers were expected to be familiar
with activities that the younger designers could or did not yet perform (such as the

54
 Creating a model for materials selection activities

examples found by Ahmed et al. (2003) e.g. being aware of the reasons for selecting
options or being able to question data from a source).

Data analysis
The notes made during the interviews were screened for occasions in which the
participants mentioned a task or a piece of work (e.g. drawing, consulting a colleague,
negotiating with a client). All instances were written down on small cards to make a
set of unique activities cards. These cards contained a short description of the activity,
how often this activity was mentioned in the interviews and, when applicable, how
materials were involved in this activity. The cards were grouped into categories of
similar product development activities and ordered based on our experience in design
methodologies. For those categories in which aspects of materials selection were
mentioned a category of materials selection activities was formed.

4.2 Activities in materials selection

The product designers brought up a total of 134 activities resulting in 109 unique
activity cards (table 4.2). Only a small number of the activities was found identical
throughout the interviews, indicating that every project has its own activities. Out of
these 109 cards, 63 explicitly mentioned materials. The cards that did not mention
materials described activities in general terms, e.g. ‘defining the project’, ‘making visual
models’. Although the product designers may be expected to consider materials during
these activities, they were not explicitly doing so. For the model, only the 63 cards that
explicitly mentioned materials were used.
The variety of the activities indicates that choosing materials is not a purely analytical
process, but rather an iterative design cycle in itself. The materials selection
approaches of product designers seem to resemble iterative design approaches. The
results were grouped into ‘basic’, ‘supportive’, ‘general’ and ‘detailed’ activities. In
the following, the basic and supportive activities in materials selection are discussed
as they are related to a design project. The other explanations can be found in van
Kesteren et al. (2006)

Four basic activities

Activity 1: formulating material objectives and constraints (criteria activity)
At the start of a design project the emphasis is on setting the solution boundaries or
requirements for the product that is to be designed. These requirements are translated
into materials objectives and constraints or criteria. Formulating material criteria is an
activity that is performed during all design phases and they become clearer and more
complete throughout the project. Hence, they do not come about at once, but are often
changed and detailed. As a consequence, formulating criteria holds a central place in
the iterative design process.

55
Analysis of materials selection practice

Table 4.2
Activities that were derived from the interviews and the number of cards that were found per activity.
ND Number of design activity cards
NU Number of unique design activity cards
NM Number of material activity cards

ND NU NM
Basic activities
1 setting solution boundaries criteria activity 12 8 6
formulating material objectives and constraints
2 creating solutions set activity 27 24 13
making a set of candidate materials
3 comparing solutions comparing activity 4 3 2
comparing candidate materials
4 choosing solutions choosing activity 8 8 6
choosing candidate materials

Supportive activities
5 testing solutions testing activity 18 13 17
testing materials
6 gathering information information activity 16 14 6
gathering material information
7 cooperating and consulting consulting activity 12 8 5
material cooperating and consulting

General activities
8 giving advice 1 1 1
9 keeping informed 11 8 7
10 controlling business processes 7 7 2

Detailed activity
11 designing parts 18 15 8

Total 134 109 63

The objectives and constraints are used as a starting point for creating a set of
candidate materials, to compare and choose materials, but also to find information
about materials.

Activity 2: making a set of candidate materials (set activity)

During this activity product designers obtain a set of candidate materials from all
available materials that fit the design objectives and constraints. Although thousands
of materials are available, a set of candidate materials do not contain thousands of
options, not even in the early design phases. The sets made by the product designers
often contained some 3 to 4 options, a number considered adequate by the product
designers to make efficient comparisons. As a consequence, a set contains general

56
 Creating a model for materials selection activities

labels of materials, such as plastic, wood or metal in the early design phases, and these
subsequently become more refined, specifying alloys or types of plastics. During this
activity, the number of candidate materials is increased.

Activity 3: comparing candidate materials (comparing activity)

Product designers use two subsequent activities to narrow down the number of
candidate materials. During the comparing activity, product designers establish the
suitability of different candidate materials. During the choosing activity product
designers decide, based on the evaluated materials, to continue with a reduced number
of candidate materials.
Candidate materials are compared with two aims. The first aim is to evaluate the
materials within the context of other aspects such as shape and usability. For example,
evaluating the appearance of a product includes evaluating the materials. The second
aim is to evaluate whether the materials fulfil a particular criterion, e.g. impact-
resistance or adhesion of a coating.
Note that the result of the comparing activity is not always visible. Although comparing
methods are available (e.g. Pugh, 1981; Harris, 1961), the product designers did not
mention using them when selecting materials. They relied on their experiences.

Activity 4: choosing candidate materials (choosing activity)

After the different candidate materials have been evaluated, a choice of candidates
qualifying for further investigation or a choice for a new investigation can be made.
The decision to continue with particular candidate materials is often taken together
with the client of the project. This activity thus reduces the number of candidate
materials and clarifies whether the material objectives and constraints are still
accurate enough for the next steps in the materials selection process.

Three supportive activities

In addition to the basic activities, three supporting activities were found. These are
‘testing materials’ (testing activity), ‘gathering material information’ (information
activity) and ‘material cooperating and consulting’ (consulting activity) (table 4.2).
The supportive activities are performed when product designers need additional
knowledge to carry out a basic materials selection activity. For example, product
designers may not know the current price of raw materials and request this
information in order to be able to compare the costs of candidate materials.
During the parts of the interviews where the product development process was
discussed, only the client was mentioned as an external party. During the discussions
about materials selection more stakeholders came forward, namely material
suppliers, manufacturers, engineers and materials experts (see section 1.2 for an
explanation of these stakeholders). These information providers are involved in the
design process, providing up-to-date knowledge about the availability of materials,
their price and whether or not the materials offer what is needed in the product.

57
Analysis of materials selection practice

Consulting information providers about materials is therefore an essential step in the

materials selection process. Product designers can fully assess the appropriateness
of the candidate materials in respect of function, manufacturing and user-product
interaction, only after consultation has taken place.

Activity 5: testing materials (testing activity)

Prototypes are made at various design stages to test the product as a whole or to
test parts of the product. Testing is carried out with the help of simulations (e.g. with
finite element calculations), physically with three-dimensional prototypes, or with
two-dimensional presentations. Some product designers mentioned that making
prototypes is a fixed part of the design process they offer to clients. At one design
agency, they make a sequence of models starting with visual models in which the
appearance and consumer preferences are tested. It is followed by functional models
in which working principles are tested and technical models in which details for
production are considered.
Although materials developers test their materials on performances (e.g. chemical
resistance, durability and yield strength), information about specific performance
during the life cycle of the product is lacking. Therefore, product designers, together
with manufacturers, use prototypes to test candidate materials in the product. They
verify whether the materials perform as expected when processed and shaped in the
specified geometry. The product designers also test material samples ordered from
suppliers.
In visual models, materials are evaluated in combination with colour, form and shape
details. Therefore, this materials selection activity is termed as ‘testing materials’
rather than testing candidate materials. This definition includes the separate testing of
candidate materials, which seem to refer only to functional aspects of materials, as well
as the integrated testing of materials in relation to form, colour and shape details.

Activity 6: gathering information about materials (information activity)

Product designers frequently mentioned the role of information in their design
process. The activity of gathering information is performed on various topics, but
always to reduce uncertainty about a specific aspect of the product. During the first
steps of the design process, information is gathered about rival products and existing
solutions (reversed engineering). Some product designers mentioned that they
literally ‘shopped’ to find products featuring similar facets of the design problem they
are facing.
At the start of a design project, the client prepares a design brief together with the
product designer. During the project, however, the objectives and constraints gradually
become more specified. To do this, product designers need additional information
about the client’s project requirements. Furthermore, product designers gather
information about topics such as legal issues, toxic materials and other environmental
aspects.

58
 Creating a model for materials selection activities

To make a set of candidate materials from the numerous available materials, product
designers gather information about materials. The clients provide information about
aspects such as manufacturing aspects or legal issues. Other information sources
that are used when selecting materials are the Internet, supplier manuals, catalogues
or experts. Materials suppliers are an important source for materials information in
several phases of the design phase (see also section 2.3).
In the first phases, product designers use information that materials suppliers
have available on Internet or in databases. Later, when more specific information
is required, data sheets are used. These are sometimes directly available on-line,
but more often need to be requested from the supplier. In the last phases, product
designers need information about candidate materials that is specific for the
proposed geometry and manufacturing. Product designers visit materials suppliers
or manufacturers to gather this information. Even after the design phase has finished,
material choices can be made, for example by manufacturers who propose cheaper
materials than the ones selected by the product designers.
The above information needs are mainly about technical performances and
manufacturability of materials. In addition, product designers need information about
the visual and tactile aspects of materials. Therefore, they order material samples from
suppliers, or find examples of materials in existing products. The product designers
indicated that they value product examples in which materials are used to the extreme,
e.g. silicon baking forms, very highly.

Activity 7: cooperating and consulting about materials (consulting activity)

An activity closely related to gathering information is the activity of cooperating
with and consulting experts. There are two main differences. This last activity
always involves a number of people, compared to the information activity, in which
no personal contact is required. Another difference is that consulting means that
the other party must find answers to a multifaceted problem with integrated design
considerations. Often, an optimal solution has to be found within conflicting objectives
and constraints. In this sense, the other parties think along with the product designers.
Mainly, the difference between information and the consulting activities is how many
people understand the design problem and whether or not there is a shared interest
(Kleinsmann, 2006). In consulting, the information provider understands the design
problem and has an interest in providing the information, while in the information
activity, the understanding and interest is solely the concern of the product designer.
In materials selection, the consulting activity is performed together with material
related parties such as suppliers, experts and manufacturers. In the later design, these
material parties are consulted to determine the value of candidate materials based
on the set of objectives and constraints. Not only materials objectives and constraints
are considered, but also aspects of costs, manufacturability and user related aspects.
Product designers, together with materials experts, make an integral evaluation of
candidate materials.

59
Analysis of materials selection practice

4.3 Description of the model

The materials selection activities are not performed randomly. Some activities are
always followed by others (these are the basic activities) and some activities are
performed during other activities (these are the supportive activities). For example,
the supportive information activity is performed during the basic criteria activity. The
basic activities are performed a single to several times in a design phase before the
required materials are specified. The model is organized in four types of cycles that
represent the relation of the design activities, namely the basic materials selection
cycle, the testing materials cycle, the information and the consulting cycles.

Iterations
Basic materials selection cycle
The basic materials selection cycle connects the basic activities (No. 1-4 in figure
4.1). The activities are performed in this order and the results of an activity are
used in the subsequent activity. The results of the choosing activity (No. 4) lead to
selected materials. Although basic activities might follow each other quickly and might
therefore not be recognized as separate activities, all four activities are needed to
select a number of adequate candidate materials. Subsequent basic materials selection
cycles narrow down the number of candidate materials.
Especially in the early design phases, it is not necessary to fully know all the details
of the selected materials. Therefore, the results of basic materials selection cycles
change in detail during the design phases. The first basic cycles result in selected

DESIGN BRIEF formulating

making a set of
material objectives
candidate materials
and constraints
wood, metal,
1 2
plastic

ABS, PC
silicones

choosing candidate comparing candidate

MATERIALS materials materials
SPECIFICATIONS
4 3

Figure 4.1
Basic materials selection cycle.

60
 Creating a model for materials selection activities

material families (e.g. wood, metal or plastic). The next cycles result in material classes
(e.g. the plastics ABS and PC or silicones) and the last cycles result in full materials
specifications. This classification is similar to the one proposed by Johnson et al.
(2002). They classify the kingdom of materials from family and class (e.g. polymers,
metals, composites; e.g., steels, Al- alloys, Pb- alloys), to sub-class and member (e.g.
4000, 5000, 6000; e.g. 6060, 6061, 6062) to attributes (e.g. density, price, modulus
of the specific member). The basic materials selection cycle is repeated until the
materials are specified to the required detail.
The selected candidate materials may lead to new design requirements, e.g. on aspects
of costs or manufacturability. Furthermore, choices on other aspects in the design
project can lead to new material objectives and constraints. In every basic materials
selection cycle, the material objectives and constraints are therefore reconsidered,
if necessary resulting in more extensive criteria. The activity of formulating material
objectives and constraints (No. 1) is for that reason positioned in the basic materials
selection cycle.

Testing cycle
Figure 4.2 shows that the testing cycle connects the testing activity (No. 5) with the
basic materials selection cycle at the comparing activity (No. 3). Materials are tested
when product designers need information that is not yet available but that is needed
to evaluate the candidate materials. To obtain this information product designers plan
and perform a test or simulation, whether or not together with materials experts.

Information and consulting cycles

The information cycles and the consulting cycles represent the relations between the
information activity (No. 6), the consulting activity (No. 7) and the basic materials
selection cycle (figure 4.3). Although both types of cycles are used during the basic four

formulating
making a set of making a set of
material objectives
candidate materials candidate materials
and constraints
2 1 2

gathering material
information 6

material cooperating
testing materials
5 and consulting 7

comparing candidate choosing candidate comparing candi-

materials materials date materials
3 4 3

Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3

Testing materials cycle. Information and consulting cycles.

61
Analysis of materials selection practice

activities, the information activity is mainly performed during the criteria activity (No.
1) and the making a set activity (No. 2). Equally, the consulting activity is mainly used
during the comparing and choosing activities (No. 3 and 4).

The Materials Selection Activities model

The above described iterations are combined in a model. This model is named the
Materials Selection Activities (MSA) model (figure 4.4). The model shows one cycle of
materials selection activities, but represents the many cycles performed during the
materials selection process.
The time spent on a single cycle differs from moment to moment. When supportive
activities are needed, cycles obviously take longer, than when not. Based on the
findings, we assume that the time spent in one cycle depends on the consequences of
the decisions made. For example, in the concept phase, materials have a large influence
on manufacturing and costs and are therefore considered thoroughly, but not in full
detail. A relatively large amount of time is therefore spent on one cycle. When arriving
at full materials specifications, materials are considered on the basis of more detailed
information, but the decisions have fewer consequences. The activities and cycles
follow each other very quickly. During one or two consultations with materials experts,
many cycles are carried out.
The contribution of the MSA model can be found in the way this model explicitly
describes the information and consulting activities. Fidel & Green (2004) state that
especially human sources are not often recognized in studies trying to understand
the information behaviour of engineers, although they are one of the main sources

DESIGN BRIEF formulating

making a set of
material objectives
candidate materials
and constraints
wood, metal,
1 2
plastic

gathering material
ABS, PC information 6
silicones
material cooperating
testing materials
and consulting 7 5

choosing candidate comparing candidate

MATERIALS materials materials
SPECIFICATIONS
4 3

Figure 4.4
Materials Selection Activities model (MSA model).

62
 Creating a model for materials selection activities

in engineering. The MSA model explicitly specifies the role of human information
providers in the materials selection process and could therefore be more accurate.
Discussions with young designers learned that they often do not recognize information
activities as work, although they are necessary to select materials. Besides, this model
shows that these activities occur from the early phases in product development
throughout the whole product development phase and not only at the end. The MSA
model can thus be used to train young designers and can contribute to more realistic
insight into product designers’ materials selection approaches. This aspect is further
explored in section 5.4.

MSA model compared to existing models

The MSA model resembles, to some extent, product development models such as, Hall’s
problem solving steps (Hall, 1962), the last four problem solving phases of Ullman
(2002) and the basic design cycle (Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995) in which the steps
are: analysis (resembles the criteria activity), synthesis (resembles the set activity),
simulation (resembles the testing activity), evaluation (resembles the comparing
activity) and decision (resembles the choosing activity). However, there are some
differences.
One of the main contributions of the MSA model is the illustration of two additional
activities, to the general problem solving steps, namely the information and consulting
activities. Explicitly showing these activities acknowledges the fact that product
designers do not carry out the selection process on their own, but depend on others
in their materials selection activities. Although, for example Ullman (2002) places a
‘document and communicate’ task in his mechanical design model, it is limited to this
task and not so extensively described as in the MSA model. Placing these activities in a
central position of the model enhances the communication about these activities and
the relevance of them. Note that information retrieval can in itself have many phases.
For example, Poltrock et al. (2003, page ) explain information retrieval as that it
‘involves identifying an information need, formulating a query, retrieving information,
evaluating it, and applying it to address the need’.
The criteria activity and the revision of the criteria is one of the basic materials
selection activities. This activity is performed throughout the project and not just at
the analysis phase. The MSA model, therefore, differs both from design methods and
analytical materials selection strategies that position the criteria activity mainly at the
beginning of the materials selection process.
Product designers break down the problem because of limitations of the short term
memory (Ullman, 2002). This is visualised in the MSA model. It shows that the
activities are performed one to several times per product development phase, for
example in the embodiment design phase. The materials are thus not determined
at once, but in increasingly detailed steps and with different attention points. The
number of candidate materials that is considered simultaneously is about three. The

63
Analysis of materials selection practice

model distinguishes itself from the analytical approaches that speak of materials
selection as a selection moment.
This materials selection model is organized as a sequence of materials selection
activities instead of in product development phases, such as concept design,
embodiment design and detail design (Ashby, 1999). An advantage is that materials
selection is described in the MSA model on execution level and not on the level of
physical outcomes such as sketches or lists of materials. As mentioned before, the MSA
model serves as a framework to identify during which activities materials selection
can be improved. Identifying only the outcomes that can be improved provides no
instruments with which to reach these outcomes. However, identifying possible
improvements on execution level helps to improve what product designers actually do.

4.4 Conclusions
Empirical data was obtained to create a model that systematically describes and
organizes the materials selection activities of product designers. This data was formed
into the MSA model, which follows an iterative problem solving approach that is made
specific for selecting materials. It shows four basic materials selection activities, which
are the criteria, set, comparing and choosing activities. The formulation of material
criteria and the revision of them (the criteria activity) occupy a central role in the
iterations. Additional to existing models, it adds activities that show that product
designers depend on information sources for their basic materials selection activities.
These are the supportive activities in the model and include gathering information,
consulting specialists and testing materials. The model is expected to improve the
communication about the materials selection process and is assumed to form an
effective basis to evaluate and structure the needs of product designers throughout the
user-centred materials selection process.

Chapter 5 and 6 are based on:

I.E.H. van Kesteren, J.C.M. de Bruijn, P.J. Stappers (2007, in press) Evaluation of materials
selection activities in user-centred design cases. Journal of Engineering Design

And:
I.E.H. van Kesteren, P.J. Stappers, J.C.M. de Bruijn (submitted) Product designers’
approaches of integrating user-interaction aspects in materials selection. Design
Studies

64
 Chapter

5 Validating the Materials

Selection Activities model

The Materials Selection Activities (MSA) model, of which the creation is described
in chapter 4, shows the activities that product designers perform to select materials.
This model forms the basis for two studies in which 15 finished design projects
are analysed. This chapter describes the first study. This study validates the model
by analysing the specific characteristics of it (the order of activities and the role of
information in the model). The second study aims to identify the critical factors in an
effective materials selection process (chapter 6). This chapter explains the method
for obtaining and analysing the case studies and the study performed to validate the
model. The applicability of the reworked model for teaching students the materials
selection process is discussed at the end of this chapter.

5.1 Objectives of the study

The MSA model can be used to describe the materials selection process of product
designers when the model represents the materials selection activities in different
projects, as well as the user-product interaction considerations herein. This
information is relevant, not only for evaluating design projects, but also for providing
design students an materials selection structure based on practise.
The MSA model was formed based on interviews with product designers, who spoke
about their materials selection process in general (section 4.1). The activities found in
these interviews are organized by a reasoning process into the sequences and relations
shown in the model, but not discussed again with product designers. The next step is
to validate the model based on its particular characteristics in single design projects.
The particular characteristics of the MSA model are threefold: 1) the selection
of materials is performed in a sequence of iterative activities, 2) the activity of
formulating material objectives and constraints is centrally placed in these iterations
and 3) the activities of gathering information and consulting information providers are
specifically included in the MSA model. In section 4.3 was argued, that these activities

65
Analysis of materials selection practice

are important to make decisions about the criteria and the best material options.
The relevance of showing the information activities in the model is dependent on the
number of activities in which information is used.
The aim of the study was to validate the MSA model by exploring the particular
characteristics of it via the following research questions:

Question 1 Is there a similar sequential order of activities in the

MSA model and in design projects?

Question 2 How often do product designers use information

in their materials selection process and does this justify for the
central role assigned to the information activities in the model?

The study, performed in the framework of this project by Holper et al. (2006), showed
that in design projects, requirements come forward that deal with product personality.
However, function, shape and use aspects were found more frequently in the projects.
Product personality aspects were not communicated solely by requirements but
also through visual means such as collages. When materials are not predefined in a
project, product designers have greater freedom in the materials’ selection activities.
In these cases, product personality aspects were among the dominant requirements
in materials selection. In other projects, where materials were predefined or selected
by an external party, product personality aspects were among the least dominant
requirements.
Besides studying the characteristics of the model in the design projects, the projects
were used to observe whether it is possible to predict the moments where user-
interaction aspects are considered in the materials selection process. If no user-
interaction aspects are considered at all, the MSA model cannot be used to describe
materials selection in user-centred design projects. However, in particular activities,
where user-interaction aspects are considered this can be added to the model. The last
question studied is therefore:

Question 3 Are there materials selection activities where

product designers pay more attention to the user-interaction
aspects of materials than during other activities?

5.2 Case study method

To validate the characteristics of the model, a case study approach was used. This
approach differs from the previous technique to create the model although in both
studies product designers were involved. During the interviews, performed to create
the model, we discussed the materials selection process in general and not related to a
specific project. These results were formed into the MSA model by a reasoning process.

66
 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

It therefore does not assure that the model represents single projects. To assess the
outcomes of this reasoning process, the materials selection steps taken in a particular
project were identified and compared with the model.
The heterogeneity of the studied cases is important in this study. The more the projects
differ, the more discrepancy might exist between the MSA model and the design
practice. This means that when the model is similar to the projects the model will be
more robust. Participants were therefore selected from a wide range of design offices.
Fourteen Dutch design offices participated in this study, ranging in size from 1 to
40 employees. One product designer of each office agreed to outline a case about
the materials selection process of one of their design projects. From one office, two
cases have been constructed, resulting in 15 cases in total. The product designers’
experience ranged from 1 to 35 years with a mean of 10 years. All were involved in the
materials selection process in the projects.

Procedure
The product designers were asked to select a user-centred design project, i.e. a project
in which emotional, sensorial and ergonomic considerations are key factors in the
design choices besides the technology choices (table 5.1). The projects concerned a
new product or design, released in the period spanning from two years before to one
year after the interview. The product designers were visited in their design studio for
the interview.
The interviews were performed in three steps.

Step 1 Outlining the case

The product designers were asked to explain the materials selection steps they took
to design the product. Besides an oral explanation, the product designers were asked
to make an outline of their materials selection steps with cards representing the
outcomes of the basic activities of the MSA model (figure 5.1). A total of eight cards
could be used to indicate the following: product criteria, material criteria, making a
set (2 cards), comparing (2 cards) and choosing (2 cards). Each card represented a
different detail level, for example a set of materials groups (e.g. wood, plastic or metal
represented by different symbols) or a set of materials variations (e.g. Al4000, Al3000
represented by similar symbols). Product designers were free to add or adjust cards
and were encouraged to make notes and decisions on the paper they used to make the
outline.

Step 2 Marking data points

After the representation was made, the product designers indicated the design
aspects that they considered during different materials selection steps. They did
that for the moments at which we expected the product designers to be aware of the
design aspects considered. The first moment was when product designers used the
formulated criteria in an activity, for example to make a set of candidate materials or

67
Analysis of materials selection practice

Table 5.1
Projects discussed in the cases.

Case Project Objectives Examples

1 Ankle brace Redesign of an existing product with a complex
manufacturing process
2 Shaver stand A new additional product for existing shavers to
enhance their appearance

3 Children’s car New series of products based on existing designs,

seat new appearances 2
4 Relax chair New product to change the appearance of the chair
and make it usable in public spaces
5 Blister lock New product for protecting goods from stealing
that hang on rods in a shop
6 Medical hand- New product for the medical treatment of patients
held 9
7 Lighting for New product on solar energy, to be manufactured
rural people in rural areas
8 Stairs elevator New product, focus on arm rest and user-interface

9 Global family New family of products for hiking with small

gear children, child carrier 10

10 Braille terminal Redesign of a product for Braille reading to include

a mouse control

11 Public letter- Redesign of an 20 year old version of the mail box

box
12 Cutting tray New product to replace the disposable version with
a durable version 11
13 Hospital bed New products for the patient alert system that
communication enable interaction with patients and nurses

14 Sample folder New product and manufacturing process for the
display of material samples
15 Colour New products and interaction for the colour
spectrum selection of paints
(only step 1) 13

material criteria
*    
*
    
*




*
set  comparison choice
Figure 5.1
Examples of activity cards used for reconstructing materials selection steps. Symbols were used to
represent different materials (different symbols) or variations on the same material (variations on a
symbol).

68
 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

Table 5.2
List of the ten design aspects that were used in the questionnaires.

Technology aspects User-interaction aspects

Function F Product Personality PP
Materials M Use U
Shape S
Manufacturing MP
Marketing/ Sales Sa
Durability D
Costs C Other O

to choose materials. The second moment was when the product designers gathered
information. The product designers marked these moments as data points using
coloured stickers and tagged them with a number.

Step 3 Design aspects considered

For each data point indicated in step 2, the product designers picked the design
aspects that they considered at that point from a list (table 5.2). The list is based on
the MSC model (section 2.2) and the study of Holper et al. (2006). In their study, they
found three additional aspects that are considered during the process of materials
selection (marketing/ sales, durability and costs). Product personality and use are the
two user-interaction aspects in this list.

Data processing
To distinguish between the marked data points which included user-interaction
aspects and the data points which did not, these were grouped into two categories,
namely 1) the user-product interaction (UI) category (a combination including use,
product personality or both) and 2) the none user-product interaction (NUI) category
(a combination of function, materials, shape and manufacturing without product
personality or use).
The cases were processed into diagrams by combining two kinds of data: 1) the
outlines of the materials selection steps and 2) the design aspects that the product
designers selected in the questionnaires. The diagrams represent the materials
selection steps taken in a project. The results of the case of the cutting tray (case 12)
are now used to explain how these diagrams were made (figure 5.2). The full set of
diagrams is presented in appendix 2.
Every activity card used in the outline made by the product designer is represented
by a rectangle in the diagram (figure 5.2). The rectangles show letters referring to
the activities of the MSA model. For example, ‘oc’ refers to the activity of ‘formulating
materials objectives and constraints’. The activities that were marked as a data point

69
Analysis of materials selection practice

show a number and a matrix with six boxes (e.g. point E, G and H in figure 5.2). The top
line shows the data points marked at the moments that the product designer indicated
having used the formulated criteria. The bottom line shows the moments the product
designers indicated having gathered information and marked that as a data point. The
numbers refer to the case number and the sequence number of the data point. The
six boxes represent the design aspects from the MSC model (as introduced in section
2.2) that the product designers could select in the questionnaires. The legend of the
figure shows which aspect refers to which box. A black or grey box indicates that this
aspect was considered at the data point. The technology aspects are shown in grey, the
user-interaction aspects are shown in black.
Figure 5.2 shows that the first materials selection activity in the case of the cutting
tray (case 12) was ‘formulating materials objectives and constraints’ (A, oc) followed
by choosing candidate materials (B, ch). For the chosen candidate materials a set of
variations was made (C, s), which were compared in the next activity (D, cp). Based
on this comparison a new set was made (E, s), which contains candidate materials on
a more detailed level than the first set. The product designer indicated that he had
used criteria and gathered information here (data points 12.1). He considered the

Materials Selection Activity

oc = objectives and
constraints
s s = making a set
I cp = comparing
ch = choosing
A
H, 12.3
Datapoints
using the
12.1 formulated critera
gathering information
12.1
G, 12.2 B about materials

Considered aspects

C F M PP
F S MP U

D F = function
M = materials
S = shape
E, 12.1 MP = manufacturing
PP = product personality
U = use

12 12.1 12.2
oc ch s cp s cp ch cp ch
12.1 12.2 12.3
A B C D E F G H I

Figure 5.2
Example of the materials selection steps reconstructed from the cutting tray project (case 12) and the
diagram created about it.

70
 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

following aspects: function, materials, shape, manufacturing and use. After making this
detailed set, the product designer compared the candidates (F, cp) and chose them (G,
ch). During the choosing activity, he indicated that he had used criteria and gathered
information for the second time (data points 12.2). The design aspects considered
while using criteria were: function, materials, shape, manufacturing and use. The
aspect considered while gathering information was the manufacturing process. After
choosing the candidate materials, a third comparison took place (H, cp). Here several
tests were performed and information was gathered (data point 12.3). The design
aspects included in this information were: function, shape, product personality and
use. The last activity was the choosing activity (I, ch).

5.3 Results
The diagrams that were made are presented in appendix 2. The results discussed here
are based on these diagrams. The data point numbers refer to the numbers given in
these diagrams.

Question 1, the MSA model compared to the sequence of activities

The first research question compares the order of activities represented in the MSA
model and found in the project cases. The iterations are discussed first, followed by
the position of the criteria activity in the cycle, and finish with the order of the basic
activities.

Iterations
The MSA model shows a single cycle of activities, but represents the iterations needed
in the materials selection process. The studied cases indeed show that materials are
selected by performing more than one cycle. However, the product designers outlined
just a few cycles for the whole project, from initiation to product specification. This
might indicate that the materials selection process indeed has three or four cycles per
project. On the other hand, product designers can also have performed a number of
cycles unconsciously, which was not revealed in the cases. The fact that the projects
were discussed after finishing them makes it difficult to validate this. However, the
results clearly show that at least more than one cycle is needed to select materials and
that materials selection is indeed an iterative process.
The product designers used all the activity cards in their projects, indicating that
all activities are needed in the model. Activities not present in the MSA model were
not used by the product designers. However, some participants used a blank card to
indicate a quick follow up of the set, comparing and choosing activities. Furthermore,
extra cards were used to indicate information and testing activities.

Criteria activity
The outlined cases show that the projects start with an analysis phase in which the

71
Analysis of materials selection practice

project objectives and constraints are set. Most product designers used more than
one card to indicate their formulating criteria. Product designers perform the criteria
activity also later in the project, such is predicted by the MSA model. In many cases,
just after the criteria activity, the choosing activity was performed. Especially in the
beginning of a project, the product designers do not make a set of materials and
compare them, but directly choose options based on experience. These materials are
for example generally used in a product category or are determined by the production
facilities of the product designers’ client. With the predefined choices, they limit their
materials searches to certain materials families early in the project. However, when
later in the project these pre-choices need to be reconsidered because they appear
insufficient, the product designers will do so.

Order of activities
The MSA model shows an order of basic activities that are needed to be performed to
be able to select materials, namely first the criteria activity, followed by the set and
comparing activities and finally the choosing activity. The case projects do not always
show this order. For example, cases 3, 7, 8, 12 and 14 show the activity of formulating
objectives and constraints directly being followed by the choosing activity (appendix
2).
The set activity is not always present in the later design phases of the outlined projects,
although a sequence of comparing and choosing is present. Product designers might
see selecting a variation of one material not as a sequence of making a set, comparing
and choosing but just as comparing. The results provide no information about this
issue.
The comparing activity is sometimes indicated by more than one card and the design
aspects compared per card differ. This means that the product designer did not
compare all the design aspects of the materials simultaneously, but sequentially. The
same situation was found to hold for the choosing activity.
Product designers skip some of the activities of the model in their projects especially
in the later design phases. Proceeding studies should assess why the steps are skipped
and what the consequences are for the effectiveness in the materials selection process.
The design projects should for this purpose not be studied in retrospect, but during the
process. Only then it is possible to be sure that the activities are skipped, and not just
forgotten by the participant.
In conclusion, a similar order of activities was found in the design projects and the
MSA model. The projects followed an iterative materials selection process, as predicted
in the MSA model and not just a single material choice moment. The criteria activity
is found at different stages in the projects, which justifies the position of the criteria
activity in the model. All the activities of the MSA model are found in the projects,
although, not always in the exact sequence as described in the MSA model. Especially,
at the beginning of a project, the sequence is a choosing activity directly after a criteria

72
 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

activity. This choosing activity closes the analysis phase and results in a selection of
materials families that form the basis for the materials selection searches in the design
phase.

Question 2, the relevance of information activities in the MSA model

The relevance of describing information activities in the MSA model is investigated
by analysing the percentage of the materials selection steps in which information
was used. This was done per information provider and per activity in which the
information was used. Mapping these sources gives insight in the role of the different
information providers in e.g. supporting the criteria activity or the choosing activity.

Method
The transcriptions from the product designers’ descriptions of their materials
selection process were transformed into quotes representing a single step in the
process. These quotes were categorised in the materials selection activities of the MSA
model. The information activities were not used as a category because these activities
are performed during other activities. Quotes that could be categorized as two or more
activities, or did not represent an activity of the MSA model, were categorized as ‘other
activities’.
For every quote the following two aspects were indicated: 1) whether or not the
product designer searched for information in this step, and 2) what his or her main
information source was. If more than one human information provider was mentioned
in a quote, it is categorized as ‘group’. If it was clear that the product designer had
searched for information in a materials selection step, but did not indicate which
source, it is categorized as ‘other source’.

Results
The number of quotes in the different categories is presented in appendix 3. A total
number of 459 quotes was found in the 15 case descriptions. In 70 percent of all
quotes, information was used.
The percentages in figure 5.3 illustrate in how many of the materials selection steps
information was used. The pictures indicate the main information sources. In more
than half of the materials selection steps, information was used. For the activities,
represented at the right of the MSA model (set, comparing and testing activities), this
percentage climbed to 75%, 86% and 94%. The results clearly show that product
designers gather and use information frequently in materials selection.
The main information sources were the client, the supplier, the manufacturer, the user,
models and a group of people (figure 5.4). The group of people often consisted of the
designer, an expert, the client and/or a manufacturer or supplier. These information
providers were used in 19 to 7 percent of the steps respectively, which indicates that
product designers rely on different sources in the project (appendix 3). The materials
selection activities for which the sources are consulted differ from activity to activity.

73
Analysis of materials selection practice

The client is mainly used as an information source when formulating objectives and
constraints and during choosing. The rest of the activities are left to the designer,
which is logical because the client appoints the product designer to do this job.
However, during the set activity, the client provides the commonly used materials in
some occasions.
Suppliers and manufacturers are consulted during all activities except for that of
formulating objectives and constraints. However, they can indirectly influence
objectives and constraints as these are sometimes adjusted during other activities.
Users are an information source for formulating objectives and constraints, for example
in the analysing design phases. They are also used in the testing materials activity.
Models are used as sources during the testing materials activity.
Making a set of candidate materials and comparing activities are sometimes performed
with a group of people, using information from different sources in a discussion. The
results, however, show that the choice is left to the designer, client and manufacturer.

formulating
making a set of
material objectives
candidate materials
and constraints
57% 75%

gathering material
information

material cooperating
testing materials
and consulting 94%

choosing candidate comparing candidate

materials materials
54% 86%

54% of the choosing activities

require the use of information

client supplier manufacturer group user model

Figure 5.3
Main information sources in materials selection. Percentages represent in how many of the steps, the
usage of information was found, categorized per materials selection activity (appendix 3).

74
 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

Materials suppliers are not involved in the choosing activity.

Although both Fidel & Green (2004) and Hertzum & Pejtersen (2000) found that
colleagues are among the main information sources in engineering, the product
designers did not mention colleagues as a frequently used source. The product
designers mostly worked as teams and explained their materials selection steps from
a team point of view and thus not mentioned colleagues as a source. Furthermore, the
expertise needed to make material decisions was often found outside the team.
In conclusion, the results clearly indicate a large frequency of the information activities
in the materials selection process and in almost equal contributions of the different
information sources. These sources are mainly people. It is therefore justified to assign
a central role to the information activities in materials selection models, which is the
case in the MSA model.

Question 3, user-interaction aspects in the MSA model

The last question studied is whether it is possible to point out activities in the MSA
model where user-interaction aspects of materials are more frequently considered
than during other activities.
Generally, it differs per project at what phase user-interaction aspects are considered
in the materials selection process (appendix 2). Nevertheless, in most projects,
user-interaction aspects played a role in the first criteria activities. Furthermore,
user-interaction aspects played a role towards the final phases of the projects.

other source client

17% 19%

other expert
5%

model manufacturer
7% 15%

users
10% supplier
group of sources 14%
13%

13% of the used information was

coming from a group of sources

Figure 5.4
The information sources consulted by the product designers. Percentages represent in how many of
the steps, the usage of a specific information source was found.

75
Analysis of materials selection practice

Table 5.3
Moments where product designers used criteria (criteria data points) and gathered information
(information data points) organized in the activities of the MSA model.

Activity Criteria data points Information data points

Code UI NUI Total UI NUI Total

Criteria activity oc 12 0 12 9 6 15
Set activity s 9 4 13 8 7 15
Comparing activity cp 3 4 7 4 2 6
Choosing activity ch 9 3 12 3 2 5
Testing activity t 0 0 0 3 0 3
Information activities i 0 0 0 1 0 1
Other activities o 1 1 2 1 1 2
Total 34 12 46 29 18 47 93

In every project, user-interaction criteria were formulated and used (appendix 2, top
line). In two projects this were only use criteria and they were considered only once:
in the ankle brace case (case 1, data point 1.1) and in the case of the public letter-box
(case 11, data point 11.3). In the other projects user-interaction criteria were used
several times.
In all projects, information was gathered about user-interaction aspects (appendix
2, bottom line). The only exception is the shaver stand project (case 2), in which
the product designer was able to formulate objectives and constraints about user-
interaction aspects without additional information (data points 2.1-3). In the blister
lock project (case 5), the product designer only once considered user-interaction
aspects during information activities (data point 5.2), at which he specifically searched
for information about this topic. In the lightning and stairs elevator projects (case 7
and 8) information was required about user-interaction aspects for one part of the
product only (data points 7.1-2 and 8.2).
The product designers marked data points at the moment they used earlier formulated
criteria or when they gathered and used information. These data points were divided
in two categories based on whether or not user-interaction aspects were involved
(UI and NUI category). In table 5.3, the number of found data points per category is
presented per materials selection activity.
Product designers used their user-interaction criteria for the criteria, set, comparing
and choosing activities (table 5.3). Criteria data points during the criteria activity
illustrate the moments were product designers revised their criteria and during
these moments only the UI category was found. At these data points, user-interaction
and technology criteria were used simultaneously, for example, in the ankle brace,

76
 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

children’s car seat and blister lock projects (e.g. data points 1.1, 3.1-3 and 5.1-4).
In other cases, only user-interaction criteria were used, for example, in the braille
terminal project (e.g. data points 10.1-2).
During the activities other than the criteria activity, both the UI and NUI categories
were found. During these activities, product designers used user-interaction criteria,
technology criteria or a combination to make a set of candidate materials. The same
holds for the comparing and choosing of candidate materials.
About the information data points, table 5.3 shows that the product designers consider
user-interaction aspects when they gather and use information. However, in two-fifths
of the moments they do not consider user-interaction aspects. Information is mainly
gathered during the criteria and set activities.
The results demonstrate that, during the activities of the MSA model, there are
materials selection activities where product designers pay more attention to the
user-interaction aspects of materials than during other activities. During most criteria
activities user-interaction aspects are considered. Product designers define the
objectives and constraints about user-interaction aspects in the beginning of a project
and use these towards the end in the other activities. The product designers gather
information on a combination of user-interaction aspects and other design aspects
or solely about some of the aspects. Information providers should thus be able to
provide combined information. Especially the information providers in the activity of
formulating material objectives and constraints (clients) need to be able to information
about user-interaction and technology aspects.

5.4 Reworked MSA model

The MSA model successfully indicates the iterative nature of the materials selection
process in product design. In addition, it shows the importance of user-interaction
aspects in the materials selection process and when these aspects are considered.
However, with some additions to the model it is expected to illustrate the materials
selection process more accurate.

Additions
The first addition concerns the analysis phase of a design project. In this phase,
not only the objectives and constrains are formulated for the project, but also a
pre-selection of candidate materials is made. Based on these candidate materials, the
product designer starts the synthesis phase. The previous version of the MSA model
does not make a distinction between the different design phases. The model would
thus be more accurate in describing design practice when two activities are added in
the analysis phase before the materials selection cycles start. These activities would be
the formulation of material objectives and constraints and thereafter choosing some
candidate materials based on experience with former projects (figure 5.5). It then

77
design process materials selection activities

ANALYSIS formulating
material objectives
and constraints

choosing candidate
materials formulating
making a set of
material objectives
candidate materials
wood, metal, plastic
and constraints
SYNTHESIS

ABS, PC gathering material

information

material cooperating
unknown details,
testing materials
and consulting
duration of cycle

choosing candidate comparing candidate

materials materials
DESIGN MATERIALS
SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS

Figure 5.5
Materials Selection Activities model in combination with the design process. Adjustments are made in the initial model to include the preliminary selection of
candidate materials in the analysis phase of the design process.
 Validating the Materials Selection Activities model

shows that product designers in current practice regularly start the synthesis phase
with a predefined idea about the materials that will form the product based on what
they know.
Product designers were found to consider user-interaction aspects during most of
the criteria activities in every project. Furthermore, they consider user-interaction
aspects during the information activities, but not at every moment. At some moments
the product designers focused on technology aspects. A possible addition to the model
therefore involves showing the considerations of a combination of user-interaction
and technology aspects at the criteria activities. Furthermore, considerations of either
user-interaction aspects or technology aspects or a combination of both can be added
to the information activities.

How to use the model

The new MSA model can be used, together with the model in which the information
providers are included (figure 5.3), to teach young product designers a structure for
making considered material choices for a new design. Young product designers could
learn from the relation between the design process and the materials selection process
as shown in the MSA model that materials selection starts at the beginning of a project
and that the efforts in selecting materials are needed throughout the project. The
model can help to cut the materials selection process in understandable pieces. The
structure can in addition be used by design teachers to evaluate the argumentation in
the materials selection process of students. Reports can be scanned for descriptions of
the different activities.
Cross (2000) states that design students tend to become bogged down in attempts to
understand the problem before they start generating solutions. The MSA model helps
students to realize that not all material criteria need to be known at the beginning of a
project, but that it evolves along the way. It shows that by following the cycles in which
the activity of formulating of material criteria is present, the problem is also better
formulated. Moreover, the MSA model explains that materials selection is a selection
process in which several solutions are searched for and compared. Considering more
solutions can increase the quality of products.
Students tend to stick to one solution, due to limited knowledge about materials,
especially in the early years of their education (Wright, 1988). The MSA model shows
that limited knowledge and experience is normal in the materials selection process,
even with more experienced product designers. The activities of gathering information
and consulting material experts in the model show that students need to be actively
concerned with looking for information and that the model can help to plan this in
their design process.
The model shows that the materials selection process does not simply stop at
indicating the material families like wood or plastics, but that it has barely started
here. Students need to be encouraged to find information based on their pre-selections

79
Analysis of materials selection practice

and use this information to make more detailed choices. In the mean time, they expand
their materials selection experience, to be able to make better pre-selections in future
projects.
Although the MSA model can show the activities and significant role of information,
it does not show where to obtain the information and how to adequately process it in
the design decisions. Students however frequently asked for this. Using the model in a
course should thus be accompanied with a considerable number of examples of where
to find information about materials, for example the ones identified in this thesis.
Indicating the information providers in the model can stimulate students to not only
look for information in databases and on the Internet, but also to talk to suppliers and
manufacturers. The advantage of getting information from these specialists is that
students learn new possibilities and start making a material information network. The
model can be extended by providing some interesting sources to find information in
the different phases and for the purpose of different activities to put them on their way.

5.5 Conclusions
The MSA model succeeds to describe the materials selection activities in user-centred
design projects. The model is complete in describing all activities that are performed
in iteration. As in 70% of the activities information was used in the projects, we feel
confident that the information activities are relevant in the model. User-interaction
aspects of materials are considered during the materials selection activities, especially
in most criteria activities. The information sources used during these activities thus
need to be able to communicate about these aspects. These information providers
are mainly the client and users. Users, obviously, can provide information about their
interaction requirements via the user studies they participate in. For an effective
formulation of criteria, clients should also be able to communicate about user-
interaction aspects.
The only discrepancy between the model and practice is that the order of activities
followed in practice does not always follow the same order as described in the MSA
model. For that reason, the model was reworked by adding two activities before the
basic selection cycles start. These two activities, criteria and choosing, are performed
in the analysis design phase and result in chosen material families like wood or
plastics. Adding this to the model emphasises that product designers in practice often
start their materials selection process with a set of commonly used materials in their
mind.

80
 Chapter

6 Exploring the critical factors

in materials selection

In the previous chapter, the MSA model was validated by studying 15 design
projects. The same projects are used in this chapter to find the critical factors in
an effective materials selection process. The study focused on the moments where
product designers needed extra steps in the process and the factors that accelerate
the materials selection process. The relation between these critical factors and the
involvement of user-interaction aspects in the activities was of special interest.
Exploring these critical factors helps to find the requirements to improve the materials
selection process. The findings of this study form the basis for a new materials
selection approach that is described in broad outline in chapter 7.

6.1 Objectives and expectations of the study

The explanations about user-interaction aspects in materials selection in chapter 2
bring in that selecting materials in user-centred design project is not easy. Several
aspects were seen that influence the effectiveness in the materials selection process.
For example, not finding information about materials that combines the considered
design aspects can lead to not finding the optimal materials that match the objectives
and constraints. This study aims at finding the critical factors that product designers
experience in design practice. Critical factors are those factors that influence the
effectiveness in the materials selection process by leading to extra steps or by not
finding the required materials. Hence, not only the problems are interesting, but also
the activities that go smooth. Understanding why these activities go smooth help to
improve the process.

Expectations
The MSA model shows that the specification and satisfaction of criteria is the most
critical phase in the materials selection process. For example, Brechet et al. (2001)
highlighted the problems of not finding expected solutions based on the requirements,
finding no solutions at all, finding solutions that are obviously wrong, or finding too

81
Analysis of materials selection practice

many solutions. When the outcomes of the criteria activity are not usable as input
for the other activities, the criteria need to be adjusted. Adjusting criteria is a regular
ingredient of the iterative design process and is included in the MSA model, but it is
inefficient when carried out after a search for specific candidate materials has started.
The chance that a search is unnecessary, and hence time is wasted, is always present.
Critical factors in the criteria activity are therefore expected when criteria are adjusted
during search activities (set and comparing activities).
When product designers cannot use the outcomes of previous steps, extra materials
selection steps are needed (figure 6.1). When the outcomes of a basic activity are not
sufficient, the work for creating these outcomes needs to be extended (left figure). A
special situation occurs when the criteria are insufficient for comparing or choosing
(right figure). The criteria then need to be reformulated. These extra steps decrease
the effectiveness in the materials selection process.
It was shown in the previous chapter that user-interaction aspects are considered
during the criteria and information activities. Different information sources are used
during these activities and to be effective, these information sources should include
the user-interaction aspects of materials. Brechet et al. (2001) explain that product
designers have trouble with the use of information, especially when presented in
databases, when the design involves several objectives and constraints or when it
involves simultaneous optimization of more than one design element. Furthermore,
Poelman (2005) explains that the people involved in the materials domain have
different education backgrounds e.g. chemistry or engineering, which makes it difficult
to communicate between fields.
The information activities are the second activity during which critical factors are
expected. The activeness of an information provider is expected to influence the
acceleration in a materials selection step. Furthermore, an activity can be accelerated

criteria set criteria set

activity activity activity activity

choosing comparing choosing comparing

activity activity activity activity

criteria criteria
activity activity

new information searches reformulation of criteria

Figure 6.1
Steps needed when outcomes are not usable in the next activity. In the left figure, only an iteration is
necessary, in the right figure, extra activities are needed.

82
 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

when the advice given is specific to the problem. Product designers depend on
information in their materials selection activities as clearly found in section 5.3 on
page 73. Especially the fact that most information providers are consulted when
product designers consider user-interaction aspects makes it likely that problems
occur in this activity. People involved in the design process tend to discuss the
problem in different vocabularies, e.g. about attributes related to use, in engineering
dimensions or as properties (Cross, 2000). Material experts, who have been trained
to advice on the technology aspects, could therefore have difficulty in recommending
about the user-interaction aspects of materials.

Research questions
The aim of the study is to provide insight into the critical factors in the materials
selection process, especially when user-interaction aspects are involved. The questions
posed were:

Question 1 During which activities do product designers

indicate most critical factors in user-centred materials selection
and what are the main reasons?

Question 2 Do the expected critical factors in the criteria

activity lead to critical adjustments in the materials selection
process?

Question 3 Which information sources are able to give

adequate information about the combination of user-interaction
and technology aspects?

Question 2 and 3 compare the situations in which user-interaction aspects are

considered to the situation where none user-interaction aspects are considered.

6.2 Case study method

The same projects as in chapter 5 are used in this study. During the interviews about
these projects, the product designers outlined their materials selection steps and the
design aspects they considered during the steps (section 5.2). For the purpose of this
study, they performed one additional task, namely they marked the moments at which
the materials selection process was accelerated or slowed down. These moments
identify the product designer’s critical factors in the process (critical data points).
The other data points that were indicated were the moments at which the product
designers used their formulated criteria (criteria data points) and those at which
they used information (information data points). The product designers indicated the
design aspects considered at the activities during which the two latter types of data
points occurred.

83
Analysis of materials selection practice

Table 6.1
Questions for the critical, criteria and information data points.

Data points Open questions 5-point scale questions

Critical
Why did the critical situation How did the formulated criteria and available
occur? information affected this data point (from not to
totally)?
What would you do different
next time?

Criteria
Which criteria were used at this To what extent were criteria adjusted at this point
point? (from not to totally adjusted)?

Information
What kind of information did you How actively was the information provider
need at this point? involved (from not at all to very active)?
Who was the main information How specified was the information (from ‘raw
provider here? information from a book’ to ‘a specialised
advice’)?
How useful was the information (from not at all to
very useful)?

A short questionnaire was used to discuss the materials selection step at each data
point in more detail and to be able to gather the information needed to answer the
research questions (table 6.1).
The data derived from the case descriptions and outlines were processed as explained
in section 5.2. The data points for which the considered design aspects were indicated
(criteria and information data points) were divided into two categories: 1) the user-
product interaction (UI) category (a combination including use, product personality
or both) and 2) the none user-product interaction (NUI) category (a combination of
function, materials, shape and manufacturing without product personality or use). The
answers of the questionnaires were processed as explained in the results sections.

6.3 Results
Table 6.2 shows that a mean number of 2 critical data points and 3 criteria and
information data points were indicated per project. The product designer of the colour
spectrum project (case 15) did not make an outline of his materials selection steps. He
was therefore not able to indicate the data points. The results are based on the other
14 projects.

84
 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

Table 6.2
Number of data points indicated in the outlines made per case. The product designer of the colour
spectrum project (case 15) did not make an outline of his materials selection steps. He was therefore not
able to indicate the data points. The results are based on the other 14 projects.

Case Project Number of

Critical Critera Information
moments moments moments
1 Ankle brace 2 3 5
2 Shaver stand 3 3 3
3 Children’s car seat 1 3 3
4 Relax chair 3 3 4
5 Blister lock 2 4 3
6 Medical hand-held 2 3 4
7 Lighting for rural people 3 4 4
8 Stairs elevator 2 5 3
9 Global family wear 3 2 1
10 Braille terminal 2 2 4
11 Public letter-box 1 4 6
12 Cutting tray 3 2 3
13 Hospital bed communication 1 4 2
14 Sample folder 2 4 2
Total 30 46 47

Question 1, critical factors

The first question explores the moments at which the materials selection process was
accelerated or where the materials selection process was slowed down. The product
designers marked these moments as critical data points. The critical data points are
organized according to the activities in the MSA model. The reasons that the product
designers gave for the occurrences of these data points are discussed here.
In all projects, the product designers experienced critical factors. In about half of the
projects these moments accelerated the materials selection process (successes), at the
other moments, extra steps turned out to be needed in the process (problems). The
critical data points were indicated during all activities of the MSA model (table 6.3).
The only exception is the testing activity, which was added by some product designers
as an activity card, yielded no data points. During the criteria activity, 35% of all
critical factors are indicated.
We expected to find critical factors during the activities in which product designers
search for information and used their formulated criteria. Table 6.4 indeed shows that
clear restrictions in the materials searches and the availability of information facilitate

85
Analysis of materials selection practice

Table 6.3
Activities in which critical factors were found (successes and problems).

Activity Successes Problems

Criteria activity 5 6
Set activity 3 1
Comparing activity 3 2
Choosing activity 2 3
Information activities 2 3
Testing activities 0 0
Other activities 0 1
Total 15 16 31

the materials selection process. However, besides these factors, another factor was
critical in five of the projects, namely, a change in the project objectives. These changes
did not result from material related aspects, but from other design aspects such as the
manufacturing process, costs or target group. However, these changes proved critical
for an effective materials selection process, as they led to extra steps in reformulating
the material criteria and extra steps in the materials searches in the projects. Extra
steps were especially needed when the information gathered before the change did
not provide enough details to re-evaluate the selected materials for the new objectives.
The first was to ask the information provider whether the materials still fulfilled the
criteria and the second, to search for new materials if this was not the case.
Clear restrictions on the material search accelerated the set activity. For example,
a restriction in technology, finished products in the portfolio or the number of
products to be produced resulted in a smaller set of adequate materials. However,
in the cutting tray project (case 12), restrictions led to extra steps in the materials
selection process. The client did not want to use a certain plastic in this project,
although this later turned out to be the best option. In two other projects, materials
decisions were made by an external party. These materials were thus a starting point
for the project. However, these materials were not always the best solution for the
objectives of the product and therefore caused unwanted delays. For example, in the
shaver stand project (case 2) the client had made an agreement with a manufacturer,
however, it later became evident that other materials were more cost effective, making
it necessary to change the manufacturing process. A similar problem occurred in
the hospital bed communication project (case 13). Others had selected a specific
thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), but printing on the material was required, which was
not possible with the selected TPE. In short, restrictions can speed up the process as
long as is clear what the basis is for the restrictions.
The availability of information was indicated as a critical factor in the materials
selection process. If the information was available, for example within the databases

86
 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

Table 6.4
Reasons why materials selection went smooth or why difficulties arose.

Reasons why materials selection went smooth Times found

Clear restrictions for the materials search 6
Information is available 5
Synergy between information providers 3
Materials were found that fulfilled the criteria 1

Reasons why difficulties arose in the materials selection steps

Information is not available 5
Change of project objectives or scope 5
Materials did not fulfil criteria 3
Biased client 1
Time pressure 1
Wrong estimation of criteria 1
Total 31

of the design agencies, this was shown as having accelerated the materials searches.
However, both during the set and comparing activities, product designers indicated
difficulties with finding information. Information was not available or insufficiently
in-depth to specify details. The product designers needed to optimize their decisions
about user-interaction and technology aspects in separate steps. For example, at one
point in the mail box project (case 11) another material was chosen to adjust the
strength of a product part. However, after testing these materials in a prototype, it was
discovered that this material did not match aesthetic criteria. In the children’s car seat
project (case 3), materials were selected based on aesthetic qualities, but needed to be
eliminated later in the process because they did not match the technical requirements.
In the medical hand-held project (case 6), there was not even an adequate match
between user-interaction and technology aspects of materials.
Successes were furthermore indicated during different activities at the moments
where a group of people (client, product designer, materials experts) came together
to discuss the project. The form of information influenced the activity the information
was used in. If there was synergy between the information providers and they were
able to form a specialized advice, this accelerated decisions in the set and comparing
activities enormously.
In three projects, the product designers could, at one point, not find adequate
materials for the project. In these cases, the criteria were too restricting, or unclear. In
two projects, this was solved by putting more effort into the tests and fine-tuning of
the materials. In one project, the criteria for the test were unclear and as a result the
materials were evaluated on other criteria than initially agreed upon.

87
Analysis of materials selection practice

In conclusion, product designers experience most critical factors in their materials

selection process during the criteria activity. The availability of information in
this activity influences the accuracy with which criteria can be formulated. These
restrictions affect other activities, such as creating and comparing a set of candidate
materials. Critical in these activities is the availability of information about user-
interaction aspects of materials. Specialized advice speeds up the activity regarding
where the information is needed.
An unexpected critical factor leading to extra steps in the materials selection process
are changes in the project scopes. After a change, product designers needed to adjust
the material criteria and start a new search for information about materials. The
product designers therefore indicated not only preferring a specialized advice, but also
the considerations of the information provider to formulate this advice. When changes
are needed, the product designer can then easily re-evaluate the selected materials.

Question 2, adjustments of criteria

The previous section shows that, during the activity of formulating criteria, relatively
often critical factors are found. Whether these factors also lead to extra steps in the
materials selection process, is studied here. The focus is on the moments where
criteria are adjusted when a material search has started, thus during the set and

reasonable adjustments critical adjustments

user-interaction category user-interaction category

case 5, point 1, 3 and 4 criteria set case 3, point 3: unclear criteria
case 13, point 2 activity activity case 9, point 1: unclear criteria
case 14, point 1 and 4 case 13, point 3: unclear criteria
1 2

other activity,
user-interaction category
case 11, point 3: unclear criteria

user-interaction category user-interaction category

case 7, point 1 choosing comparing case 4, point 3: unclear criteria
case 8, point 3 activity activity case 13, point 4: changed criteria
case 9, point 2
4 3 none user-interaction category
case 4, point 4: incomplete criteria
case 6, point 3: changed criteria
case 11, point 2: incomplete criteria

Figure 6.2
Adjustments of criteria. Adjusted criteria during the set and comparing activities, presented in black,
are more critical than during the other activities. For these activities, the reasons why criteria were
adjusted are given.

88
 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

comparing activities, and on whether user-interaction aspects were involved at this

moment.
The product designers indicated 46 criteria data points in total (table 6.2). In 18 of
these points the formulated criteria were adjusted and these points are organized in
the MSA model in figure 6.2. The numbers in this figure refer to the case number and
data point number, which can be found in the diagrams of the cases in appendix 2.
The product designers of 10 of the 14 projects adjusted criteria. This could be during
one of the four basic activities of the MSA model. In most cases criteria were adjusted
that included criteria on user-interaction aspects. Only at three data points only none
user-interaction criteria were adjusted. At these data points, the product designers
made adjustments during the comparing activity. In the UI category, adjustments were
made during all basic materials selection activities.
The reasons whether or not adjustments had been made during the criteria and
choosing activities are a consequence of the iterative nature of the materials selection
process and fit in the criteria activity in the MSA model. A distinction was made
between these activities, in which it is reasonable that adjustments are made, and
other activities. Adjustments during other activities are extra steps and may slow
down the set activity when instead of finding candidate materials closely related to the
ones found earlier, entirely or partly new set needs to be made.
These results lead to three main reasons why criteria were adjusted during the critical
activities: 1) the formulated criteria were unclear, 2) they were incomplete, or 3)
criteria were adjusted after changes in the project objectives.

Unclear criteria
In the car seat, global family wear and hospital bed communication projects (case 3,
9 and 13), criteria were adjusted during the set activity. The criteria were unclear in
a sense that there were many design aspects included in the criteria but not specified
(data points 3.3, 9.1 and 13.3). Finding a solution that matched criteria on both the
technical and user-interaction aspects was therefore difficult. Hence, the consequences
of the unclear criteria in these projects were that no adequate materials were found
and criteria needed to be adjusted to focus a new search. This increased the time spent
in the subsequent set activity.
In the relax chair project (case 4), unclear criteria were adjusted during the comparing
activity. At this point, the product designer compared the consequences of a
considered material on the aesthetics and shape. The adjustments did not only lead to
specification of the material criteria, but also of the shape criteria. This was a crucial
step in the project for focusing the project.
The client of the public letter-box project (case 11) was involved in different steps in
the materials selection process, such as comparing and testing. This client was not able
to make himself clear regarding the criteria about user-interaction aspects. As a result,

89
Analysis of materials selection practice

the product designer made many iterative changes and new searches to select the
materials the client wanted (data point 11.3).

Incomplete criteria
In the relax chair project (case 4), the criteria regarding technology aspects were
not well formulated and therefore needed reformulation and detailing before the
product designer was able to compare the materials (data point 4.2). Although the
requirements were specified enough for making a set of candidates, comparing them
was not possible. The consequence was that an extra step was needed to reformulate
the criteria, thus causing the comparing activity to take longer than needed.
In the public letter-box case, material tests showed an unwanted reliability problem
(data point 11.2). In the searches that followed, the material characteristics that
caused this effect were added as criteria. The consequences were that extra materials
searches were needed.

Changed criteria
In the medical hand-held case, a new manufacturing process was chosen (data point
6.3), leading to adjustments in the criteria and making a new set of candidate materials
necessary. The client changed criteria late in the hospital bed communication project
due to strategic changes in the project (data point 13.4). The material criteria were
more demanding after this change. The product designers of both projects indicated
a critical moment at these changes. As a consequence, extra steps were needed to
formulate the criteria and to search for materials.
In conclusion, criteria are adjusted during the set activity when they are not clearly
enough formulated to make a set. The many design aspects included in the criteria,
relating to both user-product interaction and technology, caused the lack of clarity of
these criteria. An extra step during the set or comparing activity is needed to clarify
the criteria before a set of candidate materials can be selected.
Comparing the selected materials based on the formulated criteria, can lead to the
discovery that the criteria are incomplete, rendering comparisons impossible and an
extra step is necessary to find discriminating criteria for comparisons. Examples of
incomplete criteria were found in the category where none user-interaction aspects
were considered.

Question 3, abilities of information providers

Successes in the materials selection steps depend on the availability of information
about materials (question 1). This section outlines how the different information
providers contribute to these successes. The information sources that provided
information about user-interaction aspects (UI category) are compared with the ones
informing about other aspects (NUI category).
In general, specialized advice accelerated the materials selection activities. However,

90
 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

these recommendations could also slow down the process when not accompanied
by background information. For example, a product designer indicated that some
materials parameters, such as the melt flow index of plastics, are only one of the data
points in the viscosity curve. This information cannot be used to predict the true
processing conditions of the material (case 12). Without interpretation, an information
source is not valuable (case 4). On the other hand, wholly pre-processed information
is not what product designers are seeking for either. Product designers question the
reliability of the information provided (case 6, 7, and 13) or keep searching for new
candidates as they do not know which aspects have been included in the choice of the
information source (case 8). Besides, motivating choices is a way to add to the design
company’s experience (case 8).

Active and specialized

Figure 6.3, in which the bubble size represents the number of participants giving a
specific score, shows that the information providers that were used in the UI-category
vary more in their activeness than in the NUI-category. The sources were reasonably
active in the NUI-category except for 3 information providers. Some information
providers in the UI-category were judged as active and some as not active. The
specification level charts in figure 6.3 show a similar difference between the two

How active was the information provider?

user-interaction category none user-interaction category
score: 1 = not active 5 = very active score: 1 = not active 5 = very active

6 4 3 8 7 29 3 0 2 4 8 18

number of times given number of times given

How specified was the advice given?

user-interaction category none user-interaction category
score: 1 = not specified 5 = totally specified score: 1 = not specified 5 = totally specified

7 2 6 6 7 29 3 0 1 1 13 18

number of times given number of times given

How useful was the information?

user-interaction category none user-interaction category
score: 1 = not useful 5 = very useful score: 1 = not useful 5 = very useful

0 0 4 9 15 29 0 2 2 2 12 18

number of times given number of times given

Figure 6.3
Distribution of answers given in the information questionnaires. 1) How active was the information
source? 2) How specified was the advice given? 3) How useful was the information?

91
Analysis of materials selection practice

Table 6.5
Information providers used in the UI and NUI category including the scores on the activeness of the
source and the level of specification of the advice given.
N# number of data point 5 active or specialized
MA mean score on Active 1 not active or specialized
MS mean score on Specified

Information provider UI category NUI category

N# MA MS N# MA MS
Client 3 3,33 4,00 3 5,00 5,00
User 6 1,83 2,17 0 - -
Supplier 6 4,00 3,60 5 3,80 5,00
Manufacturer 0 - - 4 4,25 4,50
Group of people 5 3,80 3,40 2 4,50 4,50
Other 9 3,13 3,13 4 2,50 2,60
Total 29 18

categories. The information that is used in the NUI category is judged as specialized
in more than 72% of the data points compared to 25% in the UI category. Product
designers can use specialized advices without interpreting the information. They thus
need to interpret the data or parts of the data in the UI category more often than in the
NUI category.
Both categories score high on usefulness. Afterwards, the question that was asked
seemed to aim at how well the product designer was able to search for and use
information. It thus evaluates the product designer instead of the information provider.
Most product designers judged their own capabilities as good.
The results show that the information activities in the UI category take more effort
from the product designers. The information coming from the sources in the UI
category is less specified for the criteria in the project. The activities in which the
information is needed thus take longer in the UI category than in the NUI category.

Information sources
The client, supplier and a group, consisting of a combination of sources, were found
as information providers in both the UI and NUI category (table 6.5). The user was,
obviously, found as a source only in the UI category, but provided no information about
technical aspects. The manufacturer is shown as information provider only in the NUI
category. Although the product designers considered user-interaction aspects in the
moments categorized as UI, they explained that not every source provided information
about user-interaction aspects, and clients in particular did not do so. The product
designers needed to interpret the client’s information for defining and assessing the
user-interaction aspects of the materials.

92
 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

Table 6.5 summarized the scores on activeness of the information providers and how
specified their recommendations were. The results show that the clients are less active
and specified in the UI category than in the NUI category. The supplier is similarly
active in both categories but less specifying in the UI category. The group of people is
equally active and specialized in the two categories and it depends on the composition
of the group whether there were people able to provide information about the
user-interaction aspects of materials. The ‘other’ sources score relatively low in both
categories although slightly higher in the UI categories. This category includes non-
personal information sources such as books, so the mean scores are influenced by that.
The users are not active or specified. They are often observed in user-tests and their
information is transferred by the product designers into usable information.
In conclusion, the results teach us that product designers put more effort in the
information activities when considering user-interaction aspects than when
considering other aspects. The information providers are less active and specialized in
the UI category. Material experts were not expected to be able to provide information
about user-interaction aspects of materials, although the materials suppliers were
frequently consulted on this. Manufacturers and clients however, tended not to be
involved in providing information about the user-interaction aspects of materials.
Consequently, product designers can not specify their criteria regarding these aspects
or can evaluate the materials based on user-interaction and manufacturing criteria
together.

6.4 Discussion
The MSA model was used in this study as a framework to find critical factors in the
materials selection steps of 15 design projects. This section discusses the results and
evaluates how effective the model was in structuring the steps and the difficulties that
the product designers encountered.

Discussion of the results

Material suppliers and a group of people, such as a combination of client, supplier and
manufacturer, are consulted to provide information both on user-interaction aspects
and technical aspects. However, the client and manufacturer are mainly experts on
technology aspects. This is a problem because the client is involved in formulating
material criteria and these are determinative for the materials searches (section 5.3).
Furthermore, clients are involved in choosing. Different concepts of the criteria can
thus lead to disagreements in the choosing activity, which might in turn lead to extra
steps in the materials selection process. Currently, therefore, product designers cannot
start with clear objectives and constraints about user-interaction aspects.
Identifying difficulties with finding information about user-interaction aspects
of materials was expected. Additionally, the results revealed the more specific

93
Analysis of materials selection practice

problem of product designers not getting specified advice about these aspects. Such
recommendations are desired by them to speed up the decisions in a materials
selection step. Product designers only get ‘raw’ information about user-interaction
aspects that they need to interpret themselves. Product designers can use this
information to re-evaluate candidate materials when project objectives change.
However, it offers no certainty about their choices. For an effective materials selection
process, information providers should be able to include user-interaction aspects in
their recommendations.
Although adjustments in the criteria were made during the set and comparing
activities, the product designers did not always mention that this influenced the
effectiveness of the process. They see it as a normal part of the designing process and
are accustomed to taking a step back when needed. The question is, however, whether
it is possible to reduce the chance of having to take such a step back. If the criteria
are well clarified in advance, the number of extra steps needed when searching for
materials can in many cases be reduced.
Fifteen design projects were evaluated in this study. In every project, critical
factors were indicated, as were the moments at which product designers used their
formulated criteria or information. The total number of data points on which the
results are based seems limited: for example, just 9 data points were identified at
which critical adjustments were made in the formulated criteria. However, finding
these data points justifies that there is indeed an interesting moment in the materials
selection process that merits attention. There are two arguments in favour of this.
First, the projects were discussed in retrospect. That means that the product designers
needed to recall their processes. They may reasonably be expected to recall the most
critical factors in this process, as the everyday difficulties have disappeared into the
background. The results are thus based on these most critical aspects in the process.
The second argument is that, contrary to the expectations, the results revealed extra
critical factors in the cases. These were, for example, the effect of project changes
on the materials selection process and the need for specialized advice as well as
background information about this advice.

Figure 6.4
Examples of the outlined cases of the study. The product designers made linear representations (left example),
hierarchical representations about different product parts (middle example) or relational representations (right
example).

94
 Exploring the critical factors in materials selection

Use of the MSA model for structuring a project

The basic activities of the MSA model were used in this study as elements to structure
the materials selection steps taken in a design project (criteria, set, compare and
choose activities). These activities were set down on cards in two forms to represent
different detail levels (see the outlined steps of the case study mentioned in section
5.2). The product designers who described the projects were free to adjust or add
cards. The supportive activities (information and testing activities) were not shown on
cards, in order to be able to discuss the supportive activities a step later than the basic
activities. This enabled the product designer first to describe the whole picture of the
process and then focus on the aids to the process.
The product designers were eager to talk about their projects and started off without
using the cards. After probing, they felt free to use the cards and to adjust them.
Working with two cards per activity clarified matters, as product designers understood
that they could indicate the different steps they took and did not need to stick to one
selection step.
The outlined case made with the activity cards appeared to be valuable as a memory
aid when going deeper into the critical factors and information use in the materials
selection process. The two step approach helped the designers to oversee the whole
process and indicate the most relevant issues herein. This makes the interview
technique effective. This not only worked for structuring the case in an effective way,
but it also helped with the data analysis.
In some occasions, the activity that the product designer described could not be
represented by any of the given activity cards. It appeared to be extremely difficult
for the product designers to formulate an activity on the same abstraction level as the
given cards. The researcher often gave an idea which the product designers agreed
with or not. This means that the activity cards are only useful to describe the materials
selection steps in a generalized way. Using the cards to go deeper into the separate
actions is difficult since the researcher might influence the representation of the
actions too much. Furthermore, the fact that the activity was performed in the past
makes it complicated to make detailed descriptions of the actions.
In some of the cases the product designers felt limited in their descriptions because
of the systematic interviewing approach that did not match their creative materials
selection approach, which involved letting people to talk about their projects and
experiences. Although unstructured interviews can generate an enormous amount
of valuable information, it is more complicated to process the data than with some
structure as with the cards. The product designers were therefore stimulated to use
the cards, which resulted in different approaches to outline the projects from linear in
time to combined activities that are performed simultaneously (figure 6.4). One out of
the 15 product designers did not outline a case with the structure provided.

95
Analysis of materials selection practice

Another effect of using the cards to describe a case was that the product designers
were very careful about selecting the right card for a step in the project. They thought
aloud about the considerations to select one and sometimes made changes after
describing some of the preceding steps. The product designer thus verifies whether his
descriptions are indeed representing the steps he took. This might indicate that fewer
mistakes are made in the outlining of the case.
Summarizing, the MSA model is effective in structuring a case, although only on
activities level. This level is sufficient for finding the critical factors and information
use in a materials selection project, but does not provide enough details to analyse the
separate actions the product designer performs.

6.5 Conclusions
Several critical factors were found in the studied projects. These critical factors lead to
extra steps in the materials selection process or not finding the optimal solutions for a
project. The factors thus influence the effectiveness in the materials selection process.
The overall problem was that project objectives sometimes change after a material
search has started. As a consequence, some of the materials selection activities already
performed were no longer useful for the new objectives. These changes thus meant
unnecessary extra steps and led to ineffective materials selection. Three other critical
factors were found that were part of the materials selection process.
1 The first critical factor is the formulation of a clear set of material criteria. The
clarity of criteria is influenced by the degree to which criteria are specified and agreed
upon between people involved in the project. Unclear criteria, especially about user-
interaction aspects, made it difficult for product designers to make a set of candidate
materials or to compare them. The client, who is an important information provider in
the criteria activity, is not always supportive here. The problem is that this results in
extra steps in the materials selection process to clarify the criteria.
2 The second critical factor concerned the availability of information about materials
that combines different design aspects, such as user-interaction and technology
aspects. The problem is that product designers cannot make an integral decision about
these aspects, leading to longer searches to find the best available material options.
3 As a third critical factor, product designers indicated the following: They prefer a
combination of specialized advice and background information on the considerations
leading to this advice. Knowing the basis for a particular recommendation is helpful
when modifications to the product are required. This background information was not
always provided in respect to user-interaction aspects of materials, leading to extra
steps to verify whether the materials can still meet the changed requirements.

96
Synthesis of new
materials selection
technique and tools

Part 3
 Chapter

7 Proposal for a new materials

selection technique

In the analysis part of this thesis, the materials selection activities of product designers
were explored to increase the understanding about an effective materials selection
process. The materials selection steps were processed into an activity model and based
on this model the critical factors that influence the effectiveness in materials selection
were identified. These results are used in this chapter to formulate directions for
improvements in the process. Thereby, not only the findings based on current practice
are used, but also the trends and opportunities found in the background part of this
thesis are included.
The chapter presents a vision for an improved approach in materials selection.
Generally, the approach is to postpone the thinking about materials solutions in the
analysis phase until a clear set of materials objectives and constraints are formulated.
This approach can be stimulated with a new materials selection technique and tools
to support it. The outline for this technique is presented in section 7.3 and the design
and evaluation of the tools for this technique is presented in chapter 8 and 9. The final
designs are presented in chapter 10.

7.1 Directions for an improved materials selection process

The following discusses the three areas for improvements in the effectiveness of
the materials selection process and how product designers could improve this.
These areas are ‘the clarity of materials criteria’ and ‘the accessibility of adequate
information about materials’. Furthermore, the area of improving the user-interaction
quality of products with new materials is discussed.

Starting a materials search with clear objectives

The quality of a design is influenced by the shared understanding about the objectives
for a design (Valkenburg, 2000). To avoid expensive changes and delays, it is rewarding
to get things right form the beginning (Janhager, 2005). This is important for the

99
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

design objectives and includes the material objectives and constraints. As shown in the
Materials Selection Activities (MSA) model in figure 5.5 on page 78, product designers
put effort in formulating the material objectives and constraints in the analysis phase
of a project. Theoretically, this would lead to an effective process and high quality
products. However, several critical factors decrease the effectiveness in practice as
discussed in chapter 6.

Critical factors
An overall problem found was, although project objectives are discussed at the
beginning of a project, they sometimes change after a materials search had started.
The new objectives often require new materials criteria and thus extra steps in the
materials selection process. The fact that product designers often, already in the
analysis phase, select a set of candidate materials to start with, increases the risk that
these do not suit the new objectives. Hence, choosing materials early in the design
process decreases the effectiveness of the process.
The active parties involved, in the formulation of material objectives and constraints,
are the product designer and the client. They need to discuss the objectives and
constraints to generate a mutual view about the aimed for interaction qualities.
However, clients find it difficult to express their ideas for the user-product interaction
on a material level. The mutual view is therefore minimal. As a result, product
designers do not have a clear starting point for the materials searches. Furthermore,
when choosing materials, the client and product designer can have different
perceptions of the formulated criteria, which complicates the choosing activity. Hence,
the lack of clarity of the criteria on user-interaction aspects decreases the efficiency to
find materials that both client and product designers agree upon.

Improvements
Overall, to increase the effectiveness of the process, product designers should try to
avoid the chance of changes in the project. Furthermore, increasing the clarification
of material criteria about the user-interaction aspects, should lead to lesser steps to
clarify the criteria during the materials searches. Since the objectives and constraints
come about together with the client, the suggested improvement necessary to start a
materials search with clear objectives is:

Improvement 1 Formulating clear criteria on the user-

interaction aspects of materials with the clients of the project

Using the available information about (new) materials

Chapter 2 explained that product designers use various ways to access information
and use different information sources to acquaint themselves with the materials
characteristics of candidate materials. The availability of adequate information
influences the time needed to find the information and the quality of the solution
found. The critical factors study in chapter 6 revealed that there are several critical

100
 Proposal for a new materials selection technique

factors that diminish the adequate use of information in the materials selection
process.

Critical factors
Product designers indicated two critical factors in their information activities. Firstly,
regarding the lack of specialized advice about candidate materials: product designers
have a preference for advice from the specialists they consult in the materials selection
process. Secondly, regarding the availability of information about the combination of
user-interaction aspects and technology aspects. The main problem experienced was,
that there is hardly any information available that includes both kinds of aspects of a
material. This leads to longer searches to find the best available candidate materials
for both aspects. Furthermore, it could result in not finding the best available options
for creating the user-interaction qualities of the product.
The information that is used during the searches is mainly coming from suppliers,
manufacturers and the client. The interviewed product designers explained that
the last two have difficulties with informing about the user-interaction aspects
of materials. This can partly be explained by the different backgrounds and
focus that they have related to the product, such as the budget requirements or
manufacturability.
Product designers do not only indicate to prefer a specialized advice, they also need
to understand why the advice was given. This background information, accompanying
an advice, is necessary for considering the consequences of the advice for the project.
When this background information is not available, product designers need to ask
for a new advice when material criteria are fine-tuned in the project. This makes the
materials selection process unnecessary longer.

Improvements
The search for materials that meet the user-interaction criteria as well as the other
criteria is a long process as it is difficult to get recommendations about the user-
interaction aspect of materials. However, there is plenty of information available about
the technology aspects of materials (see for example the overview in: Karana et al.,
2008). The process of finding adequate information about the user-interaction aspects
of materials could thus be improved when the technology information is adequate for
the user-interaction aspects as well. The suggested improvement is therefore:

Improvement 2 Reducing the difficulties for information

providers to give an advice accompanied by its backgrounds
about user-interaction aspects of materials

Using the user-interaction qualities of new materials

In the introduction of this thesis was explained that new materials can have better
user-interaction qualities than the conventional ones and therefore have the potential

101
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

to increase the user-interaction qualities of products. However, as found in chapter

5, product designers define, for the most part, the materials for a new product in the
analysis phase. For example, they choose materials that are conventional in a certain
product category. Thereafter, they start the materials searches with this predefined
direction. As a consequence, new materials are hardly considered in the synthesis
phase and product designers and their clients do not grasp the opportunities to
apply new materials with enhanced user-interaction qualities. To be able to increase
the user-interaction qualities of product the following improvement is therefore
necessary:

Improvement 3 Including new materials in the considerations

in the materials selection process

7.2 Tactics for achieving the suggested improvements

In the current materials selection practice, product designers experience problems
with the effectiveness of their process. Adjustments in their approach could diminish
these problems. The alternative approach should aim at accomplishing above
described improvements as illustrated in the following:

Tactic 1
A practical tactic for achieving improvement 1 is, for product designers, improving
the formulation of material criteria in the analysis phase of the selection process,
together with the client. The client should be helped to formulate his objectives and
constraints in a clear manner. The analysis phase can then result in a material profile
that forms the basis for the materials selection searches in the synthesis phase. The
main benefit in this approach is that the discussion about the requirements is not
stopped by thinking about solutions. This discussion is crucial to increase the clarity
of the material criteria especially about the user-interaction aspects of materials. The
presumptions in this tactic are:
1 The involvement of the client in the discussion about the objectives and constraints
diminishes the need to clarify the criteria once a material search has started and
could reduce the changes later in the project. When a change is indispensable in the
synthesis phase, the knowledge about the material profile helps to identify the changes
needed in the material criteria and the already chosen candidate materials.
2 Discussing the user-interaction aspects of material in the analysis phase has the
advantage that a lot of target decisions are made in this phase and the required
user-interaction aspects of the materials can be formed here. Results of user-studies
can be directly translated into material criteria. Hence, not only can the effectiveness in
the materials selection process be improved with this approach, but also the user-
interaction qualities of products.

102
 Proposal for a new materials selection technique

3 When the client is involved in the formulation of the profile, he knows what to
expect from the outcomes of the materials searches and might indicate fewer changes.
Furthermore, the client is better able to consider the consequences of the decisions for
the qualities of the product.

Tactic 2
Clarifying the objectives for a material search theoretically eases up the materials
searches in the synthesis phase including the information activities; however, the
profile for the needed materials should be understandable for the information
providers. A practical tactic for the achievement of the second improvement can thus
be found in the content of the material profile. The material profile should be written
in a language understandable for technology-oriented information providers. The
presumption in this is that when a mutual vocabulary is used, this enables specialists
to include the user-interaction aspects in their specialized advice.

Tactic 3
The tactic for achieving the third improvement follows from the first and second one,
which suggest making a material profile as an end result of the analysis phase. The
presumption here is that when, in the analysis phase, no materials are chosen yet, and
the synthesis phase can start with clear objectives and constraints instead of certain
materials, it is easier for product designers to include new materials.
The improvements for including user-interaction aspects in the materials selection
process can thus be found in the product designers’ effort in the formulation of a
material profile. When this profile includes the required user-interaction aspects of
the new product, they can effectively include these aspects in their materials selection
process. Furthermore, when the material profile is understandable for manufacturers
and suppliers, who are the important sources for new materials, they can better inform
product designers about the superior qualities of new materials. An approach in which
a clear material profile is made in the analysis phase is expected to lead to this.

7.3 A technique for the analysis phase in materials selection

As argued, making a material profile in the analysis phase, should lead to increased
effectiveness in the materials selection process. However, product designers need new
techniques to make such a profile as they currently follow a different approach. In this
approach, two criteria are important:

Criterion 1 The client is involved in the creation of the material

profile with required user-interaction aspects for the new
product

Criterion 2 The profile is understandable for the information

providers in the materials selection process

103
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

In this section, the outline for such a new technique is explained as well as a theoretical
answer on the question about which terminology could be effective in the material
profile to enable technology-oriented information providers to advice about the
required user-interaction aspects.

Outline for the new materials selection technique

The materials selection technique aims at describing a material profile that includes
the required user-interaction aspects of the new product. Making a profile requires
first to define what is needed for the interaction qualities of the product and then to

Materials in Products Selection

ANALYSIS (MiPS) technique

formulating step 1
material objectives Defining the user-interaction
aspects of the product
and constraints

step 2
Translating the user-interaction
into a material profile
material
profile
step 3
ANALYSIS
Using the material profile in the
formulating SYNTHESIS material searches
material objectives
and constraints

choosing candidate
materials criteria set
activity activity

SYNTHESIS

choosing comparing
activity activity
DESIGN AND
MATERIALS
SPECIFICATION

Figure 7.1
General steps in the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique. The technique is placed in a
simplified MSA model as explained in section 5.4.

104
 Proposal for a new materials selection technique

put those needs in the profile in an orderly and understandable way. Thereafter, the
material profile can be used in the materials searches. Hence, a technique to write such
a profile overall consists of steps for these three activities (figure 7.1). This technique
is named the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique.
In the defining step in the technique, the user-interaction aspects of the new product
are discussed by the product designer and client. Thereafter, the results of the
discussions are put in a material profile in the translation step. In this step the user-
interaction criteria are made understandable for the technology oriented information
providers. In the usage step, the material profile is used in the synthesis phase to
search for adequate materials. In the usage step, the profile forms a basis for finding
candidate materials, comparing them and choosing them. Furthermore, the profile
forms, when necessary, the basis for the reformulation of criteria.
The defining step is performed together with the client to meet the first criterion and
should result in a clear mutual view about the material objectives and constraints
regarding the user-interaction aspects. This mutual view can be accomplished by using
new tools that will be described in the next chapter.
The second criterion is that the material profile is usable in the materials searches
and thus that it is usable by the technology oriented information providers to base
their advice on. Cross (2000) explains that in some cases, there is a very close relation
between different views on a product, such as, how to sell it, how to make it or how
to use it. He explains that the physical properties of a product create the technology
characteristics. These characteristics form the product attributes, which in turn
satisfy the user needs. This vision provides opportunities to find a common language
to bridge the communication difficulties caused by the different views. The material
profile could thus be documented in a language that is both suitable to describe user-
interaction aspects of a product and is understandable for information providers with
a technology background. In the following is discussed how the sensorial properties of
materials can be sufficient for this.

A material profile in sensorial properties

Sensible language to discuss user-interaction aspects
Clarifying the user-interaction requirements for the materials searches means that
there should be a minimum of interpretation steps needed to find the materials
that fit the requirements. The most interpretation is needed when the user-product
interaction is discussed in use or personality terms, for example about the ease of
handling, or about the perception of the quality of the product. People can have
different interpretations of these terms and therefore translate them differently,
leading to different sets of candidate materials for a new product. This can influence
the effectiveness of the selection process when the proposed candidate materials do
not match the expectations of the client. A significant part of the interpretation steps
should therefore take place during the discussions for the material profile.

105
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Discussing the sensorial interaction of an end-user with the product could be used
for reducing the interpretation steps needed in the materials searches. In another
study, we found that non-designers are able to describe materials in terms of sensorial
aspects (Karana & van Kesteren, 2006). The sensorial interaction with the product
is a key aspect in the using and experiencing of a product as outlined in section 2.1.
The sensorial perceptions are furthermore closely connected with the materials of
which a product is made. Our senses are the first point of contact with the physical
product and Adank & Warall (2006) argue that the senses should be a valuable source
of information in the development of products. Defining the user-interaction aspects
in sensorial terms is therefore expected to lead to a minimum of interpretations
steps in the materials searches. Consequently, it is expected that finding candidate
materials based on sensorial terms leads to materials that better match the mutual
understanding of the required user-product interaction. For example, it is much clearer
to look for high gloss and white materials (sensorial terms) than for material that
express a high quality (perception term).
A small study provided insight into the assumption that formulating the required
user-interaction aspects as sensorial properties leads to a uniform selection of
materials (appendix 4). People with different backgrounds selected materials based on
two different material profiles. The first profile was written in perception terms and
the second in sensorial terms (table 7.1). The aim was to find out which profile leads
to a higher consistency of selected materials. When a profile is formulated in sensorial
terms, it was expected that people more often selected the same materials than when
you formulate a profile in terms of perceptions. The results of the study show that it is
likely that a profile described in sensorial terms requires less interpretation during the
materials searches and thus leads to a clear set of criteria about the required user-
interaction aspects of the product.

Understandable language for technology-oriented information providers

As outlined in section 2.1, the user-interaction aspects of materials are perceived
by the human senses to enable usage and experiences of the product. The specific
material properties that influence the senses are the sensorial properties, such as
gloss, colour, texture, smell, flexibility. Sensorial properties are defined in this thesis
as being a material characteristic that can be measured (table 2.1 on page 25) and
Zuo et al. (2004b) explains that these properties have direct relations to the physical
properties of materials. For example, the sensorial property glossiness or scattering
is connected with the physical properties: reflection coefficient, surface roughness,
orientation of pigments and the index of refraction. Hence, the sensorial properties
and the related physical properties are expected to act as a sufficient language for
technology-oriented information providers to advice about the user-interaction
aspects of materials.
Manufacturers of materials develop materials with special sensorial properties. In
the plastics industry, the continuous development of new pigments results in almost

106
 Proposal for a new materials selection technique

Table 7.1
Material profiles on the basis of which the participants selected three materials from a set.

Profile Instruction
Perception terms The appearance of the materials should fit the modern camper; high tech,
comfortable, durable and sturdily
Sensorial terms The materials should be opaque and glossy, do not scatter or be flexible,
but do contain a texture

infinitive possibilities to create visual effects. To structure the realm of possibilities,

manufacturers offer special aesthetic portfolios, such as VisualFX of GE Plastics (www.
geaesthetics.com). These portfolios are specially developed based on trends in colours
and technological developments in pigments. Other examples resulting from materials
developments are high gravity compounds that help to influence the weight of a
material, and odour compounds that mask or add a specific odour.
Summarizing, the presumption is that a profile described in sensorial properties could
be sufficient to enable technology oriented information providers to advice about
the best material options to create a required user-product interaction. Furthermore,
describing the user-interaction aspects in sensorial terms could help to reduce the
interpretation steps needed and thereby clarify the criteria.

7.4 Conclusions
The current materials selection approaches of product designers lead to problems
when user-interaction aspects of material are involved. Improvements are expected
when clients are involved in the formulation of clear criteria on the user-interaction
aspects of materials and when technology-oriented information providers can give
advice based on these criteria. Furthermore, the user-interaction qualities of products
can be improved when a new approach increases the opportunity for applying new
materials. A new technique is proposed in this chapter to improve the integration
of user-interaction aspects in the formulation of material criteria. The technique is
expected to result in better formulation of criteria and an improved definition of a
material profile and a more efficient material search process.
With the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique, product designers and
clients are to discuss the required user-interaction aspects for the new product based
on the sensorial interaction. These discussions result in a material profile formulated
as sensorial properties. Sensorial properties are related to physical properties of
materials, which enables technology-oriented information providers to recommend
the best material options for the desired user-product interaction. Furthermore,
a profile in sensorial properties is expected to lead to a clear profile that needs a
minimum of interpretations during the materials searches.

107
 Section 8.2 is based on:
Ilse van Kesteren, Pieter Jan Stappers and Sjef de Bruijn (2007) Defining user-interaction
aspects for materials selection: three tools. Proceedings of the Nordic Design Research
Society, May 27-30th 2007, Stockholm, Sweden. www.nordes.org

Section 8.4 is based on:

I.E.H. van Kesteren, P.J. Stappers, J.C.M. de Bruijn (2007, in press) Materials in Products
Selection: a tool for including user-interaction in materials selection. International
Journal of Design. December issue

Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique

ANALYSIS
step 1
MiPS tools
formulating
Defining the user-interaction aspects of the product
material objectives as sensorial properties communication tools
and constraints (section 8.2)
step 2
Translating the sensorial properties into physical
properties and combining them into a material
material profile
relations tool
profile
(section 8.3)
step 3
Using the material profile in the material searches
SYNTHESIS

Figure 8.1
Materials in Product - Selection technique and the position of the tools.

108
 Chapter

8 Designing tools for user-

centred materials selection

The previous chapter outlined a technique that is expected to improve the materials
selection process. For making this technique effective, several tools are developed.
These tools, in broad outlines, help clients to express what kind of user-product
interaction they want to create with the product and its materials. Furthermore, the
tools help product designers to translate these required user-interactions into the
material profile. This profile is then used in the information searches about possible
materials. This chapter describes the design steps taken to create these tools and the
considerations made herein. Product designers were involved in several steps, for
example in a study that evaluates the tools in a fictive design brief meeting. After this
study, the tools were adjusted and detailed as presented at the end of this chapter.
Chapter 9 and 10 continue with the development of the tools of which the final design
is presented in section 10.1.

8.1 Tools for the Materials in Products Selection technique

The Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique exists of three steps (figure 8.1)
and for two of these steps tools are developed. The tools for step one, defining the
user-interaction aspects of the product, are needed to facilitate the client-discussions.
For describing the material profile in an understandable manner for technology-
oriented information providers, which is step 2 in the technique, a tool is necessary
that relates the user-interaction aspects with the physical properties of materials.

Defining step
The client and the product designer start with defining the requirements for a material
search. This step results in a material profile that contains the required sensorial
properties of materials. New communication tools need to be developed to help the
client to talk in terms of user-interaction aspects. In addition, it should help to decide
what the key user-interaction aspects are that the product designer needs to focus
on in his materials searches. Requirements for such tools are that it uses a practical

109
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

medium to bring to client meetings, uses a structure that is appealing for both the
client and product designer and that it enables to make choices about the directions to
follow in the materials searches.

Translating step
This step is performed by the product designers. In this step, they translate the
sensorial properties into physical materials properties to make an understandable
material profile for the client and himself and for the technology-oriented information
providers. This profile contains the sensorial properties and the related physical
properties. Product designers can use tools in this step that help to translate the
properties and present them in an orderly way. Requirements for such a tool are that
it provides the physical equivalents of the sensorial properties in a simple interface,
usable from both sides.

Using step
The final step is the using step. The product designer uses the material profile with
sensorial and physical properties to find and compare candidate materials and to
choose materials. In the search step all materials selection activities as presented
in the MSA model (chapter 4) are performed, including the information and testing
activities. The tools should thus take the materials selection activities in mind, such
as the refinement of criteria. Product designers refine their criteria in the synthesis
phase, based on requirements relevant for the created concept designs. Therefore,
the material profile should be adjustable. The profile should only direct the materials
searches without being too specific. For example, a profile could include a requirement
for transparent, light materials, but is too specific when it includes a requirement for a
material Shore value of 15.

8.2 Three communication tools

Several tools for materials selection are being developed such as outlined in section
3.2. A considerable number of these tools aim at providing information about
materials. These tools are thus effective in the synthesis phase of the materials
selection process. A lot of effort is performed for the later stages in this process,
although more tools are being developed for the concept design phases such as Skin
(Saakes, 2007). A materials selection tool for the analysis phase is rare, although
several design tools exist for this phase, such as brainstorming, user studies, and
structured ways to formulate the requirements for a project. The knowledge about
these tools helped to formulate three ideas for the communication tools.

Three ideas
The three tools in the defining phase in the MiPS technique focus on different aspects
of the user- product interaction (figure 8.2). The first idea was to define the user-

110
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

product interaction via pictures of example products (picture tool). Using pictures
of product examples can bridge the desired product personality and the required
material properties. The second idea focuses on the materials that represent a wide
range of sensorial properties (sample tool). The properties of the selected samples can
then direct the materials search. The last tool proposed, uses questions that help to
structure a conversation based on the sensorial interaction with a product (questions
tool). It focuses on the sensorial experiences of the user. The origin of these ideas is
discussed hereafter.

Idea 1: Pictures
Product designers live in their private world of images (Athavankar, 1997). They use
tools to communicate their thoughts to other people involved in the design process.
Example products are an important frame of reference in the early phases of product
development (Pasman & Stappers, 2001). Product designers use visual material
(although not only of products) in mood boards and collages for presentations to their
clients (Kolli et al., 1993).
The idea for the picture tool is that when product designers want to create a certain
personality, they can use existing products and the materials these products are made
of as examples. Together with a client, they can select those pictures that represent the
personality for the new product and discuss the properties of the example products
which they think create the desired personality. Stappers et al. (2000) explain that
judging samples and their overall similarity is a task that people do well when many
attributes are judged simultaneously. Hence, it is expected that clients in particular will
benefit, as they can more easily point to example products for what they want, rather
than attempting to describe this directly in terms of material characteristics.

on / off - button...
luxury...

experience
and usability

product
tool 1: pictures sensorial
tool 3: questions

materials
tool 2: samples

Figure 8.2
User-product interaction and how the three tools focus on the different elements of the interaction.

111
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

The use of product examples for designing pleasurable products is not unique. For
example Bonapace (2002) introduces a technique called SEQUAM that provide steps
to analyse the pleasantness of existing products and the properties these products are
made of. In this technique, these properties are assessed and verified in prototypes
and user-studies. Although some properties directly refer to the materials these
example products are made of, the picture tool focuses only on the material properties,
which have an advantage in the materials selection process. Another difference is that
the picture tool offers a prepared set of images of products that represent different
personalities and include different visual properties.

Idea 2: Samples
As seen in section 2.3, material samples are widely used in materials selection. They
are used as a communication tool and to compare and test candidate materials.
For example, material samples from suppliers show the various different colours
or different transparencies available in their material portfolios. They are used in
client meetings to generate a shared understanding of the design (Eckert & Stacey,
2000). The idea is to use samples in the defining phase of materials selection, thus to
formulate a material profile. The existing sample sets from suppliers are too detailed
for this purpose: they only vary on a few material aspects. A set of samples that
represents a wide range of sensorial properties can support the defining phase. These
samples help to discuss which materials best fit the required user-interaction aspects.
Tactile aspects especially are more easily discussed with physical samples.

Idea 3: Questions
In design brief meetings, topics are discussed that are important in the project. The
product designers often have a generic list of questions that are relevant for every
project, such as costs, available manufacturing facilities and target group. These
topics are formed by experience and sometimes written down in a checklist. The idea
for this tool is based on asking questions, namely about the specific topic of how the
user interacts with a product. The aim of these questions is to discuss the sensorial
properties that form, emphasize or weaken the interaction. The questions help to
structure the discussion and point towards relevant issues in the sensorial interaction.

Picture tool design

For the picture tool, a structure was necessary to organize the images of products in
a meaningful manner. Such a structure is developed by Govers (2004). She developed
a product personality scale in which product personality refers to the character of a
product. This scale consists of 20 personality terms that are visualized with pictures.
These pictures show situations and objects, not necessarily products. For the picture
tool, a similar set of images was made, but then of existing consumer products. To
create uniformity in product examples the product category ‘consumer electronics’
was chosen, to which most products can be assigned. Different Internet stores provide
numerous pictures of products to select from and these were categorized into the 20

112
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

Table 8.1
Personality terms used in the picture tool.

Personality terms
Cheerful Cute Obtrusive Business like
Open Silly Dominant Aloof
Relaxed Lively Untidy Modest
Easy-going Interesting Childish Honest

personality terms in two steps. In the first step, five main groups were defined in which
we categorized the products (calm, pleasant, happy, expressive and provocative). In the
second step, the products were categorized per personality term.
Pasman (2003) shows in an experiment that organizing product examples in types,
in this case personality types, diminishes the product specific evaluations into
a more general level, compared to using single examples of products. He argues
that this general level is needed to generate new ideas and reduces fixation on the
characteristics of a single product. Therefore, three products were assigned to each
personality term.
To verify the preliminary selected set of pictures, five design students1 were asked to
group the selected products in the personality categories. They first categorized one of
the groups themselves and then discussed the categorization with the other students.
Their second assignment was to look at the material characteristics of the products in
each group. They were asked to formulate clues about the materials that created the
personality in the products, e.g. the transparency of the materials in the ‘interesting’
category (figure 8.3).
Based on the discussions with the students, two terms were omitted and two terms
were combined for the following reasons. The term ‘pretty’ was more subjective than
the other terms. There appeared no overlap of material characteristics in the products
that were grouped in this category. The same held for the term ‘idiosyncratic’. Both
terms were omitted in the final set. The terms ‘serious’ and ‘boring’ appeared to have
products with the same material characteristics that were associated with these terms.
These two terms were therefore replaced with the term ‘business-like’. Lastly, the
terms ‘provocative’ and ‘lively’ were combined into one term, namely ‘lively’ (table
8.1).
The picture tool now consists of a set of 16 cards that all represent a different
personality. At the front of the card, product pictures are placed, that visualize the
personality. The back of the card helps to translate the product aspects into material
characteristics by means of clues about the material aspects in the form of keywords

1 Students of the Master program in Industrial Design Engineering at the Delft University of Technology in
The Netherlands.

113
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

(figure 8.3). While discussing the user-interaction aspects for a new product, clients
can show which personality cards are representative for their desired product
personality. During the following phase, product designers can discuss the clues
related to the selected product examples. Questions the product designer can ask the
client are for example: “These products are semi-transparent. Is this what you had in
mind, too?” These aspects then form the basis for the material profile.

Sample tool design

The idea of this tool is to offer a wide range of sensorial properties in a set of material
samples. The number of samples is limited to the practical issues of storage, portability
and ease of use during a discussion. To create uniformity, colour was not used other
than the natural materials colour, and similar shaped samples were used.
A matrix with sensorial properties was made to create the set. For every property the
variations were put in the matrix. For example, the variations belonging to sensorial
property ‘transparency’ are: transparent, semi-transparent and opaque, and those
for sensorial property ‘gloss’: high gloss, gloss and matt. For each variation a physical
or picture of a material sample was selected from different material databases
(www.materialexplorer.com, private collection, collection of the faculty of Industrial
Design Engineering). The samples selected in this step represented one variation of

ALOOF INTERESTING

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ onematerial Ȼ semiͲtransparent
Ȼ onecolour Ȼ fullofcolour
Ȼ dark Ȼ hard
Ȼ mattgloss

Figure 8.3
Examples of the picture tool.

114
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

a sensorial property. The number of selected samples was then reduced in a way that
the samples in the reduced set together represented all the variations in sensorial
properties.
In another set, samples were selected to represent a certain personality. To this end, a
selected group of Govers’ product personality aspects (2004) were used. The aspects
were selected based on being positive experiences. For every personality term, two or
more samples were selected.
Six students2 evaluated the materials sets to find out whether the samples were
grouped logically. The students were first asked to describe the sensorial properties
of each sample. Thereafter, they arranged the samples in the same matrix that was
used to create the sets, and discussed why they chose to arrange them as they did.
Lastly, they selected a set of samples that best represented the variations in sensorial
properties and that represented the personality term.
The sample tool now consists of eleven material samples, which were selected to
represent a wide variation of sensorial properties (figure 8.4). The samples are
card-shaped with dimensions of about 90x60x3mm. Together with the samples a
card was developed with the following aspects on this card: 1) the personality terms
and definitions, 2) a picture of the sample that was selected for that personality,
3) sensorial properties of the sample. The product designer and client can select
a combination of samples that represent the required sensorial properties, while
discussing the user-interaction aspects of the new product.

Questions tool design

The aim of this tool is to define the required user-interaction aspects of materials
via the sensorial interaction of the user with the product. The tool offers discussion
topics that refer to aspects of the interaction. The selection of these topics and the
formulation of the questions in these topics were performed in the following way.

Figure 8.4
Examples of the sample tool.

115
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 8.2
Questions tool. The pictures in the right column were added after the usability study described in
section 8.4.

Phase Questions

1. First contact
distinctiveness How will the product attract attention?

How does the product differentiate itself?

Which sensory aspects play a role in this?

2. Try out
distinctiveness How will the product convince when trying it out?
Which sensory aspects play a role in this?

3. Transport
product Which feedback will the product give during transport?
experiences
Which sensory aspects play a role in this?

4. Unwrapping
product Which lasting experiences will the product evoke?
experiences
Which sensory aspects play a role in this?

5. Usage
functional use Which interaction takes place in using the product?

How does the product provide feedback?

Which sensory aspects play a role in this?

6. Rest
product How will the product convince to be used again?
experiences
How will the product fit in its environment and with related
products?

How will the product say good bye?

Which sensory aspects play a role in this?

116
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

First, topics of the interaction were defined and discussed with two experts3. The
topics were product experiences, being the emotional, associative and perception
responses to the product; the functional use, and the distinctiveness of a product
compared to other products. A set of questions was composed for each topic. Second,
a structure was created to organize the questions. Requirements for this structure
were that it should be easy to remember and follow the natural course of having a
conversation rather than being a questionnaire for the client.
A familiar way of organizing product requirements is via a process tree or life cycle
analysis (Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995). In a process tree, all phases of a product
life cycle are elucidated, from designing to disposal. The approach forces product
designers to consider the consequences of their design for every phase. One of the
phases is the ‘use’ phase, which is used as a basis for the questions tool. The questions
were organized in six sub phases, i.e.: 1) first contact phase, 2) try out phase, 3)
transport phase, 4) unwrapping phase, 5) usage phase and 6) rest phase (table 8.2).
In sub phases ‘first contact’ and ‘try out phase’, the topic of distinction is discussed.
Functional use, as a topic, has been assigned to the ‘usage’ sub phase. Topics relating to
product experiences are discussed in the remaining phases.
After selecting the topics, questions and structure, everything was combined and
formatted on an A4 sized sheet of paper. Furthermore, a checklist with sensorial
properties was composed (table 8.3). This checklist offers the same aspects that are
used in the tool for the translation step (section 8.3). The preliminary design of the tool
was discussed with experts again and fine-tuned in several steps.
The tool was used in a workshop with four students4, who were in the middle of their
design assignment. At that point, they had formulated an idea to design a product
for adding product personality to a vegetable. The next step was to materialize this
product. After a short explanation of the tool, the students’ ideas were discussed one
by one. One student acted as a ‘client’ (the idea owner) and the other students used to
tool to specify the user-interaction aspects and the related sensorial properties of the
product. The researcher acted as a designer, too, taking part in and asking questions
during these discussions.
The students evaluated the tool as being very helpful to organize thoughts and
not to forget anything. The questions helped them to think about the sensorial
properties of their designs and provided arguments for their choices. It provided
a new angle of looking at things. However, the students needed training in the tool
usage. The questions and phases were not intuitive and the researcher helped them

2 Students of the Master program in Industrial Design Engineering at the Delft University of Technology in
The Netherlands.

3 Geke Ludden, PhD candidate in Sensory incongruity and surprise in product design (2008); Marieke
Sonneveld, PhD in Tactile Experiences (2007).

4 Third year product design students of the Gerrit Rietveld Academy in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

117
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 8.3
Checklist with sensorial properties for the questions tool.

Sensorial properties in the checklist

Reflection Pressure Temperature
reflective - not reflective denting - not denting warm - cold
glossy - matt soft - hard
transparent - translucent - opaque fast - slow dampening Sound
no brilliance - brilliance massive - porous muffled - ringing
rough - smooth low - high pitch
regular - irregular texture Manipulation soft - loud
stiff - flexible
Colour ductile - tough Smell and taste
hue of colour brittle - tough no odour - fragant
one colour - many colours light - heavy fragrance
colourless - full of colour flavour
durable - changable colour Friction
pattern sticky - not sticky
dry - wet - oily
Light radiation rough - smooth
low - high light emission regular - irregular texture

a lot in the first discussions. The students suggested providing more examples in the
instructions accompanying the tool. Another drawback was that the questions did
not elicit answers about the sensorial properties that are needed to start a search:
the conversations remained confined to product experiences, functional use or
distinctiveness. By changing the order of the questions and using another word for
sensorial5, we expect to have solved this problem.
The concept of the questions tool consists of a list of questions and a checklist of
sensorial properties. The product designer and the client project their minds into
the interaction that the user will have with a new product in a specific phase. The
discussion about every phase should end with the question: “Which sensory aspects
play a role in this?” The answers on this question provide the understanding about
the sensorial properties of a product required in a phase. The checklist can be filled in
during the discussion and can be used to summarize the material requirements for the
material search.

5 The Dutch words ‘zintuiglijk’ and ‘sensorisch’ are both translations of the English word ‘sensorial’. We use
the word ‘zintuiglijk’ in the final Dutch version of the tool.

118
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

Remarks on the tools

All three tools are practical to bring to client meetings and are expected to appeal both
to the client and product designers. The tools enable to make choices as they stimulate
to discuss the sensorial properties (the backs of the picture cards, the card with
information about the samples and the last question in the question tool). However,
to verify these assumptions, the tools were used in a usability study in section 8.4, for
comparing the tools on these and the other issues discussed hereafter.
The tools focus on different senses. The picture tool focuses on visual properties,
although some links to tactile properties are made. This concerns mainly the tactile
properties that are also visual, such as texture. The sample tool focuses on tactile
properties; it encourages people to feel the materials. Colour has been omitted, so that
it does not distract from feeling the materials. The questions tool focuses on all senses,
although in different phases of the interaction some senses can be more important
than others. For example in the first contact phase, more distance senses are used
and in the trying out phase more proximate senses (Fenech & Borg, 2006). Whether
a combination of tools is better to discuss all senses or that only using one tool is
sufficient, is one of the questions answered in the usability study.
The tools differ in the amount of visualisation that is required in the tool usage. The
picture tool is the most concrete of the three. Clients and product designers can discuss
about products with the help of concrete examples. The client can react directly to
the characteristics of these products and compare them with the product he has in
mind. The sample tool requires more visualisation and mental translations than the
first tool. The look and feel of the material samples needs to be translated to the new
product via the sample’s sensorial properties. Explaining what is felt is difficult and
the terminology of e.g. tactile aspects is limited. The questions tool requires the most
visualisation of all three. Clients and product designers need to imagine all things they
discuss.
Product designers are used to understanding subjective terms, to visualizing these and
translating them into concrete product ideas. However, clients are not, and need help
with visualising the things that they want. However, if the methods show examples that
are very concrete, product designers can feel restricted in their creativity. They might
feel that the tool directs them towards single solutions, which is unwanted. The tools
should therefore increase creativity by providing new directions and ideas, but should
also help to converge to sensorial properties that can be used for materials searches.
The questions that still remain are which of the tools is most effective and usable in the
design brief and how the tools affect the creativity of product designers.

119
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 8.4
Experts consulted for composing the sheet with related properties.

PhDs on sensorial design topics Material specialists

Elvin Karana Meanings of materials Rolf Koster Designing in plastics
(TUDelft) (TUDelft)
Elif Öscan Sound in product design Sybrand van der Zwaag Materials Science
(TUDelft) (TUDelft)
Geke Ludden Sensory incongruity and Egi van der Veeken Visual effects of
surprise (TUDelft) Plastics (GE Plastics)
Marieke Sonneveld Tactile Experiences Nico Noort Visual effects of
(TUDelft) metals (Corus)
Lisa Wastiels Materials selection Peter Legierse Look and feel of
in Architecture (Vrije products (Philips)
Universiteit Brussel)

8.3 Relation sheet for sensorial and physical properties

In the second step in the MiPS technique, the sensorial properties, selected for the
required user-product interaction, are related to the equivalent physical properties and
put in a material profile (figure 8.1). The sensorial properties are those characteristics
that can be perceived by the human senses, such as glossiness, colour, texture, smell,
flexibility. These aspects create the product’s personality and influence how a person
can use a product. To aid product designers in this step, a sheet is developed that they
can use to translate sensorial properties into physical properties (see appendix 9).
The sheet does not pretend to be complete at this point. The main purpose of the
development of the sheet is to see how it could offer a background for the questions
that product designers need to ask when consulting material specialists. The sheet
is thus not intended to be a substitute for the conversations that product designers
have with specialists, but is meant to help product designers with preparing and
focusing the discussions. For that reason, the sheet offers an overview of the kind of
relations that exist between the sensorial properties and the physical properties. How
the sensorial and physical properties are related, e.g. which reflections correspond to
which light absorption coefficients, was not studied in this project. The assessment
of these relations is labour-intensive, but valuable, once is established that product
designers see the benefits of using such a sheet.
The sheet provides an indication of the properties that can be varied to create the
sensorial effect. For example, when transparency is defined as a key property to create
an interesting product, the sheet shows that transparency is determined by the light
transmission per thickness property and the index of refraction property. Candidate
materials can be compared on these properties. Furthermore, variations of these
properties can be made, to fine-tune the transparency of the material.

120
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

The sheet does not yield a list of possible choices of materials, as materials that are
suitable for a specific application not only fulfil the user-interaction requirements,
but also the functional, environmental, cost and manufacturing requirements.
Before choosing a material, all the properties that are related to these areas must
be considered. Selecting materials based on sensorial properties alone can lead to
unnecessary iterations. Furthermore, new materials of which the properties are
known can be considered as well, using a profile based on properties.
The sensorial properties and the finishing of a product together contribute to the
sensorial perception of the user (van Kesteren & Ludden, 2006). For example, colour
and reflection can both be a characteristic of the material and the coating used.
Furthermore, the tactile aspects of a product are influenced by the materials, as well
as the mould texture. The sheet, therefore, not only provides the physical properties
related to the sensorial properties of materials, it also provides alternatives for
creating a sensorial effect. For example, when a specific hue of colour is required, but
the material does not have that reflection property, it is possible to add a surface layer
with the specific colour.

Approach for finding the properties and relations

The sheet was created in an iterative manner based on literature and discussion
with experts in designing for the senses and material experts (table 8.4). The aspects
considered to create the sheet were; 1) What are the sensorial properties? 2) What
are the related physical properties for these sensorial properties? 3) What is a suitable
arrangement of the properties?
In literature, many sources explain the working of the human senses. From these
sources, the different actuators for sensing, such as light, temperature, movement
and smell were derived. When these actuators can be created by a product or by
materials they are put as a property in the sensorial properties column. For the
physical properties column, the mechanical, optical, electrical and thermal properties
that create a sensorial property of a material were found in material handbooks and
discussions. The basic arrangement of the sensorial properties in the list is, like in
many books, per sense. The categorization per sense was discussed with the design
aspects to find a relevant arrangement for product designers. The sensorial properties
and related physical properties that can be found on the sheet are discussed in the
following.

Seeing and the visual aspects of materials

The human eye has two kinds of sensors, one for colour perception and one for
light perception. The aspects that we can see are generated by the materials’
optical properties. The optical properties are the materials’ response to exposure of
electromagnetic radiation and in particular visible light (Callister, 1994). The sheet
categorizes the visual aspects of materials in colour and other reflection aspects (table
8.5). A special category is formed by luminescence, which is the capability of materials

121
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 8.5
Visual aspects presented in the sheet.

Categories Visual aspects

Colour Hue of colour, number of colours, pattern, fullness of the colour, darkness of
the colour and durability of the colour
Reflection Reflection (mirroring), glossiness, transparency, brilliance, roughness and
texture
Luminescence Light emission

to absorb energy and then reemitting visible light (e.g. glow in the dark).

Colour
Kreitler and Kreitler (1992) mention that people experience rich and significant
meaning when perceiving colour and this is much stronger than with other qualities
such as odours, tastes or shapes. This might be one of the factors that brought about
many studies on colour theory. Hence, the aim here is not to make a complete new
organisation of aspects related to colours, but just to select the ones that seem relevant
in product design.
The following aspects related to colour are present in the sheet: hue of colour, number
of colours, fullness of the colour, darkness of the colour, durability or changeability
of the colour and the pattern. Specific colours can be created by the natural colours
of a material or by additional pigments. The hue of colour is the specific wavelength
that is reflected by a material. The human eye can perceive this wavelength as, for
example, red, blue, green or orange. The number of colours is related to how many
distinguishing wavelengths are reflected. For example, in wood many colours can
be distinguished. The pattern aspect is related to how the colours are organized in a
material. For example, wood has a different pattern in crosscut than in longitudinal cut.
The fullness of the colour has to do with the intensity of the wavelengths, so how much
light is reflected. Darkness is related to the amount of white and black that is added to
a colour.
The durability of a colour explains how a colour evolves over time. Physical properties
such as UV resistance, absorption of water and adhesion of pigments influences the
durability of colours. For example, older plastic types and paper change colour over
time. A special form of changeable colours is the characteristic of some pigments to
have different colours in different temperatures.

Reflection
The reflection category includes the aspects reflection (mirroring), glossiness,
transparency, brilliance, roughness and texture. According to Callister (1994), three
things occur when light meets a material. Some of the light may be transmitted through
the material, some will be absorbed and some will be reflected at the surface. These
three occurrences have different visual effects. Transition has to do with transparency,

122
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

absorption with colour and gloss and reflection with colour and mirroring. The aspects
are related with each other since the sum of transmitting, reflection and absorption
must be equal to the total amount of light radiation. Note that some materials transmit,
absorb or reflect only a spectrum of the visual and non visual light. Translucent
materials are those through which light is transmitted diffusely; that is, light is
scattered within the interior, to the degree that objects are not clearly distinguishable
when viewed through a specimen of the material. Those materials that are impervious
to the transmission of visible light are termed opaque (Callister, 1994). We define
brilliance as a local form of reflection. Brilliance can be created by adding reflective
pigments to a lesser reflective material. The material then has high reflection intensity
on specific spots compared to the surroundings of these spots.
Chang & Lue (2003) found that the texture of a material distinguishes the perception
of that material via the sense of sight more than the sense of touch, however, can not
be completely replaced by sight. Roughness and texture are two tactile properties
that are added to the visual category as well. Roughness is caused by the material
configuration, e.g. concrete has a roughness because it is a mixture of different sized
particles and Styrofoam™6 has a roughness because it is formed by small bubbles.
Texture, however, is not a material property but an aspect created by the designed
pattern, defined by the differences in depth in the surface in a certain configuration.
Textures are made by moulds and machining. Both roughness and texture were
added to the sheet to be able to show the influences of these aspects on each other.
For example, a certain texture may be required, while the roughness of the material
prevents the required texture from being realized.

Luminescence
Some materials are able to absorb energy and to reemit this energy as visible light
(Callister, 1994). This ‘glow in the dark’ effect can vary in how much light needs to be
added to reemit light, the wavelengths of the added light and the reemitted light and
the magnitude of the delay time between the absorption and reemission events. A
process that can be used to produce visible light is called electroluminescence, which is
applied in light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (Callister, 1994).

Touching and the tactile aspects of materials

Touching is a sense that is activated by contact between an object and the skin.
There are different sensory cells in the skin that perceive touch. These are pressure
cells, movement cells and temperature cells (Geldard, 1972). Together they form the
complex sense of touch. We categorized the tactile aspects of materials, not according
to the sense cells, but according to how a material reacts to manipulation (table 8.6).
In the pressure category, aspects have been grouped together that can be sensed by
pressing the material. The manipulation category contains aspects that can be sensed

6 StyrofoamTM is a trademark of the Dow Chemical Company.

123
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 8.6
Tactile aspects presented in the sheet.

Categories Tactile aspects

Pressure Denting, softness and dampening
Manipulation Stiffness, ductility, brittleness and weight
Friction Stickiness, wetness, smoothness and texture
Temperature Warmth

by applying a manipulation other than pressing, e.g. bending. Friction is a category

relevant in the user-product interaction, because it has to do with the resistance
towards movement. In addition to the manipulation categories, a category was added
that deals with perception of temperature.

Pressure
The pressure category includes the tactile aspects of denting, softness, dampening and
massiveness. They are explored when people exert pressure to the object, for example
by squeezing, pulling, pushing or knocking (Sonneveld, 2007). Materials perceived
as hard are not the opposite of materials perceived as soft, at least not in engineering
terms (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). The physical property hardness relates to the
manipulation that is needed to leave an imprint after pressing. Softness is related to
the properties elasticity and bending and has to do with the lack of stiffness (Ashby &
Johnson, 2002). Soft materials compress and after handling, return to its original shape
and leaves no imprint. The time it takes for a material to return to its original shape
after a pressure is applied is termed as dampening. It has to do with the response time
of the elasticity.

Manipulation
The manipulation category contains the tactile aspects stiffness, ductility, brittleness
and weight. The stiffness of a material is caused by its resistance to being bend.
The elasticity modulus of a material is responsible for this. In the pressure
category, softness was introduced as a property that represents a lack of stiffness.
The properties are, however, perceived via different sensations (pressure and
manipulation). The product designer thus has two entrances to search for this
property. Therefore, we put them in the list twice.
The ductility aspect is the extent to which a material can be deformed. Lead, for
example, can be easily deformed. The difference between this aspect and a material’s
softness is that after a manipulation is applied, a ductile material retains its new
shape; as soft materials, it returns to its original shape. The properties uniform strain
and yield strength are responsible for the ductility of a material. The brittleness of
a material is caused by the properties elongation at break and fracture toughness.
Brittleness can not only be perceived by touch, but also by hearing. For example,

124
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

porcelain is perceived as brittle when put on a table. The weight of a product is related
to the density of the materials used.
Massiveness is the aspect that refers to the structure of a material. For example, some
materials are manufactured as foam or as solids. The material molecules are similar,
but their structure differs. This affects the pressure and manipulation aspects. For
example, the elasticity of foam is different than of a solid and thus the softness is
different.

Friction
This category shows the properties that can be sensed by stroking the surface of an
object. The friction category includes the aspects stickiness, wetness, smoothness
and texture. The smoothness and texture aspects are actually the same aspect as the
one categorized as visual aspect and their explanations will not be repeated. Both are
aspects that can be seen and felt. Stickiness has to do with the adhesion of a material,
i.e. the extent to which it bonds to the skin. Sticky tape is an obvious example. Wetness
is caused by the water or oil expulsion under load. For example, the plastic know as
‘high density polyethylene’ has an oily feel.

Temperature
Very high and very low temperatures are perceived immediately after contacting an
object while smaller differences of temperature need longer contact. This is related
to the temperature flow, which is related to the temperature difference between
the object and the body temperature (Sonneveld, 2007). The temperature aspects
are related to the conductivity property and the specific heat of a material (Ashby &
Johnson, 2002). These properties influence how fast heat is conducted from the skin
and thus whether a material is sensed as being warm or cold.

Hearing and the auditory aspects of materials

The sound of an engine gives clues about how fast the user is driving. Furthermore,
the perception of the quality of the car is influenced by the sound the doors make
when they are closed. These sounds are influenced by the materials the product is
made of, in combination with the mechanical and electrical sounds of the engine and
the closing mechanism (Öscan & van Egmond, 2004). Materials only produce sound
after impact and the recognition of materials based on the sounds it makes is better
for some materials than others (Hermes, 1998). For example, glass, wood and metal
are better recognized than plastics. The sheet is limited to the auditory properties
that are caused by materials, acknowledging the risk at a representation that has been
too simplified when it comes to designing complex products. These are the auditory
aspects frequency/ pitch, dampening and intensity in the sheet (table 8.7).
Klatzky et al. (2000) studied contact sound in order to understand how persons can
perceive materials in virtual reality. They found three auditory cues to materials,
namely elasticity, the internal coefficient of friction and the state of stress of a material.

125
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 8.7 Table 8.8

Auditory aspects presented in the sheet. Smell and taste aspects presented in the sheet.

Category Auditory aspects Categories Smell and taste aspects

Sound Frequency / pitch, dampening Smell Fragrance and odour intensity
and intensity
Taste Flavour

Elasticity is directly related to the speed of sound and therefore influences all aspects
of sound production, including frequency. The internal coefficient of friction, or
damping, influences how the sound will decay over time. This parameter is shape
invariant. The state of stress of a material influences the frequency or pitch of sound,
as illustrated in many musical instruments. The frequency of sound is related to the
density property and damping (or brightness) to the loss coefficient property (Ashby
& Johnson, 2002).

Smelling and tasting and the smell and taste aspects of materials
Smelling is considered the most emotional sense. This means that choosing the right
smell for a product can be very effective in creating a product personality. Materials
have their own smell, for example cork smells earthy and plastics can have a chemical
smell. To reduce the smell of plastics, it is possible to add special neutralizing additives
(Noiset, 2005). With additives it is also possible to add a fragrance to a material. The
adhesion of these fragrance additives cause the material to smell in a certain way. The
intensity of the smell has to do with the concentration of fragrance compounds that are
released in a time period. The smell aspects of materials are thus the fragrance and the
odour intensity (table 8.8).
Taste is perceived when particles of the material dissolve in the saliva and are sensed
by the taste sensors located on the tongue. For products that interact with the tongue,
it might be interesting to think about the flavour of the material. However, this field is
still new. Note that the perception of taste is an interaction between smelling, touching
with the mouth and tasting. For example, cinnamon can not be tasted without smelling.

8.4 Usability study in a design brief meeting

The design of the tools has reached the stage where it is now possible to study how the
usability of the tools can be optimized. The aspects of the usability of interest are the
achievements of the tools, how usable they are and how they influence the creativity
of the users. To understand the tools’ achievements in design brief meetings, the tools
were evaluated in a real life setting. The tools aimed to achieve a high certainty to start
an effective materials search, to have a high consensus between client and product
designer about the key sensorial properties that create the desired personality and to
formulate a material profile in terms of sensorial properties.

126
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

Table 8.9
Categories of terms that can be used to describe a material.

Category Description Examples

Perception Most abstract; includes perception, emotions, Outdoor look, modern,
associations of materials, references to brands or personal, recognizable, fit the
products target group, natural
Use All words related to the usage Usability, withstand dirty
environment, hygienic
Sensorial Less abstract; All aspects of materials that can be Texture, warmth, colour, soft,
perceived by the senses smooth, stiff
Physical Least abstract; Material and manufacturing Scratch resistance, durable,
properties price, producible in mass
Material labels Concrete: material names Plastics, wood, metals

Six professional product designers and six professional clients were invited to use the
tools in design brief meetings for two fictive design assignments. Furthermore, twelve
students who were not all necessarily in a product design school did the same. The
student that did not study design acted as clients. The tools could therefore not only be
compared, but also the influence of the participant’s experiences on the usability and
achievements of the tools could be assessed. The questions that were studied are:

Question 1 What do the tools achieve in the design briefs and

how do they differ?

Question 2 How usable are the tools for clients and product
designers?

Question 3 How do the tools influence the creativity of the

product designers?

Procedure
The participants of the study used all three tools to be able to compare them.
Furthermore, they used no specific tool to compare their own approaches with
the created tools (‘own method’). The participants discussed two different design
assignments in product designer/ client couples. Per assignment, two tools (or the
own method and one other tool) were used for ten to fifteen minutes. The total session
took 2 hours. The first assignment was a cutlery set with an outdoor look for daily
use. The second assignment was a product for a new concept based on the Polaroid
camera, but then with moving pictures instead of stills. This assignment was termed
‘Polaroid video’. The participating clients were provided with instructions about
the assignments. Herein, a fictive company profile was given, as well as the problem
definition and task for the designer.

127
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 8.10
Summary of the achievements of the tools in a fictive design brief meeting.

Aspect Score
high medium low
Increased certainty Own method Picture tool Sample and
Questions tools
Consensus about key properties Own method, Sample tool
Picture and
Questions tools
Profile in sensorial properties Questions tool Picture and Sample Own method
tools (including
a high score on
perception aspects)

Profiles
The consensus between client and product designers was measured at three different
points, namely before, in between and after the use of the two tools. We surveyed the
participants’ ideas about the required materials for the new product at these points.
Two questions were asked per profile. First, the participants were asked to indicate
their certainty about the product designer’s ability to start an effective material search
at that point. Second, the participants were asked to describe the material aspects of
the new product. The descriptions were used to assess on which level the participants
described their material requirements (table 8.9). Next, the participants were asked
to complete an extra profile, in which they picked a maximum of five key sensorial
properties that they thought were important basing a materials search on. The profile
mentioned the sensorial properties of the checklist of the questions tool (appendix 7).

Questionnaire
After the two design brief discussions, the participants were asked to fill in a
questionnaire. The aim of this questionnaire was to evaluate and compare the different
tools on usability and creativity topics.

Results
Achievements
The certainty indicated on the profiles that were filled in by a participant before and
after using a tool were compared. Three situations could occur, namely an increase
of certainty, a decrease of certainty or neither (same certainty). The tools creased the
certainty about the ability to start a material search (table 8.10). However, the sample
tool and questions tool were least effective in increasing the certainty.
In general a limited agreement on sensorial properties in the profiles made by
clients and product designers was found (table 8.11). In all sessions and with both
assignments a minimum of 1 to a maximum 3 terms out of the 5 selected were similar.

128
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

Table 8.11
Number of terms that were filled in similar in the sensorial properties profiles after using two tools.

Tools used Number of similar selected terms

Cutlery set Polaroid video
First, second Students Professionals Students Professionals
Own method, Picture tool 3 3 2 2
Own method, Sample tool 1 1 1 3
Own method, Questions tool 3 3 3 1
Questions tool, Sample tool 1 1 2 1
Questions tool, Picture tool 3 1 1 2
Picture tool, Sample tool 2 1 1 1

The terms that were agreed upon differed per session, indicating that in every session
different material profiles were made.
The picture tool and the questions tool led to most consensuses. Almost every time
these tools were used after the ‘own method’ the product designer and client agreed
on 2 or more terms. In the other combinations of tools we do see an agreement on 2 or
3 terms occasionally, but also a lot of agreement on only one term. The picture tool and
the questions tool led to most consensuses between client and product designer about
the key sensorial properties.
The material terms used in the profiles that the participants made before and after
using a tool were grouped into the different property categories (table 8.9). All the
created tools stimulated thinking in terms of sensorial properties; however, the picture
and sample tool also to the unwanted perception terms in 33%-50% of the profiles
(appendix 10).

Usability
In general, the product designers were able to use the tools after reading the
introduction. They adjusted the tools to their own approaches. For example, some
product designers used the picture tool to make categories of wanted and unwanted
personalities together with the client (figure 8.5). Others made a selection before
showing the cards. The sample tool invited participants to touch the samples and
to explore them (figure 8.6). Some couples grouped the samples as well during
the discussion. The questions tool was understood, but the participants had more
difficulties in using this tool directly. Only one couple of twelve was able to discuss
all the phases of the interaction in the time given in the study. Some product
designers advised to not apply the tool in the first design brief. They prefer to prepare
themselves by adjusting questions to a specific situation before asking the questions to
a client.

129
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

The participants mentioned different benefits per tool. They remarked that the picture
tool provides a perception of the personality the new product should have. It gives an
idea about the materials that create the desired personality. The example products
leave plenty of freedom for the product designers, but help the client to define what he
wants because he is used to think in product examples. The sample tool quickly brings
up the tactile aspects of the materials, according to the participants. It is easier to judge
whether or not the materials provide the right feeling with the sample tool than with
the picture tool. The sample tool however requires visualisation; some participants
found it difficult to imagine the materials in a product. The questions tool works as a
checklist. The participants mention that the questions force the client to think about all
aspects of the interaction in a more detailed manner than without the tool. A drawback
of the questions tool was that it led to long discussions in many cases, but did not
resulted in defining sensorial aspects.
All 24 participants (except for one) preferred to work with a combination of tools.
They argue that every tool focuses on different aspects of the new product. They
suggest that the picture tool is better for the design brief discussion and the samples
and questions tools are better in a later stage. The most preferred combination is the
picture tool together with the sample tool and thereafter combination of all three.

Creativity
The participants varied much in their opinions about how inspiring the tools were
(appendix 10). The picture tool was judged as very inspiring by the majority of
the participants. It leads to new ideas quickly. Mentioned drawbacks of the picture
tool are that it is hard to think ‘out-of-the-box’ because the tool provides so many
examples. The professional participants found the sample tool inspiring, although
it is on an unconscious level, while the student participants did not find the sample
tool inspiring. Students experienced the samples as difficult to imagine in the new
product. Other students were afraid that the materials were settled after selecting the
samples from the set, which was not the intention of the tool. The questions tool was
not found inspiring by most participants, although they found the tool clarifying. It

Figure 8.5
Different tactics used with the picture tool.

130
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

helped the participants to approach the project form another angle. One participant
mentioned that the questions tool was not directing to materials, but to aesthetics and
visual characteristics of materials, which is actually the purpose of the tool. Hence, the
objectives of the questions tool were not clear in its current form.
In general, the tools were judged as directing, especially the questions tool. Some found
the picture tool not directing. The professional product designers and clients did not
find the directing of tools annoying. They argue that in a design brief there is no time
for chitchats and the questions help to get to the point. The students, however, found
it annoying that the tools directed them. They argue that every tool restricts creativity.
Half of the student product designers even found this very annoying.
The tools influence the creativity of the users; however, it is hard to say if the tools
improve or restrict a person’s creativity. The participants’ opinions about this issue
varied greatly. In general, the results indicated that professionals were stimulated in
their creativity and students were restricted in their creativity. The picture and sample
tools score better than the questions tool.

Recommendations for improvement of the tools

This section first summarizes the recommendations the participants gave for the
improvements of the tools. Thereafter, three areas for improving the tools are
discussed, which are a combination of the tools, a clear converging step and focusing
on professional designers.

Picture tool
Although the picture tool was generally very well understood and judged as inspiring,
the following adjustments can be made to improve the translation of personalities into
sensorial properties of materials.
The back of the cards offered clues about the materials of the pictures shown, but did
not always lead to describing a material profile in sensorial properties. One reason
could be that the backs were not always used by the participants. More emphasise

Figure 8.6
The sample tool invites to touch and explore the required physical properties.

131
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

should be given to this side, for example by providing a checklist with all the clues. A
simple checklist with sensorial properties can also help, as not every designer agreed
on the clues given on the back of the cards. Some participants advised using only
product examples and no personality terms; however, we advocate using the terms
because they facilitate the discussion, even when clients and designers do not agree on
the terms.

Sample tool
The samples help to select the kind of properties that are required for the new
product, but the discussions often ended with the selection with one or two samples.
The purpose of the tool was in addition to look up the sensorial properties that were
represented in the sample to make a converging step in the discussions. The samples
could be looked up in a card with all the samples on it. The connection between the
samples and information could be emphasized, for example by putting the information
on the back of the sample. The use of a checklist with sensorial properties to sum up
the discussions is also advised.
The samples that are now present in the set were not considered as very inspiring
by the participants. Also, some samples were missing in their opinion. Efforts could
be put in compiling a new set of samples with the same background ideas, namely to
represent a wide variety of sensorial properties that are more extreme. The material
characteristics that the participants felt needed to be added were transparency
differences, more plastics, soft materials, stone or ceramics, metals, fibres and gels.

Questions tool
Many participants judged the questions tool to be less usable in its current form.
However, the questions tool was the tool most concerned with eliciting sensorial
properties, compared to the other tools. For this reason, abandoning the tool is not
recommended, but improving it with the help of the following suggestions. The
questions were now given as one list, but can be more effective when the phases are
separated on different cards. The order of the phases can then be changed easily,
which was often needed in the discussions. Although it is still important to discuss
all relevant phases, the discussions can follow a more natural sequence than with a
predefined order of questions. The next suggestion is to add pictures of situations to
the question cards. It is then easier to imagine the new product in the different phases.
For example, the first contact phase can be illustrated by a picture of a shop.
Some participants suggested using the questions tool at a later stage in the design
process; however, this is not recommended. As soon as the project objectives are
defined, it is wise to consider the materials objectives as well to reduce the number
of iterations. However, preparation by reformulating the questions before the actual
meeting with the client is recommended.

Combination of the tools

The tools could be improved by making a combined form. Although the participants

132
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

considered a combined form with the picture and the sample tool, starting with the
questions tool would be most beneficial, as the questions tool was more focused on
sensorial properties than the other tools. In addition, this tool led to a high number of
similar key properties on which to base a materials search. The uncertainty caused by
the questions tool can be reduced by using the picture tool or sample tool to aid the
discussions per user-product interaction phase of the questions tool. The combined
tools are especially effective when the picture and sample tool focus on different
sensorial properties.
The results showed a wide variety of opinions about usability and creativity of the
tools. Not only did it show differences between professionals and students, and
between clients and product designers, it also revealed differences within the groups.
This means that one tool does not suit all. A combination of tools may meet the needs
of more users; however, product designers should then be able to select and use only
some parts of the combined tool. The tool could then be effective for different product
designers, working with different clients and in different projects.

Material profiles in terms of sensorial properties

Not every tool yielded a material profile described in terms of sensorial properties.
Although the tools were designed for this, especially the picture and sample tool
led to material profiles described in perception terms. Although clients and product
designers use the same perception terms, they still might translate the terms
differently into materials characteristics, which is undesirable. The picture and sample
tools thus seem to lack a clear translation step.
The questions tool resulted in a material profile in sensorial terms. In this tool, the
translation step was indicated by the last question for every discussed phase, namely
“Which sensorial properties play a role in this?” Furthermore, a checklist of sensorial
properties was provided. Although not every product designer used this checklist, it
helped to direct the discussions towards sensorial properties. A similar translation
step can make the picture and sample tool more leading to sensorial properties than
they are now.

Professionals and students

Students and professionals differ in their experience with the execution of materials
searches for design projects and the background of these projects. Students have
almost no experience with projects for clients and with design brief meetings. Despite
these differences, we expected that the tools would be usable for both professionals
and students. However, the results show that both groups respond differently to the
tools.
Students have more difficulty with the tools than the professionals. The students find
the tools more restrictive their creativity and have more trouble using them than
professionals. Some students were very explicit in their disinterest in using the tools
for future projects. An explanation might be that students do not yet encounter the

133
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

1 questions tool front side

FIRST�CONTACT

How�will�the�product�differentiate�in�a�shop?

How�will�the�product�attract�attention?

Compared�to�similar�products?�
Compared�to�not�similar�products?�
Compared�to�the�environment?�
for�example:

attract differ

SILLY
equal repel

MiPS�� TUDelft

2 picture tool front side

MiPS�� TUDelft

Ȼ transparent
3 picture tool back side Ȼ flexible
Ȼ full�of�color
Ȼ gloss

4 sample tool Sample:�

plastic

5 questions tool back side

Which�materials�aspects�play�a�role�in�the�first�
contact�with�the�product?

VISUAL TACTILE
reflection denting
glossiness�
transparency
softness
dampening
6 sheet with related properties
scattering porosity
roughness flexibility
texture plasticity

7 creation of material profile

light�intensity brittleness
hue�of�color weight
multiple�colors stickiness
intensity�of�color AUDITORY SMELL�AND�TASTE wetness
darkness�of�color dampening intensity�of�odor oiliness
durability�of�color pitch fragrance roughness
pattern loudness taste� warmth
8 search for materials

Figure 8.7
Order in which the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) tools are ideally applied. Step 1 to 5 are
performed in the defining phase of the MiPS technique, step 6 and 7 in the translating phase and step
8 in the usage phase.

134
 Designing tools for user-centred materials selection

problems in materials searches addressed by these tools. They did not understand
the effort needed to diminish these problems, and therefore were less willing to use
the tools. Furthermore, Ahmed et al. (2003) found that novice designers were less
experienced with using design strategies, such as this tool requires. Students probably
need more time to learn the tools before they can use them.

8.5 One combined tool for the MiPS technique

The usability study clearly showed that the current tools can be improved to increase
their functioning. The recommendations for improvement were to combine the tools
and to increase the communication about the sensorial properties. The expected
advantage of a combination of tools is that the strengths of every tool can be extended
to reach consensus about the key sensorial properties that create the required user-
product interaction. This section examines the considerations made to integrate the
tools. How the tools are integrated is visualized in figure 8.7. The questions, picture,
sample tools and checklist with sensorial properties can be found in appendix 5, 6, 7
and 8.
The basis for the combined tool is the questions tool. In the concept form, the
questions of every phase were presented on one piece of paper. In the combined form,
the questions will be separated per phase and presented on cards. The advantage
is that the product designers can change the order of the phases more easily with
separate question cards. Furthermore, the back of these cards can be used too. This
creates space for a checklist mentioning the sensorial properties of materials. Just as
with the picture tool, one side of the card can then be used as a diverging step (the
questions) and one side can be used as a converging step (the sensorial properties).
For every phase in the user-product interaction, the picture cards and material
samples support the discussions about the desired visual and tactile interaction.
The picture cards and samples were adjusted such that they can be used in a mixed
form. Every card with product examples is now accompanied by a material sample.
The set of material samples was thus extended from 11 to 16 samples. The samples
represented one of the material characteristics of the products on the cards. To
maintain a wide variety of sensorial properties in the sample set, some of the product
examples were changed. For example, the product examples of the ‘modest’ card were
changed to be able to add a textile material. Some of the materials as suggested during
the usability study were added in the new version.
The samples were made the same size as the picture cards (80x60mm) and on the
back of the picture cards a fragment of the materials sample was added. The product
designer is then provided with a visual clue to the sample and when using the sample,
the product designer can find the sample characteristics on the back of the picture
card. The card with properties that was used in the concept form of the sample tool is
then no longer necessary. On the questions cards, visual clues are given of the picture

135
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

cards and samples to stimulate the product designers to use them as aid for answering
the questions.
In the concept version of the tools, a clear converging step was missing. The checklist
is an important element of the tool to facilitate the converging step. Using the checklist
forces product designers to define the required user-interaction aspects as sensorial
properties. Although the sensorial properties are given on the back of the question
cards, which already function as a checklist, a separate checklist is provided on which
the designers can make notes. The checklist is designed in such a way that there is
a white space available to make a sketch or add text. The aspects mentioned on the
back of the picture cards can be directly noted on the checklist when using the cards
or the samples. Both use the same terms. Using the picture cards and samples as aid
for the questions discussed per interaction phase, could stimulate the designers to
make a converging step. The importance of this converging step will be stressed in the
instructions of the tool.

8.6 Conclusions
For the first two steps in the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique, the
defining and translating step, tools were designed. The first kind of tools facilitates
the communication of product designer and client for defining the required user-
interaction aspects in terms of sensorial properties. The second tool provides a sheet
to translate the sensorial properties into physical properties of materials so that they
can be used to get material advice from technology-oriented information providers.
The communication tools (questions, picture and sample tools) were evaluated
separately in design brief meetings with product designers and clients. The tools were
effective in different ways. The picture and questions tools led to a high consensus
between product designer and clients about the key user-interaction aspects in a
material profile. Only the questions tool did this by directing product designers to
sensorial property words, which was the purpose of the tools. The picture tool was
very user-friendly and together with the sample tool they were stimulating creativity
of clients and product designers. The questions tool was not evaluated as being
user-friendly or stimulating creativity in its concept form.
Adjustments were made to be able to combine the tools. This combined form uses the
advantages of every tool and improves the converging step in the tool. Although the
initial tools helped product designers with defining user-interaction aspects, they still
translate only a low percentage of these aspects into sensorial properties. Emphasising
the importance of the checklist with these properties could stimulate to define the
material profile in sensorial properties. The combined tool is therefore expected to be
successful in increasing the effectiveness in the materials selection searches, which
will be studied in the next chapter.

136
 Chapter

9 Evaluating the tools

in design practice

The previous chapter explains the design of the new materials selection tools for the
Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique. These tools help to communicate
about the required user-interaction aspects of a new product and its materials in a
design brief meeting. Furthermore, the tools help to formulate this profile in sensorial
properties and its physical equivalents. Using the tools is expected to facilitate the
materials searches following the design brief. For example, the material profiles that
are formulated with the tools help technology-oriented information providers in giving
advice about the suitable materials. Furthermore, the results of these searches are
expected to correspond to the clients’ expectations about the materials. In this chapter,
the tools are evaluated in ongoing design projects. The results of this study increase
the understanding about the situations in which the tools are effective and in which
they are less effective and how they can be improved. The results are used in chapter
10 to revise the MiPS technique and tools.

9.1 Objectives and expectations of the study

The function of the tools that support the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS)
technique is to create clear criteria in a material profile about the required user-
interaction aspects of a new product (table 9.1). The tools involve the clients, who are
the persons that contract product designers to do a design project, in creating this
profile. This material profile is formulated as sensorial properties, which form the
bridge between the user-interaction aspects and the physical material properties. The
tools are expected to increase the effectiveness in materials selection by diminishing
the extra steps needed to clarify criteria and needed to find materials that create the
required user-product interaction. Furthermore, they intend to support the increase of
user-interacting qualities of the product.
Saakes (2007) found that when discussing a tool, product designers often focus on the
limitations, but when they actually used the tools, they focused on their designs and

137
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 9.1
Usage and functions of the MiPS tools.

Tool name Consists of Used in Function

Questions tool 6 cards with questions Defining phase with Discuss the sensorial aspects
(appendix 6) client in the user-product interaction
phases
Picture tool 16 cards with product Defining phase with Define the sensorial aspects
examples (appendix 5) client of the new product based on
existing products
Sample tool 16 material samples Defining phase with Select the leading sensorial
(appendix 8) client properties based on material
samples
Checklist Overview of sensorial Defining phase Summarize the discussion into a
properties (appendix 7) material profile
Relations sheet Sensorial properties Translating / searching Relate the sensorial properties
and their physical phase with the physical properties of
equivalents materials to make a combined
(appendix 9) material profile

experiences rather than on the limitations. He mentions that it is important to explore

tool use in practice using real-world projects. Only discussing the tools with design
professionals might not reveal the actual effects of the tool. Product designers were
therefore allowed to experience the effects of the tools by using them in practice before
they were asked to evaluate them. The approach yielded insight into the effects in
larger projects, compared to projects that are possible in a fictive laboratory situation.

Aim and research questions

The variety of demands that practice puts on the tools, means that they need to be
flexible for various different design situations. The evaluation method is therefore
to put the tools in design practice and not test them in a streamlined pre-described
process. The aim of the present study is to assess the tools within the MiPS technique
in design practice and evaluate their effect on the materials searches in the synthesis
phase.
Product designers were asked to use the MiPS tools in the client meetings of their
own projects and then to evaluate the tools. The tools were not only evaluated during
the client meeting at which the product designers used the tools, but also during
the preceding materials selection activities. Participating product designers were
given a diary to recall their observations and reflections on the effect of the tools on
the materials selection process soon after they experienced the effects. The tools
are effective when three criteria are met. First, the product designers used the tools.
Second, they understood the benefits of the tools and third, they noted a positive
change in the design brief meetings and the materials searches compared to projects in
which they did not use the tools. Such effects were, for example, fewer changes in the
project, an increased understanding of the material profile or easier materials searches

138
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

compared to other projects. The criteria were studied via the following research
questions:

Question 1 Which of the tools do product designers use in their

process?

Question 2 What are the benefits of the tools according to the

product designers?

Question 3 How is the tools effective in the synthesis phase?

Furthermore, we tried to find ways to improve the effectiveness of the tools. We

therefore asked the product designers to make suggestions for improvements based on
their usage experience of the tools. The results help to revise the tools and to create a
user-instruction for the tool. The fourth research question is:

Question 4 What is needed to make the tools more effective?

Expectations
The focus of the evaluation of the tools is on three first phases in the materials
selection process, namely 1) the design brief meeting, 2) the preceding materials
searches and 3) the meeting in which the product designer proposes the candidate
materials to the client. This means that the tools are studied in the analysis phase and
during at least one cycle of the Materials Selection Activities (MSA) model (figure 9.1).
In the usability study in section 8.4, in which the tools were evaluated only in the
design brief meeting, we had found that the professional product designers were able
to use the first versions of the tools and adjust them to their own preferences. The
current tools are expected to be equally useable, although some improvements were
made as described in section 8.5. An extra aspect that will be studied here is how the
use of the MiPS tools affects the agreements made between product designer and
client about the materials. In the MiPS technique, these agreements are summarized
in a material profile and form the starting point for the materials searches. In the
previous study, the product designers were not starting a material search based on the
design brief, therefore, they did not document the material objectives and constraints.
The use of the tools before an actual search should lead to a material profile in terms of
sensorial properties.
The translation of sensorial properties into physical properties is expected to improve
the materials searches. The reason for this is that technology-oriented information
providers are able to give specialised recommendations about the physical properties
related to the required user-interaction aspects of the materials. This advice
accelerates the materials selection process (section 6.3). Furthermore, it should be
easier to make a balanced comparison of materials based on both the technology and
user-interaction aspects.

139
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

After the materials searches, the product designers meet the clients again to discuss
the candidate materials found based on the product designers’ understanding of the
objectives and constraints discussed in the design brief. After using the tools, the
candidate materials are expected to better match the expectations of the client and
that he or she will be less eager to indicate changes. There are two reasons for this
assumption. Firstly, the client was more involved in defining the user-interaction
criteria for the materials and thus knows what to expect. Secondly, the product
designer could do his search based on the leading sensorial properties and therefore
was able to focus the search on the required properties.

9.2 Case study method

About 25 product designers were approached by mail and telephone to invite them to
participate in the study. Most reacted enthusiastically about the tools and the emphasis
these tools could have on the materials selection process. They acknowledged the fact
that they needed new tools and were willing to try them. Although, in design agencies,
design projects are regularly started, it appeared extremely difficult to find shorter
projects within the time frame of the study that included the user-product interaction.
Most of the product designers contacted declined to participate because of these
restrictions.

ANALYSIS

1 design brief formulating

material objectives
and constraints

2 material searches material

profile
criteria set
activity activity

SYNTHESIS

3 material proposals

choosing comparing
activity activity
DESIGN AND
MATERIALS
SPECIFICATION

Figure 9.1
Part of the materials selection process that is evaluated in this study shown in the simplified version
of the MSA model.

140
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

Table 9.2
Summary of the cases in which the tools are used. The product will be used as a label for the case.

Case Product Relation with the client Moment in the project

1 Child saver Known client After technical design phase
2 Beverage packaging New client Very start
3 Interior for a reception Known client After research period
room
4 Hearing aid Used with colleague After research period

Four product designers were interested to invest in the evaluation of the tools and
were willing to use the tools with their clients. Furthermore, they were able to find
a project in which user-interaction aspects were relevant that fell in the time frame
of this study. The four projects form a heterogeneous group; they differ on product
category, on the relationship between product designers and client and the project
phase during which the tools were used (table 9.2). Because the aim was to explore the
variety in demands that practice puts on the tool, this proved an effective combination
of projects for the study. All product designers worked for an agency that offers the
design project to clients from initiation to finished product.

Procedure
The MiPS tools as explained in section 8.5 are used in this study (table 9.1, appendix 5
to 9). The tools were given to the product designer in person to be able to explain the
different tools, give a quick demonstration and explain the purpose of the study. The
benefits of using the tools were not revealed in the instructions of the tools as this was
one of the research questions. In addition to the tool, the product designers received
a research diary. This diary contained instructions for using the tool (appendix 11),
instructions about the study, and questions that the product designers were to answer
during the specific phases in the study (figure 9.2). The instructions in the booklet
were similar to the ones given in the previous study described in section 8.4. Those
participants were able to use the tools on the spot, without training. The participants
of this study read the booklet and studied the tools before they used it in their client
meeting.
The participating product designers were interviewed twice: once after the design
brief meeting and then again, after the meeting in which the product designer
presented the candidate materials to the client. The first interview took approximately
one and a half hours, the second, one hour. Otherwise, the researcher was not present.
Diary questions A: Pre-briefing of the study. The product designer answered questions
about his normal design and materials selection approaches and his communication
with the client. Furthermore, he explained the project in which he would use the tools.
These questions were important to understand how the product designer usually

141
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

worked and to compare his customary approach with the process followed in this
study.
Phase 1: Design brief meeting The product designer used the tools in a meeting with
the client and thereby actively changed his approaches. He or she could decide which
parts of the tools to use and in what manner. This phase resulted in a material profile
on the basis of which the product designer could start phase 2.
Diary questions B: After the meeting with the client, the product designer was asked
to fill in questions about the meeting and the material profile that was made. Specific
questions were asked about which (parts of the) tools were used and why (question
1), as well as what the effect of using the tools on the discussions was. The product
designer was asked to compare the design brief meeting, in which he used the tools,
with a previous design brief meeting in which he did not use the tools.
Interview 1: The diary answers for A and B were discussed during the first interview.
After explaining a general impression about the tools the product designer was asked
about his answers in the diary pages one by one. The focus of these discussions was on
the benefits of the differences (question 2) and effects (question 3) mentioned by the
product designers.
Phase 2: Materials searches After the design brief meeting, the product designer
could start the design process and the materials searches in this process. No special
instructions were given with regard to these searches.
Diary questions C: Before the product designers presented the candidate materials
chosen to the client, they were asked to fill in the questions for item C. These questions
concerned the materials searches and the iterations required herein. Special attention
is given to the information providers contacted during these searches. Again, questions
were asked about the differences between materials searches in other projects and in
the studied project.
instruction

interview 1

interview 2

client designer material designer

expert client designer

A phase 1: B phase 2: C phase 3: D

design brief meeting searching for materials proposing materials
using the MiPS tools

time

Figure 9.2
Procedure of the study.

142
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

Phase 3: Material proposal The last phase studied was the second meeting with the
client in which the product designer presents the results of his searches and proposed
candidate materials for the new product.
Diary questions D: The last set of questions could be filled in after the second client
meeting. These questions were about the client’s reaction on the proposals and
whether or not adjustments were needed after this meeting. Finally, the product
designer was asked to summarize the most important effects of using the tools on the
different phases in the materials selection searches.
Interview 2: In this interview, the answers for C and D were discussed. The focus was
on the benefits of the differences experienced (question 2) and the product designer’s
visions on the effect of the use of the MiPS tools on the course of the project (question
3). Furthermore, possible improvements to the tools were discussed (question 4).

Data processing
The interviews and diary answers were processed into a case description per project.
These case descriptions consisted of the following topics in order to be able to answer
the different research questions.
1 A project description and a description of the context in which the tools
were used, where in the process, and the product designer’s relationships
with the client.
2 The way the tools were used, which parts were used and in which order
(question 1)
3 The difference between the product designers’ approach with and without
the tools in the design brief meeting (question 2)
4 The course of the materials searches and the differences with other
projects (question 2)
5 The product designer’s vision on the effect of using the tools on the
materials searches and on the reaction of the client on the proposed candidate
materials (question 2)
Besides a textual description of the case an outline was made per case in which the
following aspects were presented (figure 9.4, 5, 6 and 8). The legend of the outlines is
presented in figure 9.3.
1 Project outline with the design steps taken in the studied project. Three
kinds of steps were distinguished, namely steps where the product designer
meets a client, steps in which the project designer works alone or in a team
and steps in which the designer contacts materials experts. The steps where
the product designer used the tools were indicated in the scheme.
2 The studied period related to the design steps taken.

143
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

3 The period the tools were used and the specific parts of the tools that were
used. Indicated is whether the product designer just looked at the
tool, used the tool as part of a conversation or when the tools were used to
drive the conversation.
4 The main effects of the tools that the product designers noted during the
different design steps.
The case descriptions were sent to the participating product designers to allow them
to make corrections.

9.3 Case descriptions

The functioning of the tools was studied in a sequence of materials selection activities
in design practice and the realities of field studies in an industrial context were
encountered. For example, in one project the client of the product designer cancelled
the project after the studied client meeting. The tool was used here, but the effect of
the tool in the next phase could not be experienced, simply because it was cancelled.
In another project, the focus shifted from user-product interaction towards technical
design and further studying of the project was not relevant. As a result, the product
designer of the child saver and hearing aid products did not follow the whole sequence
of the study. However, most of the topics were discussed during the first interviews.
The different cases are described in the following. The opinions in the descriptions are
those of the participating product designers. The interpretation of these opinions is
presented in section 9.4: ‘discussion of the results’.

Case 1 – Child saver1

The child saver is a new product that gives an alarm signal when a child falls into the
water. The user-interaction aspects of materials are relevant in this project because
the child should enjoy wearing the product. However, the technical aspects drive the
development as the functionality of the product is new and there is a range of safety
requirements involved.

product designer / client tool usage

playing role in background

product design team forming part of the conversation
driving the conversatoin

product designer / materials expert

Figure 9.3
Legend for the outlines of the cases (in figure 9.4, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.8).

144
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

The MiPS tools were used in a meeting with a known client at a moment where most
of the basic material decisions had already been made (figure 9.4). The technical
development of the product was already in progress for a year. Unfortunately the
project was cancelled shortly after this meeting. Hence, this case only describes the
results of the first interview.

Use of the MiPS tools

The general impression of the product designer was that the tool was compact and
easy to bring to clients. “It is effective in a sense that I do not have to make a set of
samples from the extensive collection available at the design agency”. As a drawback
of the sample tool, the product designer noted that the translation from a sensorial
property to a product is rather abstract, both for himself and his client as illustrated
by his comment that: “I prefer to use samples of buttons to discuss which softness or
flexibility is required by the client in the buttons of a new product”.
The picture and sample tools were used at a client meeting. These two tools are
attractive; they can be shuffled around, played with. The questions tool and the
checklist were not used. The product designer: “The project had progressed quite
far and the questions were suitable for the beginning of a project”. The sensorial
properties, both in the checklist and the sheet with related properties, did not fit the
product designer’s usual approaches of referring to materials.

case 1 - child saver

project outline
design brief definition of material characteristics in different iterative steps proposals materials decisions

client design contact client design client contact

meeting period manufacturer meeting period meeting manufacturer

studied period interview 1

march 6 th march 27 th

tool usage
questions
pictures
own example products, product parts and materials samples
checklist
properties sheet
effects of the tool
• ‘ready to go’
• confirmation of
decisions
• samples less effective
than examples of other
products

Figure 9.4
Outline of case 1 - child saver.

145
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

The product designer liked the picture tool more than the other tools. Similar pictures
are usually used in projects to make collages, but the picture tool provides a reference
framework for the ambiance of the product. The product designer could probe
whether or not the client had the same ideas for the new product, using this tool.
Especially clarifying were the discussions about the products that, in their opinion,
were wrongly placed in the personality categories.

Differences in the client meeting

In general, one of the questions in the design brief is about the clients’ ideas for the
aesthetics for the new product. For example, what does the client indicate as beautiful?
The product designers then explore why the clients consider the examples provided
beautiful, or not. The product designer takes along a great many examples of products
and parts to client meetings. The sample set can be use in the same manner, but has
some drawbacks. He prefers to control the selection, by showing parts that are as
similar as possible to the ideas for the new product.
After using the tools, the same materials were chosen that had been selected without
the tools. There were no differences in this respect, although the procedure by which
the choice of materials was arrived at was different, in the sense that it provides a
step-wise technique and elements to play with. Similar descriptions were used to
describe the materials.

Materials searches
During the materials searches the product designer often contacts the client to choose
candidate materials. The product designer proposes a material, shows it to the client,
who confirms the choice, and the product designer continues his work. The product
designer follows a very pragmatic approach, for example uses textures based on the
materials used in the computer monitor in the office. Comparing the new product
characteristics with existing product parts helps to quantify the materials. Existing
materials are sometimes exactly copied.
In general, the client asks for advice about aesthetics and quality of the materials.
The product designers determine these aspects for the client during their materials
selection process. However, the client makes the decisions, so the product designer
should be able to motivate his choices and convince the client that if he advises a
certain materials that it will work. Physical examples are seen as the most important
elements in presenting the proposals. The materials are not discussed as a single
element, but integrated in the concept design proposal. Material proposals are
convincing when they are combined into a similar form of the product that is being
designed. Selected physical examples of e.g. textures, softness and colour are taken

1 Henk Crone MSc. Cuckoo Company, Delft. Tools provided on March 6th. Interview was taken on March
27th 2007.

2 Marjolijn Min MSc., MINID, Den Haag. Tools provided on March 8th. Interviews were taken on April 6th
and May 3rd 2007.

146
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

to a manufacturer, who measures the properties in order to obtain information about

the possibilities. The product designer only speaks about the sensorial properties of
materials in context with example parts.
The product designer would not extend the set of materials samples, because he
prefers to use examples of materials that are shaped in a certain form to be able to
show the characteristics of the material in relation to geometry. The card shaped
materials samples of the tool are too limited for this.

Case 2 – Beverage packaging2

The project is about a new concept for a beverage packaging. The user-interaction
aspects are relevant in this project during the sales and use of the product. The
consumer needs to be attracted by its colour, tactility and emotions. The product
should convince the consumer to buy the product again. The end-user should have the
feeling that the packaging will not break during transportation.
The tools were used with a new client during the very first meeting in the project
(figure 9.5). The purpose of this meeting was for both parties to become acquainted
with each other and to settle the budget. No design ideas were generated or discussed
at this moment. Afterwards, the product designers found this too soon for using the
MiPS tools, which is explained hereafter.

case 2 - beverage packaging

project outline
design brief market and target group design profile searching for materials design proposals mock ups

client research
definition client
materials contact client design
meeting period meeting
database manufacturer meeting period

studied period interview 1 interview 2

march 8 th april 6 th may 3 rd

tool usage
questions
pictures
+ own samples
checklist
properties sheet
effects of the tool
• decreased clarity • visualization of • knowledge of • concrete, less chaotic
• decreased sense of trust desired ambiance search criteria discussions
• increased vocabulary • ‘ready to go’
• unconventional materials
• easier to make decisions

Figure 9.5
Outline of case 2 – beverage packaging.

147
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Use of the MiPS tools

The questions tool was used to prepare the client meeting. During the meeting, the
picture and sample tools were used. The client hardly interacted with the picture cards
and samples. For the client, it was difficult to focus on the materials properties in the
example products, which made it difficult to discuss which specific aspects the clients
preferred in the new product. The product designer found that the checklist and sheet
with related properties contained too much text and therefore did not use it. She
suggested that with a more complex product than the current product, the lists might
be of use.
The picture and sample tools were used a second time in the definition step shown in
figure 9.6. This definition step took place after a research period in which the target
user group and the market were investigated. The two designers in this project used
the tools to define the design profile and the materials in this profile. This profile
consisted of collages that showed the desired ambiance of the product. Here, the tools
helped to describe this ambiance and to discuss the meaning of the collages.
The product designer used the samples and picture tools a third time when they
consulted the potential manufacturer for the product. The designer had worked before
with this manufacturer. During the consultation, the example products on the picture
cards were discussed together with the material samples of the manufacturer.
The product designer liked the samples most because it is often difficult to get samples
or to collect them. Furthermore, the set contains some examples that the product
designer would not have thought of themselves. However, she mentioned that, for the
client, it is difficult to explain whether they prefer a sample for its visual properties
or its tactile properties. Hence, the product designer suggested making two sets that
differ on the sensorial modality of which they represent the properties.

Differences in the design brief

At a first meeting with a client, the product designer discusses the budget for the
project. User-interaction aspects of the product are usually not yet discussed at this
moment. The product designer only asks, at this point, how innovative the clients
want to be, and the appearance the clients associates with this. Only then, they start a
research period in which they investigate the target group and market. The tool forced
the product designer to discuss the user-interaction aspects before this investigation.
This was viewed as a distinct disadvantage: “The client provides one opinion on a
possible user-product interaction. However, a product is used by many users and the
task of the designer is to translate their needs into a product. Giving the client this
task can result in products that do not match the needs of the end-users, which is not a
desirable situation”.
In other projects, the product designer tries to make concrete agreements about
budget, in which user-interaction aspects are only discussed in broad outlines.
Using the MiPS tools made the design brief meeting less clear than usual, because

148
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

more details were discussed than necessary at this point, according to the product
designer. They bring examples of materials later in the projects, but then to manipulate
the client and not to give him a say in the materials selection process. The product
designer wants no discussion about subjective topics with the client, but wants the
freedom to create their own user-product interaction based on their target group and
market research. The product designer had the idea that the tool diminished their
status as a project leader, because the tools enable the client to participate in the
design process.
The product designer mentioned the difficulty for a client to imagine the end product
of the design process. This is the product designer’s task. The picture and samples are
therefore too overwhelming for the client and the product designer does not want to
discuss the lack of skills of the client.

Materials searches
Before the first materials searches, the product designer performed a target group
and market investigation. After this, they defined a preliminary product profile
with the help of collages and the tools. The product profile normally describes the
characteristics of the new product, the ambiance and feeling, but not necessarily the
materials. Using the tools here offered them an understanding of the sensorial material
properties in the profile. Based on the profile, a material search was started with
Cambridge Engineering Selector (www.grantadesign.com) and a manufacturer. The
client was not consulted during the materials searches.

Effect of the tools on the materials searches and material proposals

The tools consist of elements that are usually used by the product designer in a design
project, but the tools organize and gather some of these elements in an orderly way.
The tools clarified how materials could contribute to the desired ambiance and helped
to describe how they do that. The product designer will probably use a new material
for the product, but they do not know whether this particular choice was affected by
the tool usage. They did mention that they felt more secure about the choice.
The picture and sample tools were used during the consultations with the
manufacturer, who added his samples to the tools. The product designer described
this as follows: “The conversation was accelerated, more tangible and less chaotic
compared to other consultations. The manufacturer was used working with product
designers, so he was used seeing the product examples and samples as representations
of certain required properties. He also has the required knowledge about material to
be able to make the connections between the properties represented by the pictures
and samples”.
After using the tools, it was clearer for the design team what kind of solutions
they were looking for. The product designer suspects that the search for materials
accelerated and became more tangible. Moreover, it was easer to decide that the
material was suitable for the product. The product designer explained: “Without using

149
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

the tools, it takes longer to find the words to describe what you are looking for. Using
the tools resulted in a vocabulary of required material aspects”.
The client reacted positively to the proposed materials. The product designer
attributes this to the convincing power of the presenting product designer. The tools
influenced the preparations for the second meeting. This effect may be augmented by
using the tool in a brainstorm session before the client meeting.
The product designer indicated as the main difference between a project in which the
tool is used and a project in which this is not the case as being: “Without the tools there
are more checks needed to verify whether the materials are suitable for the desired
ambiance of the product. Normally these checks are only performed with words, and
they were now made tangible with example products and samples”. They concluded by
saying that the MiPS tools can probably be used internally with different designers in a
team and with manufactures, but in client meetings, the tools are less effective.

Case 3 – Interior for a reception room3

The project is a new interior for a reception room of Maison Descartes, the
French institute in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The design aim is to improve the
communication of the building with the people walking by and coming inside and to
improve the appearance and functionality of the reception. The new interior should
make the people outside curious about the institute. The interviewed product designer
was responsible for the spatial design and concept. One graphical design duo is
involved for the exterior of the building. Later, it was decided to involve an extra party,
namely a furniture maker.
The MiPS tools were used in a client meeting in which the concept ideas were
presented (figure 9.6). The tools were used to fine-tune the materials selection. The
designer proposed a fan-shaped interior with large surfaces. The dual language culture
of the institute (French and Dutch) is reflected by the desks and brochure displays.
The product designer proposed using the material Corian™4 in the interior and had
brought some samples of this material to the meeting. After the meeting, the product
designer and client decided to choose this material. The reasons were the well-
balanced combination of emotion and function represented in the material, the desire
to touch it and it’s modern, but at the same time classical look.

Use of the MiPS tools

At the meeting, the product designer used the questions, picture and sample tools. She
started with the question cards and selected three to discuss, namely the ‘first contact
phase’ card, the ‘usage phase’ card and the ‘rest phase’ card (table 8.3). The product

3 Sophie Krier BSc, designer and design teacher, Rotterdam. Tools provided on March 14th. Interviews were
taken on April 18th and May 17th 2007.

4 Corian is a trademarked product of DuPont (www.corian.com).

150
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

designer asked the question and the client answered. Some parts of the question were
adjusted to the situation. The client answered that the design should be allowed to
contrast with the surroundings in a soft confrontation in an echo of the space. It must
attract people. Serenity, softness and generosity were important words related to the
required user-product interaction.
After the discussions of the different interaction phases, the picture and sample tools
were used (figure 9.7). The pictures were used first, in random order. The client was
asked to order the cards from yes to no; from the desired characteristics to those that
were not. The personality terms on the cards were used first and then the example
products per term. The pictures and personality terms do not always match; which
can confuse the client but also lead to animated discussion. The cards were reordered
and then turned over to discuss the sensorial properties of the example products.
The client then took the samples and laid them on the cards. The combination was
reordered during further discussion. The Corian samples were also used in this step, to
be able to discuss the desired appearance of the Corian.
The checklist with properties was used last in the discussions. The important
properties were discussed with the client. The product designer liked to generate ideas
with the tools, but the checklist felt as if it were homework. It was unclear how the
checklist worked in the discussion.

case 3 - interior for a reception room

project outline
design brief establishing concept proposal concept selection searching for possibilities in materials budget refinements

client design contact client contact contact client

meeting period supplier meeting supplier manufacturer meeting

studied period interview 1 interview 2

march 14 th april 18 th may 17 th

tool usage
questions
pictures
+ own samples
checklist
properties sheet
effects of the tool
• positive involvement • understanding the • clear brief for
of client in meeting properties based on manufacturer
• clarity which the material
was selected
• emphasis on
sensorial design • increased vocabulary
• discussing materials
instead of form
• new idea: differences
in color and gloss

Figure 9.6
Outline of case 3 – interior for a reception room.

151
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

The terms that were most frequently used in the discussions were glossiness versus
matt and different grey and blue colours. As a result of the meeting, the product
designers started to vary these properties in the different parts of the interior. This
was not officially formulated in a material profile, but did affect the subsequent
materials searches.

Differences in the meeting

The product designer mentioned that the most remarkable aspect of the use of the
tools was that material aspects were discussed in relation to the user’s interaction with
the interior. She discussed the material properties with the MiPS tools, and via that
discussion arrived at a discussion on the intentions of the product. The attention was
thereby withdrawn from form, which was refreshing. The product designer liked the
fact that the tactile aspects of the user-product interaction come forward when using
the tools.
The use of the tools led to a different relationship with the client during the meeting.
The product designer explains: “At other meetings I propose my concepts and the
client poses critical questions. Use of the tools during this meeting encouraged
cooperation. The client also had the opportunity to provide input, which I like. The
meeting was more relaxed”.
The results of the meeting were more concrete compared to other meetings, yielding
more clarity for the product designer about the project and for third parties involved
in manufacturing certain parts of the concept. The client gained awareness of the
possibilities in the project. Materials are normally not explicitly mentioned during
meetings with the clients.

Figure 9.7
Use of the tool in case 3. Client orders a selection of the cards to his preference (left picture), uses the
back sides of the cards to verify the order (middle picture) and places the samples on top of the cards
(right picture).

152
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

Materials searches
The discussed concept design was sent to the Corian supplier and he reacted
enthusiastically. The supplier explained the aesthetic and processing possibilities of
the material. Based on this information, the product designer was able to fine tune the
design. For example, the material is less durable in the high gloss variant, which makes
this variant less appropriate for a public desk. The material can be supplied in sheets
and processed in the same way as wood. It is, for example, possible to mill words in the
plates and fill them with transparent Corian afterwards.
The product designer contacted the manufacturer of Corian and a furniture maker to
ask for an estimate to build the interior as designed. This estimate forms the basis for
the detailed design phase and is discussed with the client. In this phase, the aim is to
analyse the estimate and find ways to lower the costs, for example by changing the
sizes of the desks or using Corian in combination with wood.

Effect of the tools on the materials searches and on the material proposals
The product designer explained that after using the tools, more emphasis was given
to the material properties. The product designer had more words in mind while
designing. Normally the materials do not drive the design process, the intentions and
interactions do. The tools provide ideas to create these intentions and interactions
with materials.
Parts of the interior were to be fabricated by a furniture maker. After using the tools,
the product designer could clearly explain the important ideas behind the assignment
to the furniture maker. She thinks that he was consequently better able to decide how
the parts that he was to fabricate would connect to the other parts.
The product designer suggested improving the MiPS tool by making an own version
of the picture and sample tools. In the sample tool, she would put together a set of
materials samples used in previous projects to show her expertise and style, and
yielding a new kind of mood board, with more concrete aspects than the ones currently
used by her. The mood boards could become blueprints for evaluating the designs.
The tools did not affect the client meeting after the material search. This meeting
concentrated on the budget estimates and the overruns. The product designer
indicated that the main effects of the tools were the shift in the relationship with the
client, from that of a presenter/ listener to cooperation. Use of the tool did not result
in a documented material profile, but the words that were discussed stayed in the
designers mind and were used in the materials searches. It was important to bring the
Corian samples into the meeting, but the samples of the tool were relevant to nuance
the selection for Corian and its aesthetical form.

153
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Case 4 – Hearing aid5

The project is a new range of hearing aid products. The product designer distinguishes
the following user-interaction aspects for the product: the emotion of the first contact,
the senses, ergonomics and feedback during use. Applying new materials would not
be a problem in this product as the technology is relatively more expensive than the
material costs.
After presenting the first ideas, the client required a more technically focused solution
than initially indicated. The MiPS tools were therefore not used at a client meeting
in this project, as the use of the tools would not be appropriate here. The product
designer explained that it is, in general, very difficult to co-create and discuss the
required user-product interaction with a client. Much depends on who sits on the
other side of the table, such as an engineer, marketer or director, so they perform this
step themselves and present it to the client to discuss. Hence, the MiPS tools were
instead discussed with a designer from the project team who knew the client from
previous projects (figure 9.8). At the time of this discussion, the product designers had
performed a user and competitor research. The case is based on one interview.

Use of the MiPS tools

The product designers would use the MiPS tools to discuss and communicate their
created pre-design vision. They sometimes use a systematic design profile tool for this
which was developed in the design agency. The MiPS tools would then be used as an
addition to their tools.
The product designer explained: “The MiPS tools could be used in a client meeting,
but we would then limit the discussions about certain predefined aspects and not
have everything open for the client, which is the intention of the MiPS tool”. The back
of the cards comprising the picture tool would not be used by the product designers.
They preferred to translate the aspects of the given examples into sensorial properties
themselves and not with the client.
The samples of the tool are difficult to visualize in a new product. The product
designers prefer to work with products. A watch, for example, illustrates better than
a sample how the experience of the material changes when it is given a certain form,
with respect to tactile and visual aspects as well as the quality experience. They
expected to discuss a selection of the sample tool in combination with their own
found samples and products. The product designer said: “I would extend the tool
before using it with a client, for example, by adding cards to nuance the user-product
interaction discussions with the client”.
Only a few questions of the questions tool were discussed, especially those questions
about expected use, ergonomics and perception of quality. The checklist was mainly
useful for internal discussions, but would never be used as a checklist with clients

5 Marcelle van Beusekom MSc., Van Berlo Studio’s, Eindhoven. Tools provided on March 13th. Interview
taken on April 26th 2007.

154
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

(although a selection of questions from the internal discussion makes it to the client
meetings). The designers mostly use images instead of sensorial properties to make
their design profile. However, some words such as flexible or warm are used in the
profile. The sheet with related properties would not be used, as the detail level is too
complicated for using with clients.
The product designer is uncertain about the moment at which to use the MiPS tools.
She explained: “The design brief meeting is too early to use the tools, because the
target user group was not yet been investigated. Therefore, their interaction needs can
not be discussed at that point. However, after the target group research, we propose
the first ideas and using the tools here to define the required user-interaction with the
product would be too late”.

Differences in preparing a client meeting

Material criteria are discussed from the beginning of a project, especially to determine
the required perception of quality. After the research period, in which materials
samples and example products are collected, everything is combined into a design
profile and discussed with the client. The product designer stressed that to convince a
client, it is very important to make the interaction possibilities tangible.
The same discussions were conducted using the agency’s own tools as with the
MiPS tools. These tools, however, are rarely used with the client. Only parts of the

case 4 - hearing aid

project outline
design brief users and competitors design profile profile selection sketching and refinement of profile

client research definition client design

meeting period meeting period

studied period interview 1

march 13 th april 26 th

tool usage
questions
+ own mood boards pictures
own sample products samples
checklist
properties sheet
effects of the tool
• tool was not more effective • surprised by focus on
than own approaches technical aspects, tool
• could help to tighten the was not of use
link between profile and
sketches

Figure 9.8
Outline of case 4 – hearing aid.

155
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

discussions are communicated to the client. Some clients have no idea about the new
directions a product can take. To use the MiPS tools effectively, it must be established
whether or not the client is able to develop a vision.
After a research period, the product designers prepare a design profile in which all
the discussions of the design team members are summarized. During the next client
meeting, this profile is transferred to the client in order to involve him in the ideas. It is
important that the product designers are able to guide the clients toward their ideas.
Normally, the product designers bring example products to the client meetings. These
products come from their own product portfolio, competitors and from other product
fields. They are used to illustrate design ideas. The product designer mentioned: “The
MiPS tools could help to transfer ideas and convince the client by having him have
the same ideas as the product designer. The tools can furthermore help to justify the
sketches made in a project. The clients would then understand the choices made in the
sketches better than without such tools”.

9.4 Discussion of the results

The case descriptions and the diagrams were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
tools in the different situations in which the tools were used. The tools are effective
when they met the three criteria mentioned in section 9.1 (product designers use the
tools, they see the benefits and notice positive changes in their process). Four research
questions were formulated to study these criteria that will be discussed hereafter.
A remarkable finding in the cases is that the relationship with the client strongly
influenced the effectiveness of the tools in the synthesis phase (question 3). These
results are therefore discussed first, followed by the usable and unusable aspects of
the MiPS tools (question 1). The benefits of the tools acknowledged by the product
designers are summarized thereafter (question 2). The final sub section summarizes
the suggestions for improvements of the tools (question 4).

Conditions before the tools can be effective

Two aspects appeared to be very important for the product designers’ usage of the
tools. These aspects were the relationship of trust the product designer builds with his
client and the clients’ knowledge of the user. These aspects influence the effectiveness
of the technique and may not be dependent on the design of the tools.

Trust and tasks in the client – product designer relationship

One of the most important activities during the first meeting on new design projects
appears to be establishing the relationship of trust. Especially, if the client is unknown,
product designers put a lot of effort in getting to know the client and trying to get a
feeling for the client’s attitude towards innovation. Furthermore, budget discussions
are dominating the first meetings. By contrast, the tools are designed to be used in

156
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

the first meetings to clarify the objectives and constraints about the material aspects
in the user-product interaction. Hence, the tools are used in a situation where trust
building and budget discussions are driving factors, instead of the user-interaction
aspects. This led to problems in the packaging case. As a result, the client of this project
was overwhelmed and the discussions were lacking in clarity and structure – an
undesirable effect. In the other projects, the tools were used in a later phase, but the
product designers mentioned this as one of the things they usually do in a design brief
meeting.
The product designer assigned to a project is responsible for the design activity. This
means that a tool that tries to involve the client in the design activity is not always
welcome. The product designers explained that they do not want the client to choose
examples to which they must subsequently stick. A client’s preference on one aspect
could very well limit the integral decisions that the product designer needs to make
when combining all aspects of the product, including e.g. manufacturing and cost
issues. Product designers try to give the client a limited amount of information about
the project and direct them to want certain choices that are made after a research
or design phase. The product designers see that as their jobs and try to avoid time-
consuming discussions with the client.

Client’s knowledge of the user

The results showed that the tools are only effective when the client is able to make
decisions about the user-product interaction of the new product. This was the case
in the reception room interior project. In the other projects, the client was more
technically oriented or mainly concerned with controlling the budget. In these
cases, the product designer included a research phase in the project in which the
target user group and market was investigated. This is a regular task of the product
designer and results in the required user-product interaction with the new product.
The clients themselves do not know enough about the user to be able to discuss and
define the required user-interaction aspects of the materials. The product designers
of the packaging case emphasized that using the tools could lead to design solutions
preferred by the client, but not necessarily by the target group. They are afraid of
the ego-design principle where a client projects his or her own frame of reference
to the new product. This could be an unwanted effect which could occur through
inappropriate use of the tools. Hence, the tools can only be effectively used together
with a client whose knowledge of the user is decisive to the project.

Usable and unusable aspects of the tools

The product designers liked the fact that the tools were compact and ready to use.
They liked the playfulness of the picture and sample tools and the fact that these
tools opened the discussions with clients and each other. The product designers
were not always agreed on the combination of product examples, personality terms
and sensorial properties in the picture tools, although, this was not a drawback,

157
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

because the disagreements opened the discussions. Two product designers suggested
separating the terms.
In all projects, the tools were mixed with their own samples and example products of
the product designers. The tools are thus easily embedded in their own approaches.
The tools were less usable in the case where the product designer already has
structured techniques to generate a design profile. The product designers mentioned
that in that case, the tools had little added value.
The activity of defining the product profile and creating ideas is intermingled in the
early design phases in which the tools are used. The tools are thus not solely used
in the cases for ascertaining the required properties, but also to make ideas more
tangible.
The checklist and sheet with related properties were hardly used. The product
designers felt that there was too much text and that it was too structured. They
preferred the more intuitive parts of the tool, i.e. the picture and sample tools.
The checklist and sheet were structured, such as to aid the product designers in
formulating a clear profile in terms of sensorial properties. Explaining this purpose to
product designers could increase the use of these tools.
The product designers stressed the difficulties that clients might have with visualizing
aspects of the example products and samples in new products. It is difficult for clients
to see only the characteristics of a product or material without also judging the context
or preferences towards the product as a whole. For example, the textile sample refers
to a pair of jeans and the aluminium coffeemaker is associated with the preferences
for the coffee system. In addition, product designers explained how difficult it is for a
client to explain whether the visual or the tactile aspects of a material sample dictate
the preference for a sample. They suggest making two sets, one for visual aspects
and one with tactile aspects. The samples are, furthermore, too limited for most
explanations of the material properties. They lack information about shape, size and
thickness, although these aspects influence the perception of the sensorial properties.

Benefits of the tools

The product designers were expected to experience benefits of the tools in the design
brief meeting and in the materials searches. They indicated that they gained an
increased understanding and vocabulary about the material properties they were
looking for and had easier searches after using the tools.

Increased understanding and vocabulary in the material profile

In the design brief meetings product designers increased their understanding about
the material profile. This profile is not always documented and discussed with the
client, but after using the tools in the design brief meetings, the relevant words are still
in the designers head. These words are later used in discussions with colleagues and in
the materials searches.

158
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

The product designers see a benefit of using the tools to summarize and document the
findings of the research period about the target users of the end products and market.
The tools are then not used with the client but in a design team. The tools were only
used in this way in the hearing aid project, but the product designers of the packaging
project explained that they expected the tools to be more effective for this. In the
reception room project, the tools were used with the client after this research period.
The increased understanding was not only beneficial in the materials searches, but in
the formulation of the briefs for third parties that were hired to execute certain parts
of the project. This was, for example, the case in the reception room project.

Easier searches
The discussions about the desired materials resulted in a better understanding of the
material profile and this effect was recognized in the materials searches as illustrated
in the MSA model. It not only helped to find materials in data bases or when discussing
with material experts (information gathering for the set activity), it also helped to
make decisions (choosing activity). The design team of the packaging project indicated
experiencing less hesitation after using the tools. Furthermore, in presenting the
material options to the client, the reason for these choices is clearer after using the
tools (comparing activity). This means that the benefits are experienced during all the
different materials selection activities.
In the packaging project, the tools were used together with the potential manufacturer.
The effects of the tools during this consultation were that the discussions were better
structured than without the tools and the manufacturer came up with unusual material
ideas. The sample tool contains a wide range of materials including some that are
unusual in certain product categories, e.g. cork and leather in packaging. The product
designers and manufacturer, however, could use the properties of these materials to
find material options beyond the conventional materials.
The product designer of the reception room project stressed that she liked the focus
on sensorial design or design with materials. She usually worked with form and
intentions, but changing the focus to materials gave her a new technique. She explained
that through discussing the materials, many other aspects are also decided, which she
felt was an extra advantage of the tools.

Suggested improvements of the tools

Some product designers suggested separating the terms and the pictures of example
products and materials samples and others found it interesting to discuss their
disagreement with the given combinations. The same result was found in the previous
study. The argument then was that discussion was easier when clues were provided.
Especially product designers who are not skilled in translating user-interaction aspects
of materials into sensorial properties can profit from keeping the clues on the cards,
as this can help to train these skills. As the sensorial properties terms are used on the
back of the cards, this would not be a problem. A mid-way solution could be to place

159
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

the personality terms on the back of the cards as well.

When using the tool to sell clients on their ideas, product designers find it relevant
to have more pictures of product examples. This enables them to make a set of cards
that shows more nuances in the selected directions. The product designers prefer
less concrete examples of products, to limit the associations with the products itself.
One product designer suggested making a tool of her own, with materials that she is
familiar with or that represent her design philosophy.
The sample tool currently represents both the visual and tactile aspects. Clients who
select a sample find it difficult to explain what sensorial properties they liked about
the sample. One product designer suggested separating the visual and tactile aspects
of materials in the sample set, to make two sets. Other product designers explain
that the small samples are too limited to sense how the material properties influence
the user-product interaction. They prefer 3D examples of materials used in products
and product parts. This means that the material samples do not only show the set of
sensorial properties on which a material can vary, but also the relations with shape
details and surfaces. The sample tool could be improved by separating the visual and
tactile aspects and providing more information in a sample via a product example.

9.5 Implications of the results for the MiPS technique

The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the tools in the MiPS technique
in design practice. The results section explains the usage, benefits and effects of the
tools on the materials selection process and the suggested improvements for the tools.
Here, the results in relation to the aims of the MiPS technique are discussed, thus
how effective the tools are in supporting the steps in the MiPS technique and more
specifically, in improving the communication about the user-product interaction with
the client, leading to a sensorial profile including the physical properties.
Before discussing the technique, it is necessary to note the following. The product
designers used the tools in this study for the first time and with a client, without any
training that included the expected benefits and effects of the tool. Information about
why the tools were created and the advantages of using the tools was omitted, as not to
bias the participating product designers in their evaluations. First use of the tool could,
however, differ from more experienced use and the effectiveness of the tool could
differ likewise.
In the previous study, the same approach was used and the designers were able to use
the tools on the spot (section 8.4). Therefore, not too many problems with this strategy
were expected. However, the product designers appeared to be not very confident
about using the tools and were therefore not eager to use the tools with their client.
The relationship with the client was too precious to try unknown things. The results
of this study could therefore be moderate compared to a study in which product
designers have more experience with the tools.

160
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

The effectiveness of the tools in the MiPS technique

Not all the MiPS tools were used by the product designers. The tools are thus not
effective in leading the product designers through the full MiPS technique. Specifically,
product designers did not use the question tool to its full end, thereby ignoring the
opportunities for discussing the possibilities for the user-interaction qualities of the
product in a structured way. Furthermore, they did not use the checklist and sheet
with related properties to summarize their material profile in sensorial properties and
translate them into physical material properties so this step of the technique was not
followed. Hence, the tools do not lead to the expected procedure of making material
profile in terms of sensorial properties.
The first reason for not using all tools might be that product designers tend to select
one or two material families based on their experience and search for material options
within this frame of reference. Like the findings in chapter 5, they follow this approach
and the instruction and the tools did not trigger them to change this. The picture and
sample tools could even stimulate the product designers to stick to their approach.
The picture and sample tool make use of existing products and materials. Discussing
these examples could easily result in choosing the materials in the examples instead
of their properties. Making a material profile based on material properties then seems
to be superfluous. Ullman (2002) mentions about this: ‘Prior knowledge of similar
applications can be a blessing and a curse. It leads to reliable choices, but in the
mean time obscures the new and better choices’. This approach is adequate for many
projects; however, new materials with better properties can not be selected with this
approach. Furthermore, product designers risk missing the opportunity to increase
the user-interaction qualities of product, when they fail to consider how materials
influence the user-product interaction.
The second reason for not using all the tools could be the positioning of the use of the
tools in client meetings. The results indicate that it is better to use the tools within
the design agency if the client is lacking the expertise to define the user-interaction
with the new product. When product designers use the tools within the team, it might
be more natural to talk about sensorial properties of materials. The results of these
discussions should, however, be discussed with clients, in the first place to involve
them and secondly, have them decide on the candidate materials in the choosing
activity. Both reasons are feasible. Based on the results of this study, it is not possible
to explain why product designers did not use all the tools. However, in the activity of
preparing a client meeting, in which the product designers’ proposed user-product
interaction, the technique could be more effective than using it during the first client
meeting. Furthermore, giving product designers a thorough training before studying
the effect of the tools in practice is advised.

Involving the client in making a material profile

The MiPS technique involves the client in the formulation of a material profile to
increase the clarity of the user-interaction aspects required in the new product. It is

161
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

important that a common understanding of the requirements of a project be arrived

at as soon as possible; however, the cases show that there are different priorities in
the very first meetings. These priorities are the trust building and budget discussions.
The tools were obtruding these discussions in the case where they were used in the
very first meeting. It seems therefore more logical to use the tools at a later stage.
However, in the studied projects, the next meeting was after the analysis phase, when
most requirements had been set. The product designers proposed product ideas in this
meeting. It seems too late to discuss the user-interaction requirements here. The tools
are then more effective in the preparation of the meeting. The product designers can
than use the tools in the team and discuss the results with the client.
The product designers tended to use the material samples of the tool to present their
ideas about the materials aspect rather than exploring and defining the aspects. The
tools were not designed for this, but the question is whether it is possible to discuss
only the material aspects based on a sample. The product designers preferred example
parts and prototypes for this purpose. It thus seems to be easier to use example
products to show material properties than flat shaped samples.

Defining a material profile in terms of sensorial properties

The MiPS technique aims at defining a material profile in terms of sensorial properties
to enable technology-oriented information providers advising about the physical
equivalents of these properties. The studied design projects in section 5.3 showed that
product designers consider user-interaction aspects when they formulate material
criteria. This study revealed that the participating product designers defined the
user-product interaction, and thought about materials that create this interaction, but
not in a structured or explicit way and not via the (sensorial) material properties. The
product designers are not used to considering the user-product interaction in terms of
material properties and do not readily try to do so when guided in that direction with
the tools.
Although the product designers did not use all parts of the tools, they recognize
benefits in using the tools especially in the increased vocabulary about the user-
interaction aspects of materials. They indicated as a benefit of the tools that it makes
the material criteria more tangible and easier to use in finding and deciding about
materials. However, they did not use the checklist with sensorial properties. Not
defining the material criteria in terms of properties can thus be a result of the limited
expertise of product designers about how materials contribute to the user-product
interaction. For example, Sonneveld (2007) found that product designers seem not be
able to talk about tactile aspects in their designs. Product designers are often trained
to see materials as a platform for the shape and function of the product and not
necessarily as a platform for the sensorial interaction with the product. Recognizing
this might help to define requirements about the materials in terms of the sensorial
properties.

162
 Evaluating the tools in design practice

Remarkable is that Keller (2005) found that product designers explicitly do not use
images of existing other products. However, the results of the study presented here
shows that they use physical example products to discuss form giving and material
aspects. There seems to be a difference between the information that product
designers are looking for in 2D and 3D examples. In 2D, the images of products are
less suitable to visualize the user-product interaction than other images. In 3D, the
product designers look for hands on information that they can directly translate to
their projects.

9.6 Conclusions
The results of this study demonstrate that the MiPS tools help to clarify criteria about
the material aspects that can create a required user-product interaction with the new
product. The tools do not facilitate doing this in a systematic profile, but increase the
awareness of the driving properties. This lead to easier discussions with other people
involved in the project, such as product designers from the team, manufacturers of
product parts and material experts. Furthermore, the product designers felt more
confident about their decisions when having used the tools. The effects of the tools
were thus acknowledged in the different activities of the MSA model.
The tools appeared not to be effective in having the client decide which material
aspects to consider when creating a required user-product interaction. Product
designers often determine the user-interaction aspects without the client, after a
user or market research period. They communicate their findings via the first design
ideas to the clients later. The tools can be used to create these ideas and to make them
tangible by adding the material properties. The tools can than help to convince the
clients of the product designers’ ideas. Required changes for the current tools are that
the tools can be adjusted to the findings in the project, for example by adding more
picture cards that visualize the findings. Furthermore, the sample tool should not only
consist of materials samples, but also of 3D samples of existing products.
The present approach takes into account a single iteration of defining, searching and
choosing in the materials process. Therefore, the longer term effects of the usage of the
tools were not revealed in this study. Product designers are expected to be experienced
enough to overlook and evaluate the consequences of the tools even on the design
phases that are executed after the studied period. However, it is advised in proceeding
research to study the tools and technique for a longer period.
The tools were developed for the MiPS technique that is needed to keep up with new
material developments and higher user-product interaction needs. The tools proved to
be effective in increasing the awareness of the desired material aspects for the user-
product interaction, even during first time use. The effects of the tools could, however,
be improved with a training course or workshop.

163
164
 Chapter

10 The Materials in Products

Selection technique

The previous chapters describe the design and evaluation of the Materials in
Products Selection (MiPS) tools. These tools are effective in increasing the vocabulary
about user interaction aspects of materials; however, some aspects of the tools and
technique need further attention. The study in chapter 9 showed that knowledge
about the required user-product interaction is necessary for successful use of the
MiPS technique. Furthermore, the product designers made several suggestions for
improving the tools, especially with regard to the use of the tools with the client. This
chapter discusses how these issues can be improved.
Some revisions of the technique and the tools are made to clarify the steps in the
technique and embed the technique in design methods that are used to create and
visualize a required user-product interaction. In addition, the transfer of the MiPS
technique to the product designers will be discussed. This transfer will be facilitated
by a workshop for product designers and design teachers. Describing this workshop
gives us the chance to combine the knowledge gained during the different studies into
a practical outcome of this thesis.

10.1 Revised MiPS technique

The key idea of the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique, used in the
analysis phase, is that it leads to a clear material profile about the user-interaction
aspects for the new product. This profile is described in sensorial and physical
properties to enable technology-oriented material specialists to give advice about
the best available materials. The technique involves the client to increase the mutual
understanding of the criteria.
The MiPS technique is effective the moment the product designers start to shape their
user-product interaction ideas. The results of the evaluation study in chapter 9 clearly
showed the importance of this step and therefore it is included in the revised version
of the MiPS technique.

165
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

2 sensorial aspects
The softness of the buttons makes the child
1 user-interaction idea curious about its function; they are flexible so
that the child can feel that the buttons are
pressed. Bright colors and patterns stress the
curiosity; playfulnes of the toy. The mother wants the
playfullness; product to be durable and high gloss plastics and
collages, mood
the high pitch that can be heart when putting the
boards, Vision in durability
toy of the table convinces her of this.
Product Design, ...
questions tool
(MiPS), Tactile
Experience Guide
picture tool (MiPS),
sample tool (MiPS),
3D material examples

sheet with related

properties (MiPS)

3 sensorial properties 4 physical properties

flexibility, softness; elasticity modulus;

colourful, patterns; colour type, organiza-
high gloss, pitch tion; reflection coeffi-
cient, dampening

5 material profile

material objectives
and constraints

set activity, comparing activity,

choosing activity, reformulating
criteria, making a detailed set,
comparing, choosing, and so on...

experience, material suppliers and 6 materials

manufacturers, clients, testing,
example products, databases,
search engines, collections, books,
exhibitions, material samples,
trade shows, magazines...

Figure 10.1
Illustration of the steps in the MiPS technique.
1. Determine the required user-interaction with the product.
2. Discuss the sensorial aspects in the interaction with the client.
3. Determine the leading sensorial properties for the materials searches.
4. Look up the physical properties related to the sensorial properties.
5. Formulate a material profile with key sensorial and physical properties.
6. Use the profile in the materials searches.

166
 The Materials in Products Selection technique

In the following description of the technique, the different steps are explained
including the tools that can be helpful in a step. The suggested tools are not only the
tools developed in this thesis, but also other tools and techniques that could fit well in
the MiPS technique. In section 10.3, these other techniques are outlined and discussed.
The design project used to describe the MiPS technique is a design of a new music toy
for children (figure 10.1). The steps in the technique are:
1 Determine the required user-product interaction. The first step of the MiPS
technique is the development of an idea about the user-product interaction that the
product designer wants to create with a new product. This idea can be a result of
target group studies, market research or the client’s ideas. Different means, which
are already used by product designers, can be used to visualize this user-product
interaction, such as collages or mood boards. The result of this step is a description or
visualization of the required user-product interaction.
2 Determine the sensorial aspects in the interaction and discuss them with the
client. Based on the required user-product interaction, the product designer needs
to describe the sensorial aspects in this interaction. Focusing on the senses helps
to make the user-interaction requirements concrete. The questions tool can aid the
product designer think of and discuss the sensorial interaction, which the end-user
might have with the product. It is necessary to discuss the results of this step with the
client to make sure that there is a mutual understanding of the aimed for user-product
interaction. The result of this step is an overview of the sensory aspects needed in the
product.
3 Determine the leading sensorial properties for the materials searches. In this
step, the aspects in the interaction that can be influenced by the materials of the
new product are decided upon. The product designer evaluates the visual resources
and descriptions of the interaction and summarizes which sensorial properties are
relevant in the interaction. The sensorial properties are the aspects of the product
that can be created by materials. Sensorial properties can be measured, such as colour,
transparency, roughness, warmth or flexibility (section 8.3). The picture and sample
tools, but also three dimensional examples of products and materials can aid the
product designers to find the sensorial properties required for the interaction. The
result of this step is a list of required sensorial properties.
4 Look up the physical properties related to the sensory properties. This step forms
the preparation for the formulation of a material profile that can be understood by
technology-oriented specialists. The physical equivalents of the sensorial properties
are therefore established in this step. Also, this offers the opportunity to examine
the material criteria related to e.g. a product’s functioning and manufacturing, such
as strength and hardness. To verify whether sensorial, functional and manufacturing
criteria are conflicting, it is less complicated to evaluate the properties on the
same level. To support product designers with this translation, a sheet with related
properties was developed. The result of this phase is a list of physical properties that

167
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

are related to the required user-product interaction.

5 Formulate a material profile with key sensorial and physical properties. The material
profile is a summary of the leading material properties for the new product. Both the
sensorial and physical properties are part of this profile. At first, the profile contains
only the relevant properties, without stating how e.g. transparent or glossy a product
should be. Before these questions can be answered, a material search based on these
aspects can be necessary. The profile changes during the project when more details
are clarified, as visualized in the MSA model with the criteria activity (figure 9.1). The
profile initially does not mention materials, in order to be able to use the full potentials
of existing and new materials. The result of this phase is a profile of leading properties,
on the basis of which a material search can be performed.
6 Use the profile in the materials searches. In the synthesis phase, the material profile
forms the basis for the activities of making a set of candidate materials, comparing
them and choosing them. The information required during these activities can be
derived from all kinds of sources, such as manufacturers, suppliers and scientists.
The material profile helps to get recommendations from these specialists about the
materials that fit the profile. Furthermore, the profile can help to explain to the client
why certain design decisions were taken or what changes are needed based on insight
gained during the project.

first contact
How will the product attract attention?
How does the product differentiate itself?
Which sensorial properties play a role here?

try out
vision How will the product convince when trying it out?
touch Which sensorial properties play a role here?

sound
smell
taste
transport
Which feedback will the product give during transport?
Which sensorial properties play a role here?

rest
How will the product fit in its environment?
Which sensorial properties play a role here? unwrapping
How will the product convince to be used again? Which lasting experiences will the product evoke?
Which sensorial properties play a role here?

usage
Which interaction takes place in using the product?
How does the product provide feedback?
Which sensorial properties play a role here?

MiPS - TUDelft

Figure 10.2
Question tool inspiration sheet.

168
 The Materials in Products Selection technique

10.2 Revised tools

This section describes the revised design considerations of the MiPS tools in the
context of this thesis. The tools could be used in different steps in the MiPS technique
as indicated in figure 10.1. The background considerations for the tools were explained
in chapter 8.

Questions tool – inspiration sheet

The questions tool helps to discuss (alone or in teams) the sensorial properties in
the user-product interaction in different usage phases. It offers example questions on
relevant issues in a specific interaction phase. While discussing the interaction issues,
the product designer is triggered to explore the sensorial properties in the interaction.
The picture and sample tools can help with this.
The question tool was not used in the discussions with the client in the evaluation
study, although the product designers looked at the questions before the meeting.
The question tool then serves as a preparation tool for a client meeting for which it is
developed further. The questions tool is based on the interaction sequence found in the
usage phase in life cycle analysis and the sensorial interactions in this phase.
The appearance of the tool, a set of question cards, was selected for using the tool
during discussions with a client. As a preparation tool, it will be used by product
designers alone or in a team, so the appearance can be changed. The appearance
should stimulate users of the tool to go through the interaction phases and think about
the sensorial properties in these phases. An A3-sized inspiration sheet was developed
for this (figure 10.2). The phases and the questions are present on this sheet, as well as
a link with the five senses of a person. The question: “Which sensorial properties play a
role here”, is placed as a final question in every phase.
Print outs of the inspiration sheet can be used by product designers alone or in e.g.
brainwriting1 sessions, while thinking about or discussing the sensorial properties
of the different interaction phases. The power of the tool is that it gives a structure to
the topics to think of and is a sort of checklist of topics. Posing all questions on one
sheet enables the product designer to overview the different phases and the aspects
considered in an earlier phase.
In every interaction phase, other sensorial perceptions can be relevant (figure 10.3).
For example, in the first contact phase, the product should attract attention to enable
the user to get curious to come closer and to try the product. The visual, additive and
smell characteristics of the product are more relevant in this phase than the tactile
characteristics. During the try out phase, the tactile aspects become more relevant as
the user will try the product, touching it in doing so. The sense of touch is an important
aspect in the perception of quality of the product (Sonneveld, 2004) and hence an

1 A brainstorming technique in which participants sketch and react in writing, based on previous given notes.

169
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

important factor in persuading the user to try the product again or to purchase it.
Most products are transported before they are used. This is an interesting phase, as
the transport phase enables the product to get in contact with other people than the
end user, e.g. people on the street. The product designer can decide how the product
is transported and what feedback the product should give during transport. Is the
product for example hidden in the back of a trunk or displayed on the dashboard
because the user is proud to show that he has just bought the product? Furthermore,
when the product is transported in a packaging, what experience should the user have
when unwrapping and installing the product? The sensorial properties of the product
can create a positive experience in these phases, which increases the user-interaction
quality with the product.
The usage phase is probable the most extensive phase in the discussions. The usability
of a product is highly influenced by the sensorial properties of the materials the
product is made of. For example, different coloured buttons can help to find the right
one and high gloss displays are problematic to read outside. Discussing the sensorial
properties of the interaction can increase the usability of products.
The last phase is the rest phase. The product is stored for a certain period of time at
a certain place. It is interesting to note how the product fits in its surroundings and
with the related products. For example, how does a coffee maker fit in a kitchen? Is the
aim to create a contrast with the surroundings, or let the product blend in? And what
sensorial properties do you need to create that? The rest phase is also about using the
product again and what sensorial properties can convince the user in doing this.

first contact
try out
vision
touch
sound
smell
taste
transport

rest

unwrapping

usage

Figure 10.3
Different senses are dominating in the interaction phases with a product.

170
 The Materials in Products Selection technique

Table 10.1
Some product examples and the relevant user-product interaction phases.

Product Interaction phase

1st contact try out transport unwrap usage rest
Interior • • • • •
Packaging • • • • •
Mobile phone • • • • • •
Kitchen appliance • • • • • •
Car • • • • •
Office computer • •
Clothing • • • •
Washing machine • • • •
Jewelry • • • • • •
Art work • •

Not all interaction phases are relevant for every product. For example, the transport
phase is only relevant for products moved from a shop to home or from a storage place
to a usage place. Some products are frequently ordered through Internet or given as
presents. The interaction phases are in these cases different. To increase the user-
interaction qualities of the products, it is important to use the philosophy of discussing
the interaction with the product. It is up to the product designers to select the relevant
phases. As an example, some products and the relevant phases are given in table 10.1.

Picture tool
The picture tool consists of cards with visual examples of products and sensorial
properties of materials. A prepared set of cards shows possible relations between
example products and personalities such as businesslike, cute, easy-going or modest
and the sensorial properties. The cards can be used to discuss and sort the pictures
within the user-product interaction ideas. The cards are two-sided, and are used in two
steps. In the first step, the example products can be sorted intuitively. In the second
step, the other side of the card can be used, which contains a set of sensorial properties
that are present in the product. Sensorial properties that appear in the groups can then
be discussed in detail.
The picture tool was effective in its current form, although the product designers
who used the tool in the evaluation study suggested some changes. These changes
concerned the words used on the cards (the personality terms and sensorial
properties) and the example products used. Some product designers suggested
separating the personality terms and example products and others liked the
discrepancy between the cards and their own ideas.

171
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

In the revised version, the words were all left on the cards (figure 10.4), but, one
side was used to show the visual examples and one the textual clues. In this way,
the product designers are triggered to discuss the interaction in terms of sensorial
properties and help them with establishing an appropriate set of words in their mind
that they can use throughout their project. Another reason to put the pictures on one
side and words on the other side is to support a stepwise approach. First, the pictures
can be sorted and discussed to generate ideas. After that, the ideas can be made
concrete by discussion the sensorial properties.
The example products are not shown as a whole on the new version of the cards.
Example products were often associated with different things by different people
and it is therefore difficult to focus on solely the sensorial properties of the products.
Fragments of these products that show the visual characteristics of products might
be a better alternative. However, using pictures of things that are not products on the
cards such as flowers, animal skins or artistic pieces might not work. These images
are used in mood boards or collages and are ideal for showing an ambiance for a
new product, but are less relevant for finding the elements for a material profile. The
sensorial properties of the materials used in the example product are appropriate for
this.

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

CUTE DOMINANT

Ȼ mat Ȼ silkygloss
Ȼ soft Ȼ mattgloss
Ȼ warm Ȼ grey/black
Ȼ texture Ȼ RVS/black
Ȼ flexible Ȼ regulartexture
Ȼ lightcolour Ȼ cold
Ȼ light Ȼ smooth

Figure 10.4
Two examples of the new version of the picture tool.

172
 The Materials in Products Selection technique

In addition to above described proposals, the product designers that used the tools,
suggested making a set themselves. This set would enable them to show a client the
nuances of the sensorial experience suggested by them after, for example, studying
the target group of the new product. For this reason, the revised version of the picture
tool is a set of 16 cards and an empty outline (figure 10.5). The prepared set of 16
cards has the important advantage of being ready to go and inspirational, as examples
outside the scope of the new product are also shown. The empty outline can be used to
make a subset of 3 to 4 cards relevant for the project. These cards should contain some
relevant images on one side and the sensorial properties on the other side.
Extending the set of cards has several benefits. First, the cards can be effective in
showing the design directions in a specific project. The options are then limited in a
discussion, which is relevant when guiding the client towards the design ideas that
are based on user studies or market research. Second, the examples used can reflect
the current trends and possibilities better. The prepared set consists of products
released in the last few years and will thus need to be replaced as time goes on. A third
advantage is that the product designer can build an archive of cards that can show the
product designer’s personal style.

Sample tool
The sample tool supports the discussion about the sensorial materials aspects and
to make them tangible. The materials samples represent a wide range of sensorial
properties and are divided between visual and tactile properties and act as examples
of the different properties. These samples can be used to explore the properties in
discussions before a client meeting. Some studies suggest that it is easier to explore
the samples blindfolded, to be able to define the different properties (e.g. Sonneveld,
2007; Burns et al., 1995). After exploring the sensorial properties, these can help to
addpicturesofproductshere
find example products and product parts for the actual meetings. All types of materials
should be present in the set, e.g. wood, cork, plastics, metals and fabrics, in order to

MiPSͲ TUDelft

ADDPERSONALITYTERMHERE

Ȼ listsensorialpropertieshere
Ȼ
addpicturesofproductshere
Ȼ
Ȼ
Ȼ
Ȼ
MiPSͲ TUDelft Ȼ

ADDPERSONALITYTERMHERE
Figure 10.5
Empty outline for the picture tool.
Ȼ listsensorialpropertieshere
Ȼ
173
Ȼ
Ȼ
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

be able to gain inspiration for properties beyond the conventionally used materials
in a product category. It is therefore perfect for brainstorms to derive the sensorial
properties from the user-product interaction ideas.
The evaluation study showed that product designers would prefer to use the samples
to convince the clients of their ideas and not to explore the different sensorial
properties of materials. The samples in the tools are lacking details in aspects such as
size, transition between materials, manufacturing aspects and shape. After using the
tools to explore the user-product interaction, it therefore, is better to find material
examples in existing products and parts with the same properties as the selected
samples. These 3D examples of the properties can then be used in presentations of the
aimed for user-product interaction to the client.

Sheet with related properties

The sheet with related properties shows the sensorial properties and their physical
equivalents. It can be used as a back up document when product designers or
information providers are unfamiliar with either the sensorial or physical material
properties. The sheet is mostly useful for inexperienced product designers or when
material requirements are complex. Besides the relations between sensorial and
physical properties, the sheet provides alternatives. For example, the sensorial aspect
‘colour’ can be created by the properties of a material or by a surface layer.
The checklist with sensorial properties and the sheet with related properties were not
used by the product designers in the different studies and are therefore not thoroughly
evaluated. This means that they can not be adjusted based on the findings of the
studies in this thesis. Hence, they are very similar to the ones presented in section 8.3.
Further studies are necessary on this topic.

10.3 The MiPS technique in relation to design methods

The MiPS technique assumes that product designers are able to perceive and
comprehend the aesthetic qualities of a product and understand how these can be
created in a new product. This is defined as aesthetic intelligence by MacDonald
(2001). He explains that people use this aesthetic intelligence subconsciously
when interacting with the world. Sonneveld (2007) therefore suggests that product
designers need to be aware of this natural aesthetic intelligence before being able
to design for the senses. In one of her studies, she found that people lack the words
to express the nuances of their experiences; they stick to general terms like “It
feels good”. Furthermore, she found that people find it difficult to distinguish the
experiences into the different senses.
As seen in the study in chapter 9, product designers do not readily describe their
material profile in terms of sensorial properties, even when they are offered the MiPS
tools to support them in this. The assumption that product designers are able to break

174
 The Materials in Products Selection technique

down the aesthetic qualities of a product into experiences could thus be too optimistic.
However, there are design methods that product designers use or could use to aid
them in this. This section therefore explains more about how product designers start
to shape the required user-product interaction and how the MiPS tools can be used in
combination with the existing methods they can use in this process.
Three design methods of which are expected to mesh well with the MiPS technique
are discussed in this section. The first method is frequently used by product designers
for creating the visual aspects of the interaction, namely collages and mood boards
(e.g. described by Muller, 2001). The second method is the Tactile Experience Guide
(Sonneveld, 2007) that focuses on the tactile experiences of a user-product interaction.
The last method discussed is Vision in Product design (Hekkert & van Dijk, 2001). This
method defines the user-product interaction of a product via the context of use.

Collages and mood boards

Product designers use all kind of visual methods to support their design process. An
important activity in the early design phases is to create collages or mood boards
(Muller, 2001). These visual representations of ideas and ambiances of the new
product show the combination of visual (and sometimes tactile) aspects of images
to visualize the characteristics of the new product. McDonagh et al. (2002) explain
that designers use this tool to communicate and express intangible and abstract
emotions or to clarify and interpreted their own understanding of the design brief and
implications for the project.
Keller (2005) studied the use of visual means for inspiration in the design process. He
found that product designers use collages, for example as a form of visual agreement
with the client. The product designers have visual and physical collections to make the
collages. The collections are extended during projects with new images and examples
products specially selected to represent the interaction possibilities with the new
product. Keller (2005) also found that product designers find it difficult to talk about
how they used these visual materials in their design projects. In the study presented in
chapter 9, the product designers indicated they felt the MiPS tools were beneficial for
these situations. The tools helped to find the materials aspects from their collages and
mood boards. The MiPS technique can thus offer product designers a concretization
step by using the collages and mood boards as starting point to explore the sensorial
properties in the interaction with the product.

Tactile Experience Guide

Sonneveld (2007) developed the ‘Tactile Experience Guide’ as a tool to support
product designers in describing and assessing the aesthetic experience of interacting
with objects. The Guide offers a conceptual framework of aspects that can be used to
describe the experience and a format that guides people through the experience. Being
a tool that focuses on the tactile experiences of the interaction, could make it a good
addition for the MiPS technique.

175
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

Table 10.2
Content of the maps provided in the Tactile Experience Guide (Sonneveld, 2007, chapter 5).

Domain of tactual experience General question Examples

Movements Why do you touch and how do To use, I …; to play, I …; to
you move? explore, I …
Affective behaviour What do you experience? Feedback; familiarity; perfect
match; personality
Sensations What do you sense (own body)? Pressure; vibration; pain;
temperature
Gut feelings What do you feel? Energy; Vulnerability; self
image; physical pleasure
Tactual properties What do you perceive Texture; hardness; geometry;
(product)? temperature

The Tactile Experience Guide uses mind-mapping (Buzan & Buzan, 1993) as an
associative technique and consists of 6 maps. Five maps represent the five domains
of tactual experience (movements, affective behaviour, sensations, gut feelings
and tactual properties). The sixth map is an overall map to summarize and draw
conclusions on the tactual experience. The domain maps show a question and aspects
of the domain as a template (table 10.2). The questions and examples are carefully
selected to make sure that users are conscious of the topics and are thus able to
answer the questions. For example, people are aware of the tactual properties of a
product when their attention is directed toward the material object, regardless of its
functional or affective value (Sonneveld, 2007). The users are encouraged to start
with the domain maps and move through them while putting associations, key words
and thoughts on them. Especially the tactual properties map is interesting in the MiPS
technique, as it can form a direct starting point for describing a material profile.
The Tactile Experiences Guide proved, after studying it with 93 students, to contribute
to the understanding and ability to describe the tactual experience with a new product
(Sonneveld, 2007). However, she explains that students were highly frustrated in the
design phase, when they could not find the means to express the experience they had
in mind in the product. As a solution, Sonneveld suggested that offering the guide in a
setting with exemplary objects and materials for hands on experience; to instantiate
tactile experiences, can help in this. These samples can be very inspiring, but it can also
be difficult to pinpoint their properties. The sample tool could be a helpful addition
here. The sample tool represents a wide scope of sensorial properties in a simplified
manner, namely as card shaped samples. It is therefore easier to identify the properties
that create the experience, for example softness or texture. Hence, exploring the tactile
experience with this tool can provide the required information in the design phase, as
it shows the tactile material properties that create the experience.

176
 The Materials in Products Selection technique

Vision in Product design

Hekkert & van Dijk (2001) argue that the design of a context should be the start of
all design projects. According to Hekkert & van Dijk, a context comprises all aspects
or factors which a designer, implicitly or explicitly, considers for his design. Such
a context-driven view on designing has lead to the Vision in Product design (ViP)
technique. This technique offers a framework that helps to define a set of parameters
for the user-product interaction based on a vision of the context for the new product.
This framework consists of six stages in two phases, known as the deconstruction
phase and the designing phase. In the deconstruction phase, a product designer asks
himself why products are the way they are, on a product level (stage 1), interaction
level (stage 2) and context level (stage 3). Subsequently, the design phase starts with
building a new context (stage 4) and imagining the new interaction qualities in this
context (stage 5). The last stage is back on the product level and looks at the particular
form that produces the quality of the interaction vision (stage 6). All stages are
explained with examples, for example in the course material ‘Vision in Product Design,
the warm bath’, however, the last stage is left to the design experience of the ViP-user.
Within the ViP technique, product designers define the interaction of the end-user
with a product. This vision of the interaction describes the concerns of the user and
the product features, which address this concern, at the same time. Based on this
vision, the product designer needs to define the product parameters that create the
product. The MiPS technique can be used for this as illustrated in the car of the future
project below.

Car of the future project

A graduate student in the master programme of Industrial Design Engineering was
explained the questions tool, checklist and sheet with related properties during a short
meeting at the beginning of her project (Klop, 2007). Her assignment was to design
the interface of the interior of a car of the future. She used the Vision in Product design

Sparkling Reflecting
Visual Tactile Auditory
Reflection Pressure Ringing
Reflective Not denting High pitch
Glossy Hard Soft sound
Translucent Slow dampening
Brillliance Massive compact Smell and Taste
Smooth Force Soapy smell; cool
Irregular texture and sweet
Stiff
Colour Tough ductility Natural
Brittleness: tough Soapy taste
Blue, red, metal
Less colour intensity Weight: light Light radiation
Light greyness Friction High luminescence
Durable clour Not sticky
Monochrome Temperature
Wet
Structure Smooth Warm

Figure 10.6
Collage made by Caroline Klop (2007) that expresses the design vision (left) and the list of sensorial
properties that were derived from it (right).

177
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

technique to develop new user-product interactions with different components of the

car. Her aim was to let these components work closely together to form one coherent
interface in which the user’s mindsets are shown.
The student created a context, interaction vision and product vision for the future
car. Collages were used to visualize the required shapes and details in the interaction
(figure 10.6, left). At this point, the student used the questions tool and checklist to
discover the sensorial characteristics required to create the vision in the collages
(figure 10.6, right). However, she is not very explicit about the sensorial properties
in her answers. She answered, one of the questions, for example, with: ‘It is a gentle
car with a gentle interior, but it should be clear that the interior’s behaviour is a bit
naughty and has a little bit of his own will: the user’s main hobby is communicating
and navigating efficiently’ (Klop, 2007). However, she was able to select the required
sensorial properties from these descriptions: ‘Selected materials will be reflective
or glossy, smooth and have an irregular texture. They are hard, stiff, tough and
light in weight. Colours are blue, red and metal-like’ (Klop, 2007). These material
characteristics served as a basis for the materialization phase in her project.
The feedback she gave after using the tools was: “It works well with the Vision in
Product design technique. This technique results in a vision about the required
user-product interaction with a product and with the tools offered by MiPS it is easy to
translate this vision into a set of tangible material characteristics for the new product”.
This example shows that the questions tool could serve as a structure to translate the
vision created with the VIP technique into product and material characteristics needed
to design the product.

10.4 Workshop for explaining the MiPS technique

One important outcome of the evaluation of the tools was the evident need for
instructions on the use of the MiPS technique and tools, to educate product designers,
design teachers and students on the benefits of using them (section 9.5). In such a
workshop, not only the steps in the technique and the working of the tools should
be described and trained, but also the motivation for changing the current materials
selection approach. Furthermore, the participants should get some familiarity about
the relationship between the user-product interaction and the sensorial properties of
the material that create this interaction. Explaining the working of the MiPS technique
in this wide perspective is expected to increase the effectiveness of the use of the
technique.
The objectives for the workshop are:

Objective 1 Acquaint the participants with the benefits of

changing the current materials selection approach.

178
 The Materials in Products Selection technique

Objective 2 Educate the participants about the relations of

user-interaction aspects, sensorial properties and physical
properties of materials.

Objective 3 Accustom the participants with the MiPS technique

and the tools that can be used herein and the skills needed to
follow it.

The first and second objective could be reached with a presentation about the topic.
For the third objective, a combination of a presentation and small assignments
are considered necessary. In the following, the content of the different parts in the
workshop and the assignments is presented. The order of the sections is the same as
suggested for the workshop.

The need for changing the current approach

As explained in the introduction of this thesis, materials selection approaches need
to change in order to keep up with the changing end-user needs and continuous
development of new materials. The objective of the presentation is to change the
mindset of the participants about selecting materials. The presentation acquaints the
participants with the current materials selection process and the needs to change this
process in order to stay effective in designing high quality products. Three topics are
discussed, namely 1) the changing focus on user-interaction aspects of products; 2) the
significant role of materials in creating the user-product interaction and 3) the critical
factors in the current materials selection techniques. The information for these topics
can be found in the introduction of this thesis and in chapter 7.
The changing focus on user-interaction aspects of products could be illustrated by
some interesting examples of companies that let other factors than logistics and
functionality drive their decisions in the product development process, such as
illustrated in the workshop text box.

User-product interaction in sensorial properties

This presentation’s objective is to increase the product designers’ knowledge about
the sensorial properties of the user-product interaction. It explains the sensorial
properties of a material and shows examples of how the properties can influence
the interaction. With the principles in mind, the product designer can start to look
differently at products and teach himself to break down existing products in sensorial
properties and rebuild them in their own projects. The theoretical background for this
presentation is thoroughly described in section 2.1 and 8.3.

The Materials in Products Selection technique and tools

The objectives of this presentation are to explain the Materials in Products Selection
(MiPS) technique and the tools that could be used in this technique. The Materials
Selection Activities model explains the materials selection process (section 5.4) and
within this model, the positioning of the MiPS technique. The explanations in section
10.1 and 10.2 form the basis for this presentation.
179
 Examples in the workshop

a.
“A Dutch beer company Grolsch launched
a new beer bottle in February 2007. This
“Thisbottlematchesthedesiresofthe
bottle is different from the standard consumer;contemporary,authenticanda
bottles in shape and colour and therefore bitopinionated.Wewanttoleavethe
distinguishes itself in personality. boredomontheshelf.The2007consumer
wanttodistincthimself,andsodowe!”
Important drawbacks of the new bottle
are the logistics of re-using the bottles.
All beer brands used to have the same
standard bottle, which made it possible to
reuse it even for another brand. Although
these consequences, Grolsch decided
to launch the new bottle for personality Distinctionthroughdesign
reasons.”

b.
“New materials are in continuous
development as well as the manufacturing
process to process them. These new
materials can increase the user-interaction
and functional qualities of products.”

Newmaterialpossibilities

c.
“Sensory design is an interesting technique
to emphasize the user-interaction qualities “Sosexy,allthatscratchͲ
resistantstainlesssteel.
for product. The mobile phone company Welcometoanew
Nokia advertises with the sensorial standardofabsolute
experiences that their phones have and luxuryinmobilephones”

put effort in selecting unconventional

materials in their product such as ceramics
or flexible materials used in the phone
presented on the last page of this thesis.”
“Nokia8800Ͳ Designedforthesenses”

Designforthesenses

180
Assignments for the workshop
First assignment – exploring the sensorial properties in an interaction phase
Two participants select a product, a target user group and market for discussing the product in
the light of these users. Ideally, the product is present, in order to be able to use that product as
a starting point.
The first step in the assignment is discussing the questions and topics from the inspiration sheet
(figure 10.2). The aim of this phase is to find the interaction aspects that are aimed for in the
product. The participants are encouraged to define circa three aspects of the interaction that
are interesting to explore with new materials. For example, in the try out phase, the curiosity of
the user can be an interesting interaction aspect, but also what actions the user performs during
try out and what he touches.
In the second step, the picture and sample tools are used to explore the different sensorial
properties that can create the user-product interaction. The participants are encouraged to
categorize the picture cards and samples according to their own defined categories and re-
categorize them for the different interaction aspects they came up with. In this step, ideas are
raised and explored about the sensory aspects in the interaction.
After the assignment a short evaluating discussion is held to allow the participant express
and share their experiences with the tools. This evaluation must be performed between the
two assignments, to make it possible for suggestions to be made before the results of the
discussions are transferred into a material profile.
Second assignment – making a material profile of sensorial properties
The participants start the second assignment with the notes made about the sensorial
properties of the interaction. The aim of this assignment is to formulate a material profile based
on these aspects. The profile is intended to be useful in making decisions about the leading
sensorial properties that are concrete and useful in using it in the materials searches. This
might be a difficult step because the participants might not be experienced in describing the
interaction as a set of single properties. A checklist is provided on which the sensorial properties
are written.
Examples of techniques that can be used to start the flow of defining the leading sensorial
properties are; 1) to discuss one single handling in the interaction and say out loud what the
senses perceive during the handling, or 2) to select a single property and discuss how this
property influences the interaction. The participants are encouraged to select a maximum of
five properties that are interesting to explore in the materials searches.
When the material profiles are finished, the participants change partner. With the new partner,
they discuss the interaction which they tried to create and the leading properties in this. This
discussion can be similar to one in which the participant explains to a non-designer, e.g. his or
her client, what his design directions will be. The presenters are allowed to use the tools in this
discussion when they desires to do so.
After the second assignment, the experiences of the different participants are discussed again.
This evaluation is relevant to hear the about the situations and tactics in which the technique is
effective and when not.

181
Synthesis of new materials selection technique and tools

The two phases in the MiPS technique that could need hands on experience are,
firstly, the phase in which the tools are used to discuss the sensorial properties of
the interaction and, secondly, the phase in which the leading sensorial properties
are defined. The assignments, such as shown in the text box, are performed in pairs
enabling the participants to share their experiences with other participants in the
workshop. The design cases used in the assignments are products like cosmetics,
watches, mobile phones, kitchen appliances or garden tools. Any product is possible
as long as the user-interaction aspects are relevant herein. Different people in the
workshop can do a different product and discuss the findings later to enlarge the
leanings of the tools.

10.5 Conclusions
The effectiveness of the MiPS technique could improve when using it in combination
with existing design methods that create and visualize a required user-product
interaction with a new product. The MiPS technique can be a fruitful addition to
translate this defined user-product interaction via the sensorial aspects into the
material properties that can create the required interaction.
The tools that can be used in the MiPS technique (the questions, pictures, sample tools
and sheet with related properties) in their revised form are not solely designed for
discussion with the client, but also to prepare the client-meetings. Therefore, the tools
do not only consist of ready-made components, but also of some elements that can
be extended by the product designers. This is particularly necessary in the case of the
sample tool, because it is impossible to make a set of informative 3D example parts
that are relevant for every product.
The workshop, presented at the end of the chapter, aims at educating product
designers about the MiPS technique and tools. A workshop enables the product
designers to learn more about the technique and tools and practice them before using
them in their own projects. Such a workshop increases the product designers’ skills
and knowledge on the topic and ideally is a fixed element of every development and
implementation of new techniques.

182
 Chapter

11 Findings and implications

This thesis was sparked by the curiosity about how product designers select materials
for a product, in order to ensure that the end-users will enjoy interacting with it. The
thesis offers insight into the complexity that product designers face when integrating
user-interaction aspects into the materials selection process. Furthermore, a promising
and practical solution for these problems was developed and verified in design
practice. The outcomes offer a step-wise technique, with tools, to identify and clarify
the user-interaction requirements for the materials of a new product. This chapter
discusses the findings and implications of the project and provides recommendations
for further research in the field of user-centred materials selection.

11.1 Results of this thesis

The user-product interaction is an increasingly important factor in the product
development process. The materials, from which a product is made, form a strong
element in the user-interaction qualities of a product. The proposition in this thesis is
user-interaction aspects of materials must be included in the selection process in order
to be able to survive in today’s highly competitive market. Raising the effectiveness of
the process was considered an important theme. The main research question in this
thesis was, therefore, how can product designers effectively include user-interaction
aspects in their materials selection process. Effectiveness was defined in this thesis, as
being able to find the best available materials for the technology and user-interaction
quality of the new product via the shortest possible path. The objectives of the
research were to explore the issues that hinder an effective materials selection process
and to improve the techniques to include user-interaction aspects in this process.

183
Findings and implications

The research approach that was followed resembles a user-centred design process in
which clarifying the context and specifying the requirements for the improvements
precede the design and evaluation phases. The results of this thesis are the outcomes
of the different phases in this approach:

The clarification of the context resulted in a validated model

of the materials selection process

The specification of the requirements led to an understanding

of the critical factors in a user-centred materials selection
process

The design phase resulted in a materials selection technique

and tools for this technique

The evaluation phase identified which aspects of the technique

and tools led to an effective inclusion of user-interaction aspects
in the materials selection process and which aspects needed to
be improved.

The practical results of this thesis are the model, a technique and tools. The Materials
Selection Activities (MSA) model describes the sequence of steps taken in the process
and the role of information herein. In order to improve the current materials selection
process, the Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique was developed, which
includes the user-interaction aspects of materials via the sensorial interaction. To
support the MiPS technique, four tools were created; the questions, picture and sample
tools and a relations sheet. The first three aid the communication about user-
interaction aspects and the sheet relates the sensorial properties of materials with the
physical properties.
The implications of the MSA model, MiPS technique and tools for the design practice,
and both the educational and design research fields, are summarized in table 11.1.
The empirical studies in this thesis provided insight into the practical value of the
MiPS techniques and tools and into the value of the MSA model in design research. The
results of this thesis and directions for the further assessment of the implications that
were not investigated in this thesis are discussed in the following sections.

11.2 Current materials selection process

Materials influence the interaction that users have with a product via their sensorial
properties. These properties influence how a product can be used and perceived
and influence the kind of associations and emotions a user can have with a product.
Product designers can use the sensorial properties to create a required user-product
interaction and consider other aspects of materials, such as manufacturing and shape

184
 Findings and implications

Table 11.1
Relevance of the different results of the thesis on different fields.

Design education Design practice Design research

MSA model
Provides a realistic view Expected to offer a Demonstrated to offer a
on the material selection framework for planning framework for process
process of product and acquisition of design analysis of the materials
designers projects selection process

Expected to bridge well

between education about
design methodology and
material science

MiPS technique
Held to provide practical Proved to enhance the Provides a practical view
steps to learn how to user-centred materials on how to study design
translate user-interaction selection process by techniques and tools in
ideas into product designs leading to clear material practice
criteria

Expected to improve the

materials discussions
with technology oriented
specialists
MiPS tools
Assumed to give students Proved to enrich the Expected to form
an attractive way to learn vocabulary about instruments to study the
to explore and discuss material aspects and the communication aspects in
other products and considerations in the materials selection
materials while designing process

aspects, while doing this. The effectiveness of the current material selection process
is dependent on the information that is available about the combinations of aspects
and on the way product designers can access and compare information. In the analysis
section of this thesis the materials selection process was explored and the critical
factors that hinder the effectiveness in this process were revealed.

Exploration of the materials selection process

The materials selection process was empirically studied to be able to understand and
model the activities product designers perform in selecting materials. This model
proposed to offer a realistic view of the materials selection process and to form an
effective framework enabling the critical factors in an effective process to be identified
and structured. Existing models are inadequate, as they often tended not to include
user-interaction aspects or lacked the details to describe what product designers do.
The practical findings of the materials selection process were used as input to form the
MSA model.

185
Findings and implications

The important characteristics of the MSA model are that it shows materials selection
as an iterative problem solving approach central to which is the formulation of
material criteria. In addition to existing models, it affords more insight into the role
of information and expert consultations in the selection process. Materials selection
cycles occur throughout the design project, with decisions in early phases being taken
about different materials, and in the later stages about different material variations
and specifications.

Validation
The validation of the MSA model proved that the model accurately represents the
materials selection process of product designers, even when user-interaction aspects
are involved. The model shows the relevant activities in the process and visualizes
the iterations that are an inherent part of the design process in design practice.
Furthermore, the fundamental role of the information activities was confirmed as
these were significantly found in design practice. The discrepancy between the order
of activities in the model and in the studied design projects needs to be studied further,
as it could not be discovered whether this was caused by the retrospective recovery of
the materials selection steps or an incorrect representation of the model (see section
11.4).

Practical implications
The MSA model is used in this thesis as a structure to study the critical factors in the
materials selection process, which demonstrates the relevancy of the model for design
research. This research method was successful in finding the areas which needed
improvements. The MSA model helped to outline design projects and worked as a
memory aid when product designers were asked to recall specific elements in the
projects. However, the model only helps to describe projects on an activity level, hence
when studying separate actions or the relations between people, the model is too
general. For example, in this project, the research method did not help to predict the
nuances in the relationship between the client and product designer. This means that
the MSA model should be carefully used and an in-depth follow-up study, such as used
in this thesis to evaluate the tools, is necessary to expand the understanding of the
issues that were found, which in our case were the critical factors.
The MSA model is not only relevant for design research, but also provides insight that
are useful for design education and practice. Product designers that work for a client
often work on an hour planning that is established at the start of a project. Design
models help to plan and visualize the activities to be performed in a project. Likewise,
the MSA model could help in planning the materials selection steps.
In design education, such as at the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering1, materials
selection is taught in relation to the production and manufacturing processes.
Moreover, students learn about the material properties in material science courses.

1 Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

186
 Findings and implications

Furthermore, in design courses, materials selection is often taught as part of the later
phases of the design process. However, as shown in the MSA model, this segmentation
does not reflect the process of materials selection, as it occurs in design practice.
The MSA model illustrates that materials selection is an integral part of the design
process and that material decisions are made even at the very beginning of a project.
Therefore, educating future designers with separate courses might not be sufficient.
To increase students’ materials selection skills a separate course could be taught in
materials selection in parallel with a materials science and design course. The MSA
model could be used as a bridge between the design courses and material science
courses. The model shows how materials selection is embedded in the design process
and explains the need to communicate with specialists and thus to understand the
properties of materials.

Critical factors in the materials selection process

The critical factors that influence the effectiveness of the materials selection process
were identified based on the analysis of design practice. Important critical factors were
revealed relating to the formulation of material criteria. Furthermore, a critical factor
was that specialists could not advise about the user-interaction aspects of materials.
These factors lead to unnecessary long searches for the best material options for a
product. Furthermore, they prevent utilization of the full potentials of (new) materials
to increase the user-interaction qualities with the product.
The clarity of the criteria was found to be dependent on the communication about
the user-interaction aspects between product designer and client. Product designers
indicated that clients were not always able to express their user-interaction
requirements or follow the thinking process of the product designer. The materials
searches, therefore, do not always lead to material options both the product designer
and client are pleased with. The changes and adjustments of criteria as a result,
affected the effectiveness in the materials selection process.
Product designers indicated a preference for recommendations from specialists to
be able to accelerate their materials selection process. However, some information
providers, such as manufacturers, are specialized in advising on the technological
aspects of materials and less about the user-interaction aspects of materials. Product
designers explained that they need to find information from several sources and
combine the information themselves, leading to long searches or failure to find
candidate materials that fulfil both the technical and user-interaction criteria.
Besides the factors found in the design projects, another critical factor was identified,
relating to the potentials of new materials. New materials may offer a chance to
increase the qualities of products, both on technology and user-interaction aspects.
However, the current materials selection practice does not stimulate the inclusion of
new materials in these considerations.

187
Findings and implications

The above critical factors decrease the effectiveness of the materials selection process
when user-interaction aspects are included. The effectiveness of the process can
thus be improved when these problems are solved. A practical answer for this was
proposed in the form of a new materials selection technique. This technique aims at
improving the formulation of clear criteria on the user-interaction aspects of materials.
Furthermore, the technique tries to diminish the difficulties which specialists have
in advising on the user-interaction aspects, thereby facilitating the considerations
of new materials. In the following, the design and evaluation of the technique and
accompanying tools are discussed.

11.3 Materials in Products Selection technique and tools

Product designers use several tools and techniques to support their design process.
In the synthesis part of this thesis, a new technique to support the inclusion of
user-interaction aspects in the materials selection process was developed. In broad
outlines, this technique supports product designers in the analysis phase, in including
the user-interaction aspects in a material profile. This profile can thereafter be used
in the materials searches. The technique involves the client in making the profile
and uses a vocabulary to enable technology-oriented specialists advising about the
user-interaction aspects of materials. The technique is accompanied by tools that were
evaluated in design practice.

Design considerations
The Materials in Products Selection (MiPS) technique consists of defining, translating
and using steps. In the defining step the user-interaction aspects are defined as
sensorial properties. Sensorial properties were chosen as an effective vocabulary to
mediate between the user-interaction aspects and the physical properties. Sensorial
properties of materials influence the sensorial interaction with a product and have
physical properties as equivalents. In the translation step, the product designer relates
the sensorial properties with their physical equivalents and evaluates the material
requirements on the relevant design aspects. In the usage step, the material profile is
used to find candidate materials. Defining a material profile in these properties was
expected to clarify the user-interaction requirements and enable technology-oriented
information providers to recommend the best material options.
For the defining step, three communication tools were developed. These tools use
pictures of example products (picture tool), a selected set of material samples (sample
tool) and a list of questions (questions tool) to discuss the required user-product
interaction with a new product. These tools were expected to ease the product
designers’ discussions with clients as they offer structure to the conversation and
use relevant examples to define the sensorial interaction with the new product. In
a usability study, in which the tools were used in a fictive design brief conversation,
the tools proved to be usable and adjustable to the approaches adopted by the

188
 Findings and implications

participating product designers. Furthermore, the tool lead to an increased consensus

about the leading properties for the materials searches, although the discussions did
not end in a profile in sensorial properties. Combining the tools was expected to solve
this problem. Whether this was the case is explained in the next section.
A sheet that relates the sensorial properties of materials with the physical equivalents
was developed as a tool for the translating step. This sheet contains the properties
organized in different categories relevant for product designers and provides
alternatives when the sensorial interaction cannot be created with a material, but
requires, for example, other geometry or a surface layer.

Achievements of the technique and tools

The achievements of the technique and tools were evaluated in design practice.
The tools were used by four product designers in their own projects for a period in
which they defined the material criteria, searched for materials and proposed their
material options to the client. The study revealed that product designers increase their
vocabulary about the user-interaction aspects of materials when they use the tools.
Hence, they were able to clarify their criteria. This accelerated their searches by having
easier discussions with the people involved and having more confident choices.
The tools enable the product designers to involve the clients in the decision process of
the user-interaction aspects of materials. However, the tools proved to be not effective
in all client - product designer discussions. In those projects, where product designers
are assigned to analyse the target group and market, they felt that the client was not
able to discuss the user-interaction requirements. Moreover, they did not want the
client to make these decisions. However, product designers felt the need to have tools
to communicate and present the user-interaction directions to the client. In the final
adjustments made in the tools, this aspect is included: besides a pre-made set, the
tools offer an empty lay-out. The product designers can fill in this lay-out themselves
for communicating the nuances in the desired user-product interaction.
In the current design practice, product designers start the materials searches with
some presumptions for materials solutions. The MiPS technique tries to stimulate
product designers to start the materials searches with a clear material profile that
contains the required sensorial and physical properties. It was discovered that the
tools were not so successful in having the product designers create such a profile. To
solve this aspect a workshop that aims at training product designers in the technique
and the benefits of using it, was developed. After following such a workshop, product
designers are expected better able to formulate a material profile and in their
materials searches.

Practical implications
The MiPS tools were found to enhance the materials selection process by leading to
clear criteria about the user-interaction aspects of materials. They are relevant in
projects where the product designer is able to make a materials selection, the user is

189
Findings and implications

important for the products quality and there is knowledge about the required user-
interaction qualities of the product or time to investigate this. The MiPS technique and
tools are then helpful to translate the user-product interaction ideas into a material
profile. The revised technique and tools can be implemented in design practice in their
current form.
The MiPS technique and tools were developed for product designers in design
agencies, but could offer design students an attractive way to acquaint themselves with
the knowledge and skills needed for selecting materials. The technique offers students
a step-wise approach that helps them to structure their materials selection process.
The tools could trigger a way of looking at products that helps students in their future
design projects. Furthermore, students might raise their awareness of the materials
selection process and the relevance of studying materials science when interacting
with the technique and tools.
Not the MiPS technique itself, but the way it was evaluated, provides a practical view
for the design research field. Developing design techniques and tools for practitioners
requires that they are robust for the extensive number of situations product designers
find themselves in when designing products. Evaluating the techniques and tools in
design practice is therefore inevitable. However, evaluation studies also require a
certain validity and repeatability, which might be complicated in design practice. In
this thesis, the evaluation was performed by having product designers use the tools
and explain their experiences in a research diary. Two interviews were used to discuss
these experiences compared to other projects. This approach provided usable data
about the effects of the tools and the product designers’ opinions about these effects.
This data lead to revisions and the development of a workshop.

11.4 Recommendations for further research

This thesis explains the explorative research work that was aimed at finding the
directions for user-centred materials selection. The field was studied with a wide angle
to be able to recommend the promising paths for an improved materials selection
process. Table 11.1 shows the expectations and assumptions that offer a starting point
for further research.
The Materials Selection Activities model can be studied further, especially the
discrepancy between the order of activities in the model and in design projects. For
validating this specific issue, a protocol analysis approach is recommended in which
the materials selection process is studied at the time it takes place.
The practical value of the MSA model for design practice and education was not
studied in this thesis. Effort is needed to investigate the value of the model for planning
and teaching purposes. It is recommended that the model is first used in an elective
course, to be able to fine-tune the instructions and find illustrative backgrounds to
accompany the model, such as lists of information sources, exemplary objects and

190
 Findings and implications

materials selection cases. The materials selection course could then form an obligatory
part of the bachelor degree program.
The techniques and tools were used in design practice to be able to study their effects
on the materials selection process; however, not all aspects could be evaluated. The
product designers did not use the offered sheet that relates the sensorial properties
with physical properties. The amount of text on the sheet was not appealing according
to the product designers. As a consequence, it was not possible to evaluate the specific
aspect of using sensorial and physical properties in the information requests for
technology-oriented specialists. Evaluating this aspect is recommended for further
studies, in order to be able to assess the expected benefits of using sensorial properties
as a vocabulary for the user-interaction aspects of materials. Once it is established
that product designers see the benefits of using such a sheet to make their materials
searches more effective, research efforts are recommended on the specific relations
of a sensorial property with the related physical properties. Important aims for such
research is to relate e.g. the range from the tactile properties ‘soft’ to ‘hard’ to the
elasticity modulus and hardness properties involved.
The technique and tools were used by some students during this research project,
and their evaluations made apparent that they could benefit from them. However,
the techniques and tools were not evaluated for their educational value in a research
setting. Therefore, to understand the practical implications of the technique and tools
for design education, studies are needed. These studies could focus on the effect of
using the tools on the structure of the materials selection process and the quality of the
designs made by the students.

11.5 Final conclusions

The practical value of this thesis is not restricted to the design field. Material scientists
might also benefit, as most material development is driven by technology and not
motivated by product design. This results in information that fails to reach product
designers (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). Material scientists can use the models, technique
and tools for understanding the design process and their role in the materials selection
of product designers. This understanding can help material scientists to present
information about their materials in a useful way for product designers. Furthermore,
material scientists could use this understanding to get input from product
designers and spark off the development of new materials. For example, in chapter
2, it was recommended that effort be put in finding the combinations of material
information that can be put in a database. One of the combinations to be studied is
the relationship between sensorial properties and physical properties, as used in
this thesis. Furthermore, when product designers include a step in their process in
which they make a material profile for the required user-product interaction, they
can communicate this profile to materials developers, who could respond with new
materials.

191
Findings and implications

Improving a particular approach, in many cases, starts with the person’s awareness of
his or her current approaches. In this thesis, the aim was to improve the inclusion of
user-interaction aspects in the materials selection process. Various product designers
participated in the studies performed for the project and many of them mentioned
that they were motivated to participate because they wanted to increase their own
awareness of their materials selection process. Between the invitation and the actual
research, they often thought about their approach or discussed this with a colleague.
Hence, the fact that the studies in this thesis involved the different product designers
might have been the first step to improve their materials selection process.
In conclusion, I have argued in this thesis that product designers can effectively
include user-interaction aspects in their materials selection process if they clarify the
criteria about these aspects and if information providers are able to give specialized
advice about the user-interaction aspects of materials. The MiPS technique and
tools developed facilitate the activities needed to translate user-product interaction
ideas into a clear material profile in sensorial properties and their physical
equivalents. Based on these properties, specialists are expected to be able to make
recommendations about the best material options for creating the required user-
interaction qualities of the new product. The tools proved to increase the product
designer’s vocabulary and awareness of the user-interaction requirements of the
materials earlier in the design process than currently. In doing so, the tools help in
solving the unclearness of criteria about the user-interaction aspects of materials and
could thereby increase the effectiveness in the materials selection process.

However, one question still remains:

What sensorial properties does your favourite product have?

192
 Summary

Selecting materials in product design

Product designers find themselves in a field where consumers demand more of

their products and where new materials become available everyday. In the materials
selection process of user-centred design projects, the emphasis shifts from technology
towards user-interaction aspects of products. Materials form the interface of the
product and influence the sense of quality, the pleasantness of the interaction, the
personality of the product and the way it can be used; in other words the user-
interaction with the product. The human senses, as the interface of the user, play an
essential role in this interaction. Via the senses, the user perceives the characteristics
of a product and transfers them into experiences and use-actions. Carefully selecting
materials should thus be an integral part of the creation of a required user-product
interaction.
Product designers need to enhance their materials selection activities to include the
user-interaction aspects in their materials selection processes. However, information
about the effect of materials on user-interaction aspects of products is not available or
not adequately adjusted to the approaches of product designers. The objectives of the
thesis were to explore the issues that hinder an effective materials selection process
and to create techniques and tools that support product designers in effectively
including user-interaction aspects in this process. The development approach in this
thesis resembles a user-centred design approach with the phases ‘clarification of
context’, ‘finding the requirements of product designers’, ‘design’ and ‘evaluation’.
In the analysis section of this thesis, a new materials selection model was created for
the purpose of understanding the materials selection context. The ‘Materials Selection
Activities’ (MSA) model describes the activities of product designers. It emphasizes
the iterative character of the materials selection process and the role of information
herein. The model proved being useful for finding critical factors in materials selection
activities.
The critical factors in an effective materials selection process are related to the ability
of product designers and their clients to discuss the user-interaction criteria for the
product. Hence, product designers start their materials searches based on unclear

193
Summary

criteria, which lead to unnecessary long steps of clarifying the criteria and finding
the candidate materials. Furthermore, a critical factor is that some information
providers about materials, such as manufacturers, are specialized in advising about
the technology aspects of materials and not about the user-interaction aspects of
materials. Making a balanced decision about the best materials for the required
user-interaction qualities of a product is, therefore, difficult.
The synthesis section describes the design and evaluation of the ‘Materials in Products
Selection’ (MiPS) technique, which aims at diminishing before mentioned problems.
This technique defines the user-interaction requirements of a product in a material
profile. The MiPS technique differs from the current approaches of product designers
because it explicitly formulates the material criteria in the form of the required
sensorial properties of the materials. A search based on sensorial properties enables to
include new materials (newly developed or new for the product category) and enables
to combine the technology and user-interaction aspects of the materials.
Four tools were developed to support the MiPS techniques of which three aid the
communication about the required user-interaction aspects and one relates the
sensorial properties with physical properties. The communication tools defines the
user-interaction via several means, namely 1) pictures of product examples and
the materials these products are made of, 2) tangible materials samples and 3) the
sensorial aspects of materials during several phases of the user-product interaction.
The tools not only aid the discussions about user-interaction aspects of materials, but
also support the translation of these into sensorial properties of materials. The relation
tool enables technology-oriented material specialists to include the user-interaction
requirements in their recommendations.
The evaluation of the tools, based on product designers using the tools in their own
projects, demonstrated that the MiPS tools help to clarify criteria about the material
aspects that can create a required user-interaction with the new product. The tools
proved to increase the product designer’s vocabulary and awareness of the user-
interaction requirements of the materials earlier in the design process than currently.
For transferring the knowledge about the technique and tools to design practice,
a workshop was developed. The workshop, model, technique and tools form the
practical results of this thesis, which could be directly used in the design field.

194
 Samenvatting

Materiaalselectie in het productontwerpen

Productontwerpers werken in een omgeving waarin consumenten steeds meer van

hun producten verwachten en waarin steeds meer nieuwe materialen beschikbaar
komen. In het user-centred ontwerpen verschuift de aandacht van technologie
naar de interactie die een gebruiker heeft met een product. Materialen vormen de
interface van een product en creëren daarbij het gevoel van kwaliteit, het plezier in
de interactie, de persoonlijkheid van het product en de manier waarop het gebruikt
kan worden, kortom, de gebruiksinteractie met het product. De zintuigen, die dienen
als het interface van de gebruiker, spelen een essentiële rol in die interactie. Via de
zintuigen neemt de gebruiker de eigenschappen van het product waar en vertaalt deze
naar gebruiksacties en beleving. Het zorgvuldig selecteren van materialen is dus een
belangrijk deel van de creatie van de gebruiksinteractie met een product.
Productontwerpers moeten hun materiaalselectie activiteiten versterken om de
gebruiksinteractie aspecten mee te nemen. Er is echter weinig informatie beschikbaar
over het effect van materialen op de gebruiksinteractie en de informatie die
beschikbaar is, is niet altijd aangepast aan de werkwijzen van productontwerpers.
Het doel van dit proefschrift is, enerzijds, het onderzoeken welke factoren een
effectief materiaalselectie proces in de weg staan en, anderzijds, het ontwikkelen van
technieken en tools die de productontwerper ondersteunen bij het integreren van
gebruiksinteractie aspecten in dit proces. De onderzoeksaanpak in dit proefschrift
volgt de stappen in het user-centred ontwerpen. Deze stappen zijn het verduidelijken
van de context, het vaststellen van de eisen van de productontwerpers, het ontwerpen
en evalueren.
In het analyse deel wordt een nieuw materiaalselectie model gecreëerd om de
materiaalselectie context beter te begrijpen. Dit model, het ‘materiaalselectie
activiteiten’ (MSA) model, beschrijft de activiteiten van productontwerpers in hun
materiaalselectie proces. Het benadrukt het iteratieve karakter van de activiteiten en
de rol van informatie hierin. Het model vormde een bruikbare basis voor het vinden
van de kritische factoren in de materiaalselectie.

195
Samenvatting

De kritische factoren hebben betrekking op de bedrevenheid van productontwerpers

en hun klanten om de gebruiksinteractie eisen voor een nieuw product te bespreken.
Hierdoor starten productontwerpers een materialenzoektocht op basis van
onduidelijke criteria en dat leidt tot onnodig lange inspanningen om de criteria
te verduidelijken en om materialen te vinden. Een andere kritische factor was
dat sommige informatieverschaffers, zoals materiaalfabrikanten, goed zijn in het
leveren van informatie over de technische aspecten van materialen, maar niet over
de gebruiksinteractie aspecten. Productontwerpers kunnen daardoor slecht advies
krijgen over de materialen die aan de gewenste gebruiksinteractie kwaliteiten voldoen.
Het synthese deel beschrijft het ontwerpen en evalueren van de ‘Materialen in
Producten Selecteren’ (MiPS) techniek. Deze techniek heeft als doel een oplossing
te bieden voor bovenstaande problemen. Met deze techniek definieert de
productontwerper de gebruiksinteractie eisen van een product in een materiaalprofiel.
De MiPS techniek verschilt van de bestaande aanpak van productontwerpers, omdat
het expliciet de materiaaleisen formuleert in de vorm van sensorische eigenschappen.
Een materiaalzoektocht gebaseerd op sensorische eigenschappen maakt het mogelijk
om nieuwe materialen (nieuw ontwikkeld of nieuw voor de toepassing) mee te
nemen in het selectie proces en helpt bij het combineren van de technische en
gebruiksinteractie criteria.
Er zijn vier tools ontwikkeld om de MiPS techniek te ondersteunen. Drie van deze
tools helpen in de communicatie over gebruiksinteractie aspecten en de vierde
tool combineert de sensorische eigenschappen met hun fysische equivalenten.
De communicatie tools gebruiken 1) plaatjes van voorbeeldproducten, 2)
materiaalsamples en 3) de sensorische eigenschappen van materialen in verschillende
fasen in de gebruiksinteractie met producten om de discussies te ondersteunen. Ze
helpen daarbij niet alleen bij het vaststellen van de gewenste interactie, maar helpen
deze ook te vertalen naar de gewenste sensorische eigenschappen in een materiaal.
De eigenschappen tool helpt technische georiënteerde informatieverschaffers bij het
meenemen van de gebruiksinteractie eisen in hun materiaaladvies.
De studie, waarin de tools geëvalueerd zijn door productontwerpers in hun eigen
projecten, liet zien dat de tools effectief zijn in het verduidelijken van de eisen over
de materiaalaspecten die een gewenste gebruiksinteractie kunnen creëren. De
communicatie tools hebben bewezen dat ze het vocabulaire van productontwerpers
vergroten en hun eerder in het ontwerpproces bewust maken van de interactie-eisen.
Om deze kennis over de techniek en tools over te brengen aan de ontwerppraktijk
is er een workshop ontwikkeld. Met deze workshop, het model, de techniek en de
tools eindigt dit proefschrift in een praktisch resultaat dat direct bruikbaar is voor
ontwerpers.

196
 References

Abbaschian R, Marshall LM. (2006) Material information for the design community.
Advanced materials and processes. 164(6):30-31
Adank R, Warell A. (2006) Assessing the sensory experience of product design: towards a
method for ‘Five senses testing’. Proceedings from the 5th Conference on Design and
Emotion 2006. Karlsson, MA; Desmet, P; and van Erp, J. (eds). Chalmers University
of Technology, 27-29 September, Göteborg, Sweden
Addington A, Schodel D. (2005) Smart materials and technologies for the architecture and
design professions. , Architectural press, Oxford
Ahmed S, Wallace KM, Blessing, LTM. (2003) Understanding the differences between how
novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering
Design. 14(1):1-11
Amen R, Vomacka P. (2001) Case-based reasoning as a tool for materials selection. Materials
and Design 22(5):353-358
Arabe KC. (2004) Materials’ central role in product personality. Thomas Net Industrial News
Room (March)
Ashby MF. (1999) Materials selection in mechanical design. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
second edition
Ashby MF, Brechet YJM, Cebon D, Salvo L. (2004) Selection strategies for materials and
processes. Materials and Design. 25(1):51-67
Ashby MF, Cebon D. (2007) Teaching Engineering Materials: the CES EduPack Engineering
Department, Cambridge University, England, May 2007
Ashby MF, Johnson K. (2002) Materials and Design: the art and science of material selection
in product design. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
Ashby MF, Johnson K. (2003) The art of materials selection. Materials Today. December
2003:24-35
Athavankar UA. (1997) Mental imagery as a design tool. Cybernetics and Systems. 28(1):25-
41
Baya V, Leifer LJ. (1996) Understanding information management in conceptual design. In:
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., Dorst, K. (eds) Analysing design activity. John Wiley and
Sons, p151-168

197
References

Beiter K, Krizan S, Ishii K, Hornberger L. (1993) HyperQ/Plastics: An intelligent design aid

for plastic materials selection. Advances in Engineering Software. 16(1):53-60
Bloch PH, Brunel FF, Arnold TJ. (2003) Individual differences in the centrality of visual
product aesthetics: concept and measurement. Journal of consumer research. 29:551-
565
Bonapace L. (2002) Linking Product Properties to Pleasure: The Sensorial Quality Assessment
Method- SEQUEM. In: Green WS, Jordan P (eds). Pleasure with Products beyond
Usability. Taylor & Francis, London and New York
Brechet Y, Bassetti D, Landru D, Salvo L. (2001) Challenges in materials and process
selection. Progress in Materials Science. 46:407–428
Burchitz I, Boesenkool B, Zwaag S van der, Tassoul M. (2004) Highlights of designing with
Hylite - a new material concept. Materials & Design. 26(4):271-279
Burns LD, Brown DM, Cameron B, Chandler J, Dallas M, Kaiser SB. (1995) Sensory
interaction and descriptions of fabric hand. Perceptual and motor skills. 81:120-122
Buzan T, Buzan B. (1993). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your
brain’s untapped potential. Penguin Books USA Inc, New York
Callister WD. (1994) Materials science and engineering, an introduction. John Wiley & Sons,
third edition
Chang YM, Leu MC. (2003) The difference between the sense of touch and the sense of sight
on the image of plastic texture. Proceedings of the 6th Asian design international
conference. Journal of the Asian design international conference. Tsukuba: Institute
of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba
Cornish EH. (1987) Materials and the Designer. Cambridge University Press, New York
Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ. (2004) Seeing things: consumer response to the visual
domain in product design. Design Studies. 25:547-577
Cross N. (2000) Engineering Design Methods: strategies for product design, John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester, third edition
Cupchik GC. (1999) Emotion and industrial design: reconciling meanings and feelings. First
International Conference on Design and Emotion, Delft, the Netherlands, p75- 82
Deng YM, Edwards KL. (2005) The role of materials identification and selection in
engineering design. Materials and Design. 28(1):131-139
Desmet PMA. (2002). Designing Emotions. Delft University of Technology. Dissertation
(PhD)
Dobrzanski LA. (2001) Materials’ design as an important element of engineering design of
machines and their parts. Proceedings of the XII ADM International Conference.
September 5th-7th 2001. Rimini, Italy.
Dobrzanski LA. (2006) Significance of materials science for the future development of
societies. Journal of materials processing technology. 175(1-3):133-148
Doordan DP. (2003) On Materials. Design Issues. 19:3-8
Eager TW. (1995) Bringing New Material to Market. Technology Review. Februari/March
1995:43-49

198
 References

Eckert C, Stacey M. (2000) Sources of inspiration: a language of design. Design Studies.

21(5):523-538
Farag MM. (1989) Selection of Materials and Manufacturing Processes for Engineering
Design. Prentice Hall, UK
Fenech OC, Borg JC. (2006) A sensation based model of product elicited emotions.
Proceedings from the 5th Conference on Design and Emotion 2006. In: Karlsson,
MA; Desmet, P; and van Erp, J. (eds). Chalmers University of Technology, 27-29
September, Göteborg, Sweden
Ferrante M, Santos SF, de Castro JFR. (2000) Materials selection as an interdisciplinary
technical activity: basic methodology and case studies. Materials Research. 3(2):1-9
Fidel R, Green M. (2004) The many faces of accessibility: engineers’ perception of information
sources. Information Processing and Management. 40:563-581
Formosa D. (2005) Mapping emotions. Business Week On-line, 27 July 2005, available at:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jul2005/di20050727_882437.
htm
Fulton Suri J, Marsh M. (2000) Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer
product design. Applied Ergonomics. 31:151-157
Gant N. (2005) Plastics design- the unlikely pioneer of product relationships. International
Conference on the Art of Plastics Design, Berlin, Germany (18-19 October)
Geldard FA. (1972) The human senses. John Wiley & Sons, second edition
Giboreau A, Navarro S, Faye P, Dumortier J. (2001) Sensory evaluation of automotive fabrics
- the contribution of categorization tasks and non verbal information to set-up a
descriptive method of tactile properties. Food Quality and Preference. 12(5):311-322
Goldstein EB. (2002) Sensation and perception. Wadsworth, Pacific Grove, sixth edition
Gonález FJM, Palacios TMB. (2002) The effect of new product development techniques on new
product success in Spanish firms. Industrial Marketing Management. 31:261-271
Govers PCM. (2004) Product Personality. Delft University of Technology. Dissertation (PhD)
Gutteridge PA, Waterman NA. (1986) Computer aided materials selection. In: Bever, MB (ed)
Encyclopedia of mateirals sciencee and engineering. Oxford: Pergman Press
Hall AD. (1962) A methodology for systems engineering. Princeton, New Jersey
Harris JS. (1961) New product profile chart. Chemical & Engineering News. 39(16):110-118
Hekkert P, van Dijk M. (2001) Designing from context: Foundations and Applications of the
ViP technique. In: Lloyd P, Christiaans H (eds.) Designing in Context: Proceedings of
Design Thinking Research Symposium 5. Delft: DUP Science.
Hekkert P. (2006) Design Aesthetics: Principles of Pleasure in Design. Psychology Science.
48(2):157-172
Hermes DJ. (1998) Auditory material perception. IPO Annual Progress report 33
Hertzum M, Pejtersen AM. (2000) The information-seeking practices of engineers: searching
for documents as well as for people. Information Processing and Management.
36:761-778

199
References

Hodgson SNB, Harper JF. (2004) Effective use of materials in the design process- more
than a selection problem. International engineering and product design education
conference, Delft (2-3 September)
Holper, MPR, van der Meij, van Kesteren IEH. (2006) Product personality considerations
in materials selection. Proceedings of International Future Design Conference
on Changing Places of Digi-log Future, Seoul: The Institute of Millennium
Environmental Design and Research, p494-507
Hubka V, Eder WE. (1992) Engineering Design – General Procedural Model of Engineering
Design. Edition Heurista, Zürich
ISO 13407:1999 (1999) Human-centred design processes for interactive systems.
International Organization for Standardization, July 1999, Geneva, Zwitserland
Jangager J. (2005) User considerations in early stages of product development – theories and
methods. Department of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Dissertation (PhD)
Johnson KW, Langdon PM, Ashby MF. (2002) Grouping materials and processes for the
designer: an application of cluster analysis. Materials and Design. 23(1):1-10
Jordan PW, Green WS (2002) Pleasure with products: beyond usability. Taylor & Francis,
London, UK
Jordan PW. (2000) Designing Pleasurable Products: An Induction to New Human Factors.
Taylor & Francis, London, UK
Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar PV. (2008) Materials considerations in product design: a
survey on crucial material aspects used by product designers. Materials and Design. In
Press, Corrected Proof, Available on-line 27 June 2007
Karana E, van Kesteren IEH. (2006) Material effects’ The role of materials in people’s product
evaluations. Proceedings from the 5th Conference on Design and Emotion 2006. In:
Karlsson MA, Desmet P, and van Erp J. (eds). Chalmers University of Technology, 27-
29 September, Göteborg, Sweden
Keller IA. (2005) For inspiration only. Designer interaction with informal collections of visual
material. Delft University of Technology. Dissertation (PhD)
Kelly T, Littman J. (2002) The art of innovation. Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s
leading design firm. HarperCollinsBusiness, GB
Kesteren IEH van. (2008) Product designers’ information needs in materials selection.
Materials and Design. 29(1):133–145
Kesteren IEH van, Kandachar PV. (2004). Commercialization of new materials in consumer
goods. In: Redmond J, Durling D, Bono A de (eds). Futureground, Proceedings of
the Design Research Society International Conference 2004, Melbourne: Monash
University
Kesteren IEH van, Ludden GDS. (2005) Product experiences, feeling, smelling and seeing
of plastics (Productbeleving; voelen, ruiken en zien van kunststoffen). Kunststof
Magazine. 16(9):18-20
Kesteren IEH van, Ludden GDS. (2006) Experiences translated into plastics, the sparkles of
current time (Beleving vertaald in kunststoffen: de glitters van deze tijd). Kunststof
Magazine. 17(2):16-18

200
 References

Kesteren IEH van, Stappers PJ, Kandachar PV. (2006) Activities in selecting materials by
product designers. In: Su D, Zhu S (eds). Proceedings of the International Conference
on Advanced Design and manufacture. Nottingham: ADMEC, p145-150
Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ. (1995) Identifying objects from a haptic glance. Perceptions and
Psychophysics. 57(8):1111-1123
Klatzky RL, Pai DK, Krotkov EP. (2000) Perception of material from contact sounds presence.
Teleoperators and Virtual Environment. 9(4) August 2000
Kleinsman MS (2006) Understanding Collaborative Design. Delft University of Technology.
Dissertation (PhD)
Klop C. (2007) A future interface of the c,mm,n car interior. Faculty of Industrial Design
Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Master thesis
Kolli R, Pasman G, Hennessey J. (1993) Some considerations for designing a user environment
for creative ideation. Proceedings of the Interface ‘93, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC
Kreitler H, Kreitler S. (1972) Psychology of the arts. Duke University Press, Durhum NC
Lawson B. (1994) Design in Mind. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, UK
Lefteri C. (2001-2004) Materials for inspirational design: Plastics, Wood, Ceramics, Metals,
Glass. Roto Vision, Switserland
Lefteri C. (2005) The branding of plastics- how important is the branding of a material and
how far do plastics go in helping to define brands. International Conference on the Art
of Plastics Design, Berlin, Germany (18-19 October)
Ljungberg LY, Edwards KL. (2003) Design, materials selection and marketing of successful
products. Materials and Design. (24):519-529
Ljungberg LY. (2002) Materials selection and design for structural polymers. Materials and
Design. 24(5):383-90
Love T. (2003) Customers’ Use of Products as Design Tools. Proceedings of the 6th Asian
design international conference. Journal of the Asian design international
conference. Tsukuba: Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba
Ludden GDS, Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P. (2004) Visual - tactual incongruities. Surprises
in products. Paper presented at the First International Workshop on Materials and
Sensations, Pau, France
Ludden GDS, Kesteren IEH van. (2006) Designing product experiences - listening to ice
creams (Het ontwerpen van productbeleving – luisteren naar ijsjes). Kunststof
Magazine. 17(1):16-18
Ludden GDS. (2008) Sensory incongruity and surprise in product design. Delft University of
Technology. Dissertation (PhD)
MacDonald AS. (1999) Developing aesthetic intelligence as a cultural tool for engineering
designers. In: Lindema U, Birkhofer H, Meerkamm M, Vajna S (eds). Proceedings of
the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Munich, p297-300
MacDonald AS. (2001) Aesthetic intelligence: optimizing user- centred design. Journal of
Engineering Design. 12(1): 37-45
Manzini E. (1989) The material of invention. Design Council, London

201
References

Martini-Vvedensky JE. (1985) Selection of Materials by Computer - What is Missing?

Materials and Design. 6(3):134-137
McDonagh D, Bruseberg A, Haslam C. (2002) Visual product evaluation: exploring users’
emotional relationships with products. Applied Ergonomics. 33(3):231-40 
McMahon CA, Pitt DJ. (1995) Hybrid computer database systems for materials engineering.
Materials and Design. 16(1):3-13
Mejasson P, Petridis M, Knight B, Soper A, Norman P. (2001) Intelligent design assistant
(IDA): a case base reasoning system for material and design. Materials and Design.
22(3):163-170
Muller W. (2001) Order and meaning in design. Lemma, Utrecht
Nielsen P. (2001) Design for Usability – focus on the physical handling of products.
Department of Control and Engineering Design, Technical University of Denmark.
Dissertation (PhD)
Noiset O, Henneuse C. (2005) The impact of olfactive factors on plastic design or the sweet
smell of success. International Conference on the Art of Plastics Design, Berlin,
Germany (18-19 October)
Özcan E, van Egmond R. (2004) Pictograms for Sound Design: A language for the
communication of product sounds. Fourth international conference on Design and
Emotion. Ankara, Turkey
Pahl G, Beitz W. (1996) Engineering Design - A Systematic Approach. Springer, London,
second edition
Pasman G, Stappers PJ. (2001) ProductWorld, an Interactive Environment for Classifying and
Retrieving Product Samples. Proceedings of the 5th Asian Design Conference, Seoul,
Korea
Pasman G. (2003) Designing with Precedents. Delft University of Technology. Dissertation
(PhD)
Picard D, Dacremont C, Valentin D, Giboreau A. (2003) Perceptual dimensions of tactile
textures. Acta Psychologica. 114(2):165-84
Poelman WA. (2005) Technology Diffusion in product design. Delft University of Technology.
Dissertation (PhD)
Poltrock S, Grudin J, Dumais S, Fidel R, Bruce H, Pejtersen AM. (2003) Information seeking
and sharing in design teams. In: Pendergast M, Schmidt K, Simone C, Tremaine
M (eds) Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on
supporting group work. Sanibel Island, Florida. ACM, New York, p239–247
Pugh S. (1981). Concept selection: a Method that works. In: Hubka V (ed). Review of Design
Methodology. Proceedings International Conference on Engineering Design, March
1981, Rome. Heurista, Zurich, p497-506
Pugh S. (1991) Total Design – Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham
Rognoli V, Levi M. (2004) How, what and where is possible to learn design materials?
International engineering and product design education conference, Delft (2-3
September)

202
 References

Roozenburg NFM, Eekels J. (1995) Product Design, Fundamentals and Methods. Wiley,
Chichester, UK
Rouse WB, Rouse SH. (1984) Human information seeking and design of information systems.
Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, special issue:
Empirical foundations of information and software sciences. 20(1-2):129-138 
Saakes D. (2007) Relight my model: new media in ideation workshops. International
Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) 12-15 November, 2007 at The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Sanders EBN. (2000) Generative Tools for Co-Designing. In: Scrivener, Ball and Woodcock
(Eds) Collaborative Design. Springer-Verlag, London
Sanders EBN. (2001) A new design space. Proceedings of ICSID 2001 Seoul: Exploring
Emerging Design Paradigm, Oullim. Seoul, Korea, October 7-11, p317-324
Sapuan SM. (2001) A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical
engineering design. Materials and Design. 22:687-695
Shahin TMM, Andrews PTJ, Sivaloganathan S. (1999) A Design Reuse System. Journal of
Engineering Manufacture. 213(6):621-627
Shanian A, Savadogo O. (2006) A materials selection model based on the concept of multiple
attribute decision making. Materials and Design. 27:329-337
Shercliff HR, Lovatt AM. (2001) Selection of manufacturing processes in design and the role of
process modelling. Progress in materials science. 46:429-459
Sleeswijk Visser F, van der Lugt R, Stappers PJ. (2005) Participatory design needs
participatory communication. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on
Creativity and Innovation, Lodz, Poland
Smith CS, Wright PK, Séquin C. (2003) The manufacturing Advisory service: web-based
process and materials selection. International Journal of computer integrated
manufacturing. 16(6):373-381
Sonneveld MH. (2004) Dreamy hands: exploring tactile aesthetics in design. In: McDonagh
D, Hekkert P, van Erp J, Gyi D (eds) Design and emotion, the experience of everyday
things. Taylor & Francis
Sonneveld MH. (2007) Aesthetics of tactual experiences. Delft University of Technology.
Dissertation (PhD)
Stappers, P. J., Pasman, G., & Groenen, P.J.F. (2000). Exploring databases for taste or
inspiration with interactive multi-dimensional scaling. Ergonomics for the New
Millenium. Proceedings of the XIVth tirennial confress of the International
Ergonomics Association and 44th annual meeting of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, San Diego, CA
Stempfle J, Badke-Schaub P. (2002) Thinking in design teams – an analysis of team
communication. Design Studies. 23:473-96
Ui E, Cho G, Na Y, Casali JG. (2002) A fabric sound evaluation structure for totally auditory-
sensible textiles. Textile Research Journal.  Jul 2002
Ullman DG. (2002) Toward the ideal mechanical engineering design support system. Research
in Engineering Design. 13:55-64

203
References

Valkenburg R. (2000) The Reflective Practice in product design teams. Delft University of
Technology. Dissertation (PhD)
Wallace K, Burgess S. (1995) Methods and tools for decision making in engineering design.
Design studies. 16:429-446
Wastiels L, Wouters I, Lindekens J. (2007) Material Knowledge for Design: The architect’s
vocabulary. IASDR 2007 International Association of Societies of Design Research,
Emerging Trends in Design Research, Hong Kong, November 12-15, 2007
Webcredible (Autor unknown) (2006) URL: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-
resources/web-usability/user-centred-design.shtml. Published May 2006 Accessed
August 2nd, 2007
Wood L. (1997) Semi-structured interviewing for user-centred design. Interactions. March-
April 1997:48-61
Wright IC. (1998) Design Methods in Engineering and Product Design. The McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, Cambridge
Young RIM. (2003) Informing decision-makers in product design and manufacture.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 16(6):428-438
Zuo H, Hope T, Castle P, Jones M. (2001) An investigation into the sensory properties of
materials. Proceedings of the international conference on affective human factors
design. Singapore, 27-29 june. Asean Academic Press, London, p500-507
Zuo H, Hope T, Jones M, Castle P. (2004a) Sensory interaction with materials. In: McDonagh
D, Hekkert P, van Erp J, Gyi D. (eds). Design and emotion, the experience of everyday
things. Taylor & Francis
Zuo H, Jones M, Hope T. (2004b) A matrix of material representation. In: Redmond J, Durling
D, Bono A de (eds). Futureground, Proceedings of the Design Research Society
International Conference 2004, Melbourne: Monash University
Zuo H, Jones M, Hope T. (2005) Material texture perception in product design. International
Conference on the Art of Plastics Design, Berlin, Germany (18-19 October)

204
Appendices

Contents

Appendix 1 Information sources used by product designers 207

Appendix 2 Schemes of the materials selection activity cases 209
Appendix 3 Information sources per materials selection activity 212
Appendix 4 Material profile study 213
Appendix 5 Picture tool 216
Appendix 6 Questions tool 220
Appendix 7 Checklist with sensorial properties 222
Appendix 8 Sample tool 224
Appendix 9 Properties relation sheet 225
Appendix 10 Usability study of the tools 230
Appendix 11 Instructions for the tools in the evaluation study 232
 Appendix 1
Information sources used
by product designers

This appendix provides an overview of the information sources that product designers
mentioned during the interviews that are described in section 2.3 on page 33.

Source type Results from the interviews

1. General material applications

Experience The product designers’ experiences are a valuable and important

Knowledge of the client, starting point for making a set of candidate materials. The product
colleagues and experts, designers mostly gain experience through former projects and from
experience from former seminars and trade shows. If the product designers do not have
project experience with the design problem they are facing, they talk to
colleague-product designers (senior product designers) or material
specialists in the company. In addition, experience of the client (for
example a production company) is valuable. Product designers of design
agencies have close contact to the engineering department of their
client.

Testing Materials suppliers test their materials to provide information about

Knowledge institutions (e.g. performances such as chemical resistance, durability, and yield strength.
Universities), finite elements Product designers, together with manufacturers, test selected materials
calculations, experimenting in the product or in product parts to verify whether the materials act as
for choosing materials, testing expected when processed and shaped in the specific geometry. Testing
for verifying choice is done with physical prototypes or with simulations, for example with
finite elements calculations. Through experimenting, product designers
discover the possibilities of materials, resulting in new ways of using
materials in products.

Example products “Example products are very important in material selection; the product
Inspiration from shopping, designer translates the applications to the design problem he is facing”.
competition products, proven The example products are of a similar type of the product that needs
technology, trade shows (e.g. to be designed, or have exciting features that interested the product
Milan international furniture designers. In design related trade shows and magazines products are
show), magazines on design assessed for their materials use.
topics (e.g. i-D Magazine:
www.idonline.com)

207
Appendix 

2. Independent sources

Databases, search engines Young product designers remembered that they used general material
In-company databases, selection software during their education, but in the 13 companies
general available databases visited in this study, this kind of software was not available. However,
(e.g. CAMPUS Plastics), some companies maintain an in-company database. Other sources that
commercial databases assist in selecting materials suppliers and manufacturers are the Yellow
(e.g. IDEMAT, Cambridge Pages or general search engines on the Internet like Google. Mostly
Engineering Selector www. product designers use these information sources during the early phases
grantadesign.com), search and the embodiment phases of the design project.
engines (e.g. Google), trade
guides (e.g. yellow pages)

Samples collections Tangible information sources used by the interviewees are different
Samples from former projects sorts of collections available in the companies. Different types of
(e.g. Tech Box www.ideo.com), collections are those of brochures, of products and product parts and
commercial sample collections of material samples. Product designers use collections to store and
(e.g. Material ConneXion recall former design projects, interesting parts ‘from the street’ or from
www.materialconnexion.com, trade shows. Samples provide information about sensorial properties
Materia www.materia.nl) of materials such as visual and tactile features. Commercial sample
collections were not used.

Books, exhibitions Product designers use material books and lecture notes from the
Books for inspiration (e.g. product designers’ education to gain general information about
Lefteri series (2001-2004)), which materials are suitable for the design problems they are facing.
Exhibitions (e.g. Materials Exhibitions and seminars are not available on the specific time needed in
Skills www.materia.nl), the project. Product designers use them to build experience.
seminars organized by
material federations

3. Materials on supply

In person Design agencies and their clients often have a selection of suppliers
Customer advisor of material they work with. Experts from suppliers and manufacturers are consulted
supplier or manufacturer, during the whole project for tips and tricks. In the late phases product
company visits designers discuss which materials suit the requirements best, which
additives are needed and which colours and effects. Furthermore,
they discuss what consequences the materials choices have on other
aspects of the design such as on shape. The interviewees consulted
manufacturers, for the processing characteristics of materials.

Internet The interviewees regularly use online databases of materials suppliers.

Internet information of In addition to the information found on the Internet pages of a supplier,
supplier, databases, data data sheets with more detailed information are requested, as well as
sheets custom made material samples and master batch samples.

Samples, brochures Materials suppliers and manufacturers send brochures and newsletters
Send on request or as as advertisement on their new developments. Sometimes they visit
advertisements (e.g. a sample design agencies to show and explain the possibilities with their material
box www.plexiglas-magic.com, portfolio.
newsletters)

Trade shows, magazines Product designers visit materials trade shows to meet suppliers and
Presentation of materials manufacturers, to keep up with new developments and to show
suppliers on plastic fairs, the company’s developments when attending the trade show as an
magazines (e.g. Materials exhibitor. From magazines product designers gather information for
Today from Elsevier www. future projects.
materialstoday.com)

208
 Appendix 2
Schemes of the materials
selection activity cases

The figures on the next pages show the abstract version of the schemes of all projects
that were discussed in chapter 5 and 6.
The diagrams represent two kinds of data: 1) the outlines of the materials selection
steps in a project and 2) the design aspects that the product designers selected in the
questionnaires about indicated data points. The diagrams represent the materials
selection steps taken in a project.
In some projects different product parts were discussed (case 7, 8, 9 and 14). The
different product parts are represented in different rows.
The rectangles show letters referring to the activities of the Materials Selection
Activities model (chapter 4). For example ‘oc’ refers to the activity of ‘formulating
materials objectives and constraints’.
The activities that were marked as a data point show a number and a matrix with six
boxes. The top line shows the data points marked at the moments that the product
designer indicated having used the formulated criteria. The bottom line shows the
moments the product designers indicated having gathered information and marked
that as a data point.
The numbers refer to the case number and the sequence number of the data point. The
six boxes represent the design aspects from the MSC model (as introduced in section
2.2) that the product designers could select in the questionnaires. The legend of the
figure shows which aspect refers to which box. A black or grey box indicates that this
aspect was considered at the data point. The technology aspects are shown in grey, the
user-interaction aspects are shown in black.

209
Appendix 

1 1.1 1.2 1.3

oc oc s s cp
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

2 2.1 2.2
oc oc oc s cp ch s cp ch
2.1 2.2 2.3

2.3
s cp ch

3 3.1 3.2 3.3

oc ch oc s ch cp ch s cp ch s
3.1 3.2 3.3

4 4.1 4.2 4.3

oc s cp cp cp ch t ch
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

oc oc oc oc s cp ch
5.1 5.2 5.3

6 6.1 6.2 6.3

oc s oc ch i cp ch
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

7 7.1 7.2 7.4

oc ch oc s ch oc s ch
7.1 7.2 7.4

7.3
oc s ch
7.3

8 8.1 8.2
oc ch ch oc ch ch
8.1

8.3 8.4
ch oc ch ch
8.2

8.5
oc s ch
8.3

210
 Schemes of the materials selection activity cases

9 9.1
oc oc s cp ch s ch ch

9.2
oc s cp ch
9.2

10 10.1 10.2
oc oc s t ch s t ch
10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

11 11.1 11.2 11.3

oc s cp ch o s
11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5

11.4
o ch
11.6

12 12.1 12.2
oc ch s cp s cp ch cp ch
12.1 12.2 12.3

13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4

oc oc s cp oc ch
13.1 13.2

14 14.1 14.2
oc oc ch
14.1

14.3
oc ch s cp ch
14.2

14.4
oc

Materials Selection Activity Datapoints Considered aspects

oc = objectives and using the F = function
constraints 12.1 formulated critera
F M PP M = materials
s s = making a set S = shape
gathering information S MP U
cp = comparing 12.1 about materials MP = manufacturing
ch = choosing PP = product personality
t = testing U = use
i = gathering information
o = other

211
 Appendix 3
Information sources per
materials selection activity

Section 5.3 on page 73 describes the main information sources that were mentioned in
15 design projects. The sources are here categorized in the activities of the MSA model.

Source Materials selection activity

Criteria Set Comparing Choosing Testing Other All
Client 27 10 4 11 2 7 61
Supplier 5 24 10 4 3 0 46
Manufacturer 4 11 10 7 10 7 49
Other expert 2 7 5 0 3 0 17
Users 17 1 1 0 13 0 32
Model 1 0 4 2 14 0 21
Group 5 10 10 3 4 9 41
Trade show 0 4 1 0 0 0 5
Internet 0 2 3 0 0 0 5
Other source 15 8 8 7 0 7 45
Subtotal 76 77 56 34 49 30 322

No information 58 25 9 29 3 13 137
Total 134 102 65 63 52 43 459

212
 Appendix 4

Material profile study

A small study provided insight into the assumption that formulating the required user-
interaction aspects as sensorial properties leads to a uniform selection of materials.
People with different backgrounds selected materials based on two different material
profiles. The first profile was written in perception terms and the second in sensorial
terms. The aim was to find out which profile leads to a higher consistency of selected
materials. When a profile is formulated in sensorial terms, it was expected that people
more often selected the same materials than when formulated in terms of perceptions.

Samples used in the set of

material variations

213
Appendix 

Profile Instruction
Perception terms The appearance of the materials should fit the modern camper; high tech,
comfortable, durable and sturdily
Sensorial terms The materials should be opaque and glossy, do not scatter or be flexible, but do
contain a texture

perception sensorial
25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Number of times a sample was selected from a set of 16 different materials after reading the
perception or sensorial profile. The black line represents the mean number of possible picks. The
space between the two dotted lines shows the picks that were not significantly related to the
instructed profile (p < 0.05)

perception sensorial
18

16

14

12

10

0
A B C D E F G H
Number of times a sample was selected from a set of 8 variations of a material after reading the
perception or sensorial profile. The black line represents the mean number of possible picks. The
space between the two dotted lines shows the picks that were not significantly related to the
instructed profile (p < 0.05)

214
 Material profile study

Thirty people (11 product designers, 10 material experts and 9 consumers) were
asked to select 3 materials from a set of 16 different materials (e.g. wood, steel, plastic
or textile; see appendix 8) and thereafter 3 materials from a set of 8 variations of the
same material (all plastics with different visual effects; see the previous page) based
on the perception profile. They were asked to do the same for the sensorial profile. The
materials were provided as pictures of the samples in an on-screen document.
Per profile was counted how many people selected every single material from the set.
These numbers were compared with a binominal probability distribution test in SPSS
(PDF.BINOM). This test reveals whether the selection of a sample could be contributed
to the instructed profile or whether it was randomly selected. The more samples that
are randomly selected, the less consistent the participants are in their selection based
on a specific profile.
When people are asked to choose materials from a set of different materials, the
terms used in the instruction given do not influence the outcomes. The participants’
interpretations of both profiles lead to the same number of significantly selected
materials. Only the number of materials that is not selected at all from the set is larger
after the sensorial instruction. This means that the sensorial profile makes the solution
space a bit smaller than the perception profile.
Although the interpretations of the different profiles do not affect the selection
from a set of different materials, it does affect the selection of material variations.
The sensorial profile leads to more significantly selected materials compared to the
perception profile. The perception terms were thus interpreted differently by the
different people, although they select the same materials from the set of different
materials. At a later stage, when more detail is required and the set to select from
consists of material variations, these differences in interpretations leads to different
selections. As a consequence, the proposed material variations might not fulfil the
expectations of the client.
The results of the study show that it is likely that a profile described in sensorial terms
requires less interpretation during the materials searches and thus leads to a clear set
of criteria about the required user-interaction aspects of the product.

215
 Appendix 5

Picture tool

LIVELY INTERESTING

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ highͲgloss Ȼ semiͲtransparent
Ȼ hard Ȼ fullofcolour
Ȼ cold Ȼ hard
Ȼ fullofcolour

Sample: Sample:
aluminum plastic

UNTIDY OBTRUSIVE

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ irregulartexture Ȼ scattering
216
Ȼ multiplecolours Ȼ gloss
Ȼ changeablecolour Ȼ smooth
 Picture tool

CHEERFUL SILLY

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ highͲgloss Ȼ transparent
Ȼ lightbrightcolours Ȼ flexible
Ȼ smooth Ȼ fullofcolour
Ȼ warm Ȼ gloss

Sample: Sample:
plastic plastic

EASYGOING CHILDISH

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ fullofcolour Ȼ onematerial
Ȼ flexibleaccents Ȼ multiplecolours
Ȼ opaque Ȼ fullofcolour
Ȼ glossinessaccents Ȼ gloss

Sample: Sample:
rubber wood

217
Appendix 

HONEST CUTE

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ warm Ȼ matt gloss

Ȼ irregulartexture Ȼ lightcolours
Ȼ changeablecolour Ȼ soft
Ȼ pattern Ȼ warm

Sample: Sample:
cork plush

MODEST RELAXED

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ matt gloss Ȼ matt gloss

Ȼ lightcolours Ȼ semiͲtransparent
Ȼ semiͲtransparent Ȼ soft
details Ȼ warm

Sample: Sample:
textile plastic

218
 Picture tool

ALOOF BUSINESSLIKE

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ onematerial Ȼ matt gloss

Ȼ onecolour Ȼ onematerial
Ȼ dark Ȼ colourless
Ȼ matt gloss Ȼ regulartexture

Sample: Sample:
plastic leather

DOMINANT OPEN

MiPSͲ TUDelft MiPSͲ TUDelft

Ȼ silkgloss Ȼ light
Ȼ combinationgrey/ Ȼ transparent,reflective
RVS/black Ȼ cold
Ȼ regulartexture Ȼ colourless

Sample: Sample:
steel plastic

219
 Appendix 6

Questions tool

FIRSTCONTACT TRYOUTPHASE

Howwilltheproductdifferentiateinashop? Howwilltheproductconvincewhentryingitout?

Howwilltheproductattractattention?
Comparedtosimilarproducts?
Comparedtosimilarproducts? Comparedtonotsimilarproducts?
Comparedtonotsimilarproducts? Comparedtotheenvironment?
Comparedtotheenvironment?
forexample: forexample:

attract differ pleasant innovative

equal repel conservative unpleasant

MiPSͲ TUDelft

TRANSPORTPHASE UNWRAPPINGPHASE

Whichfeedbackwilltheproductgiveduringtransport? Whichexperienceswilltheproductevokeduringunwrapping?

Andwhatfeeling? Andwhichlastingexperiences?

comparedtothefirstimpression?

forexample: forexample:

proud handy surprise special

awkward shame common disappointment

MiPSͲ TUDelft

USAGEPHASE RESTPHASE

Whichinteractiontakesplaceinusingtheproduct? Howwilltheproductconvincetobeusedagain?

Howdoestheproductprovidefeedback? Howwilltheproductfitinitsenvironmentandwithrelated
products?
whatcandisturbtheinteraction?
Whatcanintensifytheinteraction?

forexample: forexample:

comfortable emphasize camouflage remember

hide annoying forget standout

MiPSͲ TUDelft

220
 Questions tool

FIRSTCONTACT

Howwilltheproductdifferentiateinashop?

Howwilltheproductattractattention?

Comparedtosimilarproducts?
Comparedtonotsimilarproducts?
Comparedtotheenvironment?
forexample:

attract differ

equal repel

MiPSͲ TUDelft

Whichmaterialsaspectsplayaroleinthefirst
contactwiththeproduct?

VISUAL TACTILE
reflection denting
glossiness softness
transparency dampening
scattering porosity
roughness flexibility
texture plasticity
lightintensity brittleness
hueofcolour weight
multiplecolours stickiness
intensityofcolour AUDITORY SMELLANDTASTE wetness
darknessofcolour dampening intensityofodour oiliness
durabilityofcolour pitch fragrance roughness
pattern loudness taste warmth

221
 Appendix 7
Checklist with sensorial
properties

Together with the questions tool a checklist with sensorial properties was developed
(section 8.2). In the table below, the English and Dutch versions are provided. The
checklist and the relation sheet in appendix 9 use the same list of properties.

ENGLISH DUTCH

Light reflection Reflectiviteit

Reflection (reflective - not reflective) Spiegeling (spiegelend - niet spiegelend)
Glossiness, scattering (glossy - matt) Glans, verstrooiing (glans - mat)
Trancparency (transparent - translucent - opaque) Transparantie (transparant - melkachtig -
ondoorzichtig)
Brilliance (no - brilliance) Schittering (geen – schittering)
Roughness (rough - smooth) Ruwheid (ruw - glad)
Texture (regular - irregular) Textuur (regelmatig - onregelmatig)

Light radiation Luminiscentie

Luminescence (low - high) Lichtintensiteit (laag - hoog)

Colour Kleur
Hue of colour Kleursoort
Intensity of colour (colourless - full) Intensiteit van de kleur (kleurloos - vol)
Grayness (light - dark) Grijsheid van de kleur (licht - donker)
Durability of colour (durable - changeable) Veroudering (duurzaam - veranderlijk)
Colourfulness (monochrome - multicolour) Kleurrijkdom , chroma (eenkleurig - veelkleurig)
Pattern / structure Patroon / structuur

222
 Checklist with sensorial properties

Pressure Druk
Hardness (denting - not denting) Hardheid ( indeukbaar - niet indeukbaar)
Softness (soft - hard) Zachtheid (zacht - hard)
Dampening (fast - slow) Demping (snel - langzaam terugverend)
Compactness (massive - porous) Compactheid (massief - poreus)

Manipulation Manipulatie
Stiffness (stiff - flexible) Stijfheid (stijf - flexibel)
Ductility (ductile - tough) Vervormbaarheid (kneedbaar - stug)
Brittleness (brittle - tough) Broosheid (broos - taai)
Weight (light - heavy) Gewicht (licht - zwaar)

Friction Wrijving
Stickiness (sticky - not sticky) Kleverigheid (kleverig - niet kleverig)
Wetness (wet - dry) Vochtigheid (vochtig - droog)
Oiliness (oily - dry) Vettigheid (vet - droog)
Smoothness (rough - smooth) Gladheid (stroef - glad)
Texture (regular - irregular) Textuur (regelmatig - onregelmatig)

Temperature Temperatuur
Warmth (warm - cold) Warmte (warm - koud)

Sound Geluid
Dampening (muffled - ringing) Demping (gedempt - resonerend)
Pitch (low - high) Toon (laag - hoog)
Intensity of the sound (soft - loud) Intensiteit van het geluid (zacht - luid)

Smell
Fragrance Geursoort
Odorous (natural - odorless - fragrant) Geurig (natuurlijk - geurloos - geurig)

Taste Smaak
Flavour Smaaksoort

223
 Appendix 8

Sample tool

Wood Plastic Textile Plastic

Plastic Metal Cork Textile

Steel Rubber Plastic Paper

Plastic Aluminium Leather Plastic

224
 Appendix 9

Properties relation sheet

The sheet below presents the sensorial and related physical properties that can guide
the materials searches. The explanation of the properties can be found in section 8.3.

VISUAL PROPERTIES PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Light reflection

Reflection • Reflection coefficient Tuning by

(reflective - not reflective) • Surface roughness • Surface treatment
• Light absorption • Geometry
• Additives
Above properties are wavelength
specific (UV, IR, visual light) External influences
• Light source spectrum
• Light source intensity

Alternative
• Surface layer

Glossiness, scattering • Reflection coefficient Tuning by

(glossy - matt) • Surface roughness • Surface treatment
• Orientation of pigments
• Index of refraction External influences
• Light source spectrum
Above properties are wavelength • Light source intensity
specific (UV, IR, visual light)
Alternative
• Surface layer

Transparency • Transparency (light Tuning by

(transparent - translucent transmission per thickness) • Surface treatment
- opaque) • Index of refraction • Geometry

Above properties are wavelength External influences

specific (UV, IR, visual light) • Light source spectrum
• Light source intensity

Alternative
• Surface layer

225
Appendix 

Brilliance • Local reflection in absorbing Tuning by

(no - brilliance) matrix • Surface treatment
• Compound shape (plates, • Geometry
balls) • Reflection properties
• Glossiness properties
• Transparency properties

External influences,
• Light source spectrum
• Light source intensity

Alternative
• Surface layer

Roughness • Surface roughness Tuning by

(rough - smooth) • Homogeneity of macro • Surface treatment
structure
Alternative
• Surface layer

Texture None (designed surface Tuning by

(regular - irregular) roughness) • Surface treatment
• Deposition techniques
• Manufacturing techniques

Alternative
• Surface layer

Light radiation

Luminescence • Light emission (energy) Tuning by

(low - high) efficiency • Additives
• Delay time between absorbing • Surface wavelength
and reemission of light • Background materials

Above properties are wavelength Alternative

specific (UV, IR, visual light) • Surface layer

Colour

Hue of colour • Typical material colour Tuning by

• Colour dye or pigment type • Bending technique (pixels or
• Coherence between pigments mixed colour)

External influences
• Light source spectrum

Alternative
• Surface layer

Intensity of colour • Colour dye or pigment Tuning by

(colourless - full) concentration • Light reflection properties

External influences
• Light source spectrum
• Light source intensity

Alternative
• Surface layer

226
 Properties relation sheet

Grayness • Concentration of black/white Tuning by

(light - dark) dyes or pigments in combination • Light reflection properties
with colour
External influences
• Light source spectrum
• Light source intensity

Alternative
• Surface layer

Durability of colour • UV resistance Tuning by

(durable - changeable) • Water, fluids, gasses • Light reflection properties
absorption • Surface treatment
• Crazing in surface • Additives
• Adhesion between pigment
and material External influences
• Light source spectrum
• Light source intensity

Alternative
• Different pigments
• Surface layer

Colourfulness • Number of differentiating External influences

(monochrome - multicolour) colours • Light source spectrum
• Light source intensity

Alternative
• Surface layer
• Layered pigments

Pattern / structure • Organization of colours Alternative

• Surface layer

TACTILE PROPERTIES PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Pressure

Hardness • Hardness Tuning by

(denting - not denting) • Geometry

Softness • Elasticity Modulus Tuning by

(soft - hard) • Hardness • Geometry
• Roughness properties
• Texture properties

Dampening • Response time of elasticity Tuning by

(fast - slow) • Geometry

Compactness • Relative density Tuning by

(massive - porous) • Geometry

227
Appendix 

Manipulation

Stiffness • Elasticity Modulus Tuning by

(stiff - flexible) • Geometry

Ductility • Uniform strain Tuning by

(ductile - tough) • Yield strength • Geometry

Brittleness • Elongation at break

(brittle - tough) • Fracture toughness

Weight • Density Tuning by

(light - heavy) • Volume

Friction

Stickiness • Adhesion Alternative

(sticky - not sticky) • Roughness • Surface layer

Wetness • Water expulsion under load Tuning by

(wet - dry) • Surface treatment
• Warmth properties
• Softness properties

Oiliness • Surface fat concentration Tuning by

(oily - dry) • Additives
• Surface treatment

Smoothness • Friction coefficient Tuning by

(rough - smooth) • Roughness properties
• Surface treatment
• Manufacturing techniques

Alternative
• Surface layer

Texture None (designed surface Tuning by

(regular - irregular) roughness) • Surface treatment
• Deposition techniques
• Manufacturing techniques

Alternative
• Surface layer

Temperature

Warmth • Heat flux Alternative

(warm - cold) • Thermal diffusibility:
combination of thermal • Surface layer
conductivity and specific heat

228
 Properties relation sheet

AUDITIVE PROPERTIES PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Sound

Dampening • Loss coefficient Tuning by

(muffled - ringing) • Internal coefficient of friction • Additives
• Geometry (hollow or massive)

Pitch • Damping spectrum: Tuning by

(low - high) combination of elasticity • Stress state
modulus and density • Geometry (hollow or massive)

Intensity of the sound • Sound absorption parameter Tuning by

(soft - loud) • Extent of resonance • Geometry (hollow or massive)

External influences
• Applied power

SMELL AND TASTE PROPERTIES PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Smell

Fragrance • Typical material odour Alternative

• Type of fragrance compounds • Surface layer

Odorous • Concentration of fragrance Alternative

(natural - odorless - fragrant) compounds • Surface layer
• Delay time

Taste

Flavour • Typical material taste Alternative

• Release of compound particles • Surface layer
under saliva and manipulation

229
 Appendix 10

Usability study of the tools

The material terms used in the profiles that the participants made before and after
using a tool were grouped into the different property categories (table 8.9). We
looked per tool which categories were found in the profiles made after using the
tool. If one category was mainly found, we added a “1” in the table below. If more
than one category was found we divided “1” with the number of categories and gave
each category a fraction of 1. We focused on the categories used by the designers,
because they need these terms for the materials searches. Finding the sensorial
category was expected, because this is the category the tools aim at. Especially finding
the perceptual category is unwanted because the tools are designed to translate
perceptions into sensorial properties.
The tables on the right page show a summary of the questionnaire answers given by
different groups that used the tools in the study described in section 8.4.

STUDENT product designers

perception use sensorial technical materials total

Own method 2 7/12 1/4 3/4 1 7/12 5/6 6

Picture tool 3 0 2 1/2 0 1/2 6

Sample tool 1 1/4 3/4 2 1/4 3/4 1 6

Questions tool 1 0 3 1/2 1/2 0 5

PROFESIONAL product designers

perception use sensorial technical materials total

Own method 1 7/10 19/20 1 19/20 7/10 7/10 6

Picture tool 3 1/6 1/3 1 1/6 1 1/3 6

Sample tool 2 1 2 2/3 1/3 0 6

Questions tool 1 1/3 2/3 3 1 0 6

230
 Usability study of the tools

The groups are professional product designers (PPD), professional clients (PC),
student product designers (SPD) and student clients (SC).

USABILITY TOPICS Own method Pictures tool Samples tool Questions tool
Efficiency of the PPD, PC: a bit PPD, PC, SPD: less PPD, PC, SPD, SC: PPD, PC, SPD, SC:
tool (little to much more time than than average a bit less than more than average
time) average average
SC: least time
SPD, SC: average SPD, SC: high
variation
SPD, SC: high
variation

Duration of getting PPD, PC, SPD, SC: PPD, PC, SPD, SC: PC, SPD, SC: a bit PPD, PC: average
familiar with the less time than less time than less time than
tool (little to much average. average average SPD, SC: more time
time) than average
PPD, SPD: high PPD: less time
variation than average PPD, SC: high
variation
PC, SPD, SC: high
variation

The tool’s PPD, PC: a bit PPD, SPD: better PC, SPD, SC: a PC, SPD, SC: a bit
contribution to worse than than average bit better than worse than average
the understanding average average
of the other party PC, SC: a bit better PPD: a bit better
(better to worse) SPD, SC: a bit than average. PPD: better than than average
better than average
average PPD, PC, SC: high PPD, PC, SPD, SC:
variation PPD, PC: high high variation
PPD, PC, SPD, SC: variation
high variation

CREATIVITY TOPICS Pictures tool Samples tool Questions tool

More inspiration? PPD, PC, SPD, SC: PPD, PC, SPD, SC: PPD, PC, SPD: just
(hardly to very much inspiration inspiration a bit inspiration
much)
SC: hardly
inspiration

Creativity PPD, PC, SPD, SC: PPD, PC, SPD, SC: PPD, PC, SC: high
restricted by the hardly to a bit hardly to a bit variation
tool? (hardly to restricting restricting
very restricted) SPD: very
restricting

The tool was PPD, SPD, SC: PC, SPD, SC: a bit PPD: hardly
directing? (hardly around the middle directing directing
to very much
directing) PC: very directing PPD: hardly SPD: very directing
directing
PPD, PC, SPD, SC:
PPD, PC, SPD, SC: high variation
high variation

231
 Appendix 11
Instructions for the tools in
the evaluation study

The developed tools were evaluated by four product designers in their own projects
(chapter 9). The instruction they received in the research diary is the following
(translated from Dutch):
The MiPS tool is used during a meeting with the client and aims at making a materials
profile for the materials searches. This material profile contains the desired sensorial
aspects of materials of the new product.

The set of questions helps to discuss

Parts of the MiPS tool
the different phases of the user- product
interaction (first contact, try out, transport, 6 cards with questions

unwrapping, usage and rest phase). On every 16 cards with product examples
card some example questions and terms are 16 material samples
provided. The questions and terms can be a checklist with material aspects that
influence the sensorial experiences with a
used to start a discussion about the desired product
interaction.
An overview of the relations between
the sensorial aspects of material and the
The other sets can be used during the
physical material properties
discussions to clarify ideas about the desired
interaction. The example products help to
find the desired interaction. Some material
characteristics of these products are given
on the backs of these cards. Every card has a
materials sample associated with it. The set of
materials samples represent a wide variety
of sensorial aspects. The samples are used
to find the desired aspects, not to select the
materials itself. A combination of samples can
show the desired sensorial aspects.

232
 Instructions for the tools in the evaluation study

The sets can be used to your own preference, for example as shown in the picture.
Selecting a small number of cards or samples is important, because by doing this, the
options are reduced.
Discussing the aspects that are mentioned on the backs of the cards helps to clarify
what both parties expect from the materials. It identifies how both parties think the
materials aspects contribute to the desired interaction.
The checklist with material aspects can help to summarize the meeting and to put the
agreements in the materials profile. This profile contains the desired sensorial aspects
of materials such as glossiness, hue of colour, texture and warmth. The aspects do not
need to be defined in full detail in the profile. The aim is to know the most important
aspects that create the desired user-interaction and which variables are less important
while looking for material candidates.
The relation sheet of sensorial aspects and material properties can help to find
suitable materials.

Whichmaterialsaspectsplayaroleinthe
firstcontactwiththeproduct?
VISUAL TACTILE
reflection denting
glossiness softness
transparency dampening
scattering porosity
roughness flexibility
texture plasticity
lightintensity brittleness
hueofcolour weight
multiplecolours stickiness
intensityofcolour AUDITORY SMELLANDTASTE wetness
darknessofcolour dampening intensityofodour oiliness
durabilityofcolour pitch fragrance roughness
pattern loudness taste warmth

Example of the aspects in the checklist

233
 Curriculum
Vitae

[email protected]

Ilse van Kesteren was born on June 14, 1977 in Haarlem. After finishing the HAVO in
1993 and the VWO in 1995, she started studying Industrial Design Engineering at the
Delft University of Technology. During her education she had her internship at the
National Bicycle Company in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in 1999. After coming back from
this journey, she joined the organization committee of the Research Trip to California
and Mexico in the summer of 2000, during which over 25 companies were visited.
After a year break, to run the financial matters of the Student Association i.d, she
received her Masters degree in 2003.
After graduation, she worked as a researcher and subsequently started her PhD project
at the Design Engineering department of the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering.
During the PhD project, she supervised students both in Bachelor and Master
courses and was a faculty representative for the PhDs for a year. In 2005, she was an
accompanying teacher of a student trip to Copenhagen, Oslo and Gothenburg. She
presented parts of her work at various research conferences and trade shows during
the PhD period.
Besides the work for the university, she is an active member of the program committee
Material Design, which organized over ten successful lectures and discussions for
designers and material scientists, since 2004. For the Dutch Society of Material
Knowledge, she co-organized, in 2006, their first event for young material scientists
‘Meeting Materials’, with lectures, speed dating materials and excursion at Corus, in
IJmuiden.

235
 Publications

Journals and proceedings

Kesteren IEH van, Bruijn JCM de, Stappers PJ. (2007, in press) Evaluation of materials
selection activities in user-centred design cases. Journal of Engineering Design

Kesteren IEH van, Stappers PJ, Bruijn JCM de (2007, in press) Materials in Products
Selection: a tool for including user-interaction in materials selection. International
Journal of Design. December issue

Kesteren IEH van, Kandachar PV, Stappers PJ. (2007) Activities in Selecting Materials
from the Perspective of Product Designers. International Journal of Design Engineering.
Vol. 1 (1) page 83-103

Kesteren IEH van. (2008) Product designers’ information needs in materials selection.
Materials & Design. Vol. 29 (1) page 133–145

Kesteren IEH van, Stappers PJ, Bruijn JCM de. (2007) Defining user-interaction aspects
for materials selection: three tools. Proceedings of the Nordic Design Research Society,
May 27-30th 2007, Stockholm, Sweden. www.nordes.org

Kesteren IEH van, Stappers PJ, Kandachar PV. (2006) Activities in selecting materials by
product designers. In: Su D, Zhu S (eds). Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advanced Design and Manufacture. Nottingham: ADMEC, page 145-150

Kesteren IEH van, Stappers PJ, Kandachar, PV. (2005) Representing product personality
in relation to materials in a product design problem. In: Mazé R (ed). Proceedings of ‘In
the making’: 1st Nordic design research conference, Copenhagen 2005

Kesteren IEH van, Kandachar PV. (2004) Commercialization of new materials in

consumer goods. In: Redmond J, Durling D, de Bono A (eds). Futureground, Proceedings of
the Design Research Society International Conference 2004. Melbourne: Monash University

Kesteren van IEH, Stappers PJ, Bruijn JCM de (submitted) Product designers’ approaches
of integrating user-interaction aspects in materials selection. Design studies

236
 Publications

Co-authored proceedings

Holper, MPR, Meij, M van der, & Kesteren, IEH van (2006) Product personality
considerations in materials selection In: Proceedings of International Future Design
Conference on Changing Places of Digi-log Future. Seoul, South Korea, page 494-507

Karana E, Kesteren IEH van (2006) Material effects: The role of materials in people’s
product evaluations In: Karlsson MA, Desmet P, and van Erp J. (eds). Proceedings from the
5th Conference on Design and Emotion 2006, 27-29 September, Göteborg, Sweden

Dutch publications

Kesteren IEH van (2007) Gebruiksinteractie en materiaalkeuze (User-interaction and

material selection). Product. 2007 (2) page 22-24

Kesteren IEH van, Ludden GDS. (2006) Beleving vertaald in kunststoffen: de glitters
van deze tijd (Experiences translated into plastics, the sparkles of current time). Kunststof
Magazine. Vol. 17 (2) page 16-18

Ludden GDS, van Kesteren IEH. (2006) Het ontwerpen van productbeleving – luisteren
naar ijsjes (Designing product experiences - listening to ice creams). Kunststof Magazine.
Vol. 17 (1) page 16-18

Kesteren IEH van, Ludden GDS. (2005) Productbeleving: voelen, ruiken en zien van
kunststoffen (Product experiences, feeling, smelling and seeing of plastics). Kunststof
Magazine. Vol. 16 (9) page 18-20

Kesteren IEH van (2005) Communiceren over kunststof: hoe productontwerpers tot
nieuwe materiaal ideeën komen (Communication about plastics: how product designers
come to new material ideas). Kunststof en rubber. Vol. 58 (1) page 32-35

Kesteren IEH van, Poelman W. (2004) Materiaalontwerpers, een brug tussen materiaal
en ontwerpen (Material designers, a bridge between materials and designing). Product.
2004 (6) page 4-6

Ludden GDS, Kesteren IEH van, Saakes DP, Sonneveld MH. (2003) Het ontwerpen van
kunststof consumentenprodukten; van technisch functioneren tot belevenswaardig
(The design of plastic products, from functioning to experiencing). Kunststof en rubber.
Vol. 56 (12) page 16-18

237
 Acknowledgements

Thank you all! For the opportunities, insight, trust, critical notes, discussions,
information, cooperation, time, fun, (free)hugs and everything else I needed to start, go
through and finish this thrilling project.
Thank you! Promoters, for your guidance and support. Prabhu Kandachar, for starting
the project, and for giving me the space to do it in my own way. Pieter Jan Stappers,
thank you for your hospitality, your creative feedback on my proposals, papers and
above all for giving back my trust in the times I needed it. Hans de Deugd, thank you
for teaching me about the complexity of the project and the different viewpoints
involved. Thank you, Sjef de Bruijn, for jumping into the project and your enthusiastic
commitment in the last years. Your constructive criticism on my work helped me to get
to this point.
Thank you! Colleagues and friends at design engineering and Studiolab! It would have
been a lot less fun without you. Geke, writing together, promood, coffees and trains,
thank you for sharing our PhD experience! Thank you, Kirill and Elvin, for being the
office mates and being that famous special Delft Materials Girls team :-) ! Ruben,
writing mate, chapter for chapter, we got there. Miguel, Daniel, Froukje, Arnold, Jasper,
Edit, Cha-Joong, and all the other colleagues, thank you, for the discussions, lunches
and coffee breaks.
Thank you! All the people that offered me their time to discuss materials selection.
Special acknowledgements for the participants in the different studies. The value of
this thesis comes from you: Amber Leeman, Anne Hulshof, Bas Bruinig, Bert Jan Pot,
Bruno Ninaber van Eyben, Costas Papaikonomou, Eric Tempelman, Fred Montijn,
Gerard Kool, Gerben Pakkert, Hans Antonissen, Hans Blaak, Helle Ullerup, Henk Crone,
Jaap van Grinsven, Jan Eek, Jean-Paul Niellissen, Jeroen Verbrugge, Joline Karelse, Joop
Onnekink, Joop van Tuil, Joost Alferink, Kasper van der Wiel, Kees van Lede, Koen van
Niekerk, Liesbeth Bonekamp, Marcelle van Beusekom, Marije van der Laan, Marjolein
Min, Michelle Kuipers, Peter Wigman, Pim Jonkman, Rene van Geer, Rob Zweerman,
Sander Nieuwveld, Sandra van den Berg, Sophie Krier, Stephan Boom, Sue van de
Giessen, Tom Kieboom, Willem Mees van der Bijl and Wim Altena.

238
 Acknowledgements

Thank you! For letting the written words become a thesis. Karen for the English
editing, Sytse for the amazing work on the cover and illustrations and all the others
that gave comments on the chapters, propositions and lay-out.
Thank you! Students, for the sparkling ideas you gave me: Annette Voesenek, Antonno
Versteeg, Arjen van Spronsen, Bert-Jan Pastoor, Bregje Nabuurs, Chrystal Lieuw On,
Clemens Simons, Coen ten Herkel, Daan van Tulder, Eelke Dekker, Frouke van den Berg,
Gerard Dekker, Heleen Buijs, Hugo van Loenen, Jill Roelofs, Kittin Tang, Laura Klauss,
Marije Nieuwenhuis, Marjoleine van der Meij, Michiel Holper, Nina Pander, Patricia
Slingerland, Patrick Koppes, Reinier Jaarsma, Remco Bakker, Sarah Stuijfzand, Sören
Blomaard, Stefanie Tumewu and Wouter Robers.
Thank you! Wim Poelman, head of the Materials Design program committee. We
organized up to 10 well attended ‘De beleving van … ‘ - evenings together with Mick
Eekhout, Ton Hurkmans, Lucie Huiskens, Charlotte Lelieveld, Marieke Hoppenbrouwer
and recently also with Peter Legierse, Daan Rietbergen and Ilse Mater. The
organisational meetings and the evenings itself always inspired me. They provided
me with a continuous reminder of the questions, difficulties and chances existing in
the design and materials fields. Thank you, Menno van de Winden, board member of
the Bond voor Materialenkennis, for initiating Meeting Materials. Together with Alwin
Knijnenberg and Barbera Keukens we organized the first one-day event for young
material scientist in the Netherlands. What a great team!
Thank you! For supporting me, not only throughout the PhD, but throughout life. My
parents, Ine and Harry, my brother, Wouter, you form the fundaments of who I am.
Thank you for always being enthusiastically proud about me. You have taught me
to appreciate the creative things in life and to be curious about people, all over the
world. Joop, Annelies, Maaike and Anne, thank you for always being so warm-hearted.
Maaike, thank you for the relaxing weekends, long talks, walks and coffee. You are my
best friend. Boukje and Barbera, I would not dream of it standing there to defend my
thesis without you! Our friendship will always last, wherever we are. Sophie, do you
remember our first step in Delft, sharing the passion for design? Kamiel, Jaap, Marcelle,
and all my other dear friends, THANK YOU!, for everything.
Thank you! Sytse, lief, a thesis full of words, but none are adequate to describe my
gratitude to you. Met jou kan ik alles!

239