DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND MATERIALS SCIENCE DIVISION DESIGN & HUMAN FACTORS CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2020 www.chalmers.se Designing a Flexible Desk for an Activity-Based Workplace Master’s thesis in Industrial Design Engineering EVA HENRIKSSON MARCUS NORDSTRÖM Master of Science Thesis Designing a Flexible Desk for an Activity-Based Workplace Eva Henriksson & Marcus Nordström Division Design & Human Factors Department of Industrial and Materials Science CHALMERS University Of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden, 2020 Master of Science Thesis (IMSX30) Designing a flexible desk for an activity-based workplace © Eva Henriksson, Marcus Nordström, 2020 Master’s thesis in Industrial Design Engineering In collaboration with Kinnarps AB Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden Print: Repro Service Chalmers Gothenburg, 2020 Acknowledgment We would like to express our sincerest gratitude to all those who made this project possible. Firstly, we would like to thank our supervisors at Kinnarps, Per Enskär and Marcus Söderström, for all support and for providing us with this project. We also like to give a special thanks to Andreas Lillerskog at Kinnarps for aiding with technical support and mechanical guidance which yielded a more applicable result. We would like to thank ESSIQ and Jonas Sohtell for providing us with the tools needed to complete this project. A special gratitude to our supervisor Maral Babapour, for providing us with knowledge on the subject and guidance when performing the project. We would also like to thank our examiner Oskar Rexfelt, for giving us wise pointers when faced with difficult problems and supplying us with the Use2Use design toolkit. Last but not least, we would like to thank the interviewees that took their time to help and support us with the information needed for this project and finally, everyone else who was involved in making this project successful. Abstract This is a master thesis performed during the spring of 2020 at Chalmers University of Technology in association with Kinnarps AB. Multiple organizations are today replacing their cell or open offices with an activity-based workplace. When implementing an activity-based workplace strategy, the organization is set out to increase its office flexibility by encouraging the employees to frequently change the workstation. This to gain strategic benefits, enhancing employee productivity and satisfaction through stimulation of interaction between employees and initiating opportunities for collaborative work and signalling creativity. This project's aim was to develop a flexible and mobile desk for temporary workstations, that is, ABW compatible. To do so, user needs were established through interviews and observations, the current market and Kinnarps own products were analysed, which resulted in a requirements specification to fulfil. Besides fulfilling the discovered requirements, the desk shall also comply with Kinnarps fundamental requirements about the desk being: foldable, height-adjustable, mobile and provide electrical energy to the users’ electrical devices. The result of the project was a concept, communicated as a CAD-model, that fulfils the fundamental requirements but also is versatile, aesthetically pleasing, ergonomic, durable, intuitive, safe and offers flexibility. This through being multifunctional in how it can be used, having a unique design expressing both professionalism and playfulness, easily rolled aside and stacked when not in use, complies with set standards giving an ergonomic experience, has interchangeable parts and material that handles wear and tear and lastly, is safe to use by preventing accidents. Keywords: ABW, activity-based workplace, desk, product development, locking mechanism, foldable, workstation, furniture, office Glossary Activity-based workplace (ABW) - Is an office structure with the intention of letting the employee freely choose their own workstation depending on which activity they are to perform that day. CAD - Computer aided design: a program that helps create, analyse and optimize a 3D-model of a design with the use of a computer. Collective instruments - Office supplies that all employees can use, for example, a monitor or chair. Folded desk - The desktop is in a vertical position. Individual instruments - The users’ personal belongings, for example, jacket or bag. Monitor - a computer monitor/screen Unfolded desk - The desktop is in a horizontal position. Table of Contents 1 Introduction .....................................3 1.1 Aim ....................................................... 9 1.2 Limitations ...........................................10 1.3 Design Process ...................................11 2 Methodology ................................. 13 2.1 Market Analysis ...................................14 2.2 PNI.......................................................14 2.3 Interviews ............................................14 2.4 A day in life ..........................................14 2.5 Use 2 Use Toolkit ................................14 2.6 KJ Method ...........................................14 2.7 Objective Tree .....................................14 2.8 Mood Board .........................................15 2.9 Requirements Specification .................15 2.10 Fish Trap Model ...................................15 2.11 Brainstorming & Braindrawing .............15 2.12 Benchmarking ......................................16 2.13 Workshop ............................................16 2.14 Kesselring Matrix .................................16 2.15 SWOT Analysis ...................................16 2.16 Dot Voting ............................................16 2.17 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis ........16 2.18 Design For Manufacturing and Assembly ...17 2.19 Design For Environment ......................17 3 Exploration ................................... 18 3.1 What is an Activity-Based Workplace? 19 3.2 What Safety Requirements are There? 20 3.3 What is Out There?..............................20 3.4 What Does the User Need? .................25 3.5 What are the Target Values? ...............32 3.6 Conclusions of the Exploration Phase .37 4 Generation ..................................... 40 4.1 Basic Elements of a Desk ....................41 4.2 Defining the Desk ................................45 4.3 Detail Design and Optimization ...........52 4.4 Optimizing the Product ........................57 5 Evaluation ...................................... 62 5.1 Subjective verification ..........................63 5.2 Contradicting requirements ................. 64 5.3 Sensitive Information .......................... 64 5.4 Non achieved requirements ................ 64 5.5 Non confirmed requirements ............... 64 5.6 Recommended requirements .............. 65 6 Communication ............................. 66 6.1 The Final Concept ............................... 67 7 Discussion..................................... 79 7.1 The desk ............................................. 80 7.2 Exploration phase ............................... 82 7.3 Generation phase ............................... 83 7.4 Evaluation phase ................................ 84 7.5 The Project.......................................... 85 7.6 Further work ........................................ 86 7.7 Conclusion .......................................... 87 8 References .................................... 88 9 Appendix ....................................... 90 3 1 Introduction 8 Today, multiple organizations are implementing new operating strategies to gain strategic benefits by transforming their cell offices or open offices into a more activity-based workplace (ABW). When applying an activity-based workplace structure, the organization is set out to increase its office flexibility, reducing its occupancy costs and at the same time strengthening the corporate image. Meanwhile enhancing employee productivity and satisfaction through stimulation of interaction between employees when encouraging frequent change of workstation, thereby initiating opportunities for collaborative work and signalling creativity (Appel‐Meulenbroek, Groenen & Janssen, 2011; Babapour Chafi, Harder & Bodin Danielsson, 2019). According to Appel‐ Meulenbroek et al. (2011) findings, there is a gap between intended use and how the actual use is in some ABW, which is causing illness and dissatisfaction among employees resulting in loss of productivity. Factors for this can come from both management faulty implementing ABW or misuse of the concept from a user perspective. The intention of ABW is to let the employee choose their own workstation depending on which activity they are to perform that day (Babapour, 2019). The activity or work task can change during the day. For example, the employee starts the day by placing all personal belongings in a locker, expect for the bag that contains the computer. Then takes a cup of coffee with some co-workers in a break-out space, then during the day the employee attends two meetings in two different enclosed meeting rooms, transfers to a touch-down space to answer some emails and finishes the day in a semi-quiet zone writing a report, see Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of an activity-based workplace https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Rianne%20Appel%E2%80%90Meulenbroek https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Peter%20Groenen https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Ingrid%20Janssen https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Rianne%20Appel%E2%80%90Meulenbroek https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Rianne%20Appel%E2%80%90Meulenbroek https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Rianne%20Appel%E2%80%90Meulenbroek 9 The different spaces go from private concentrated work with quiet-speech policy to spaces for informal meetings and collaborative work. Quiet zones, mentioned above, is where the employee is intended to work with something that needs high concentration, these zones can be divided into enclosed spaces and semi-enclosed spaces, depending on the work task. Semi- quiet zones are the next step from quiet zones, concentrative work but small talk and interruptions are allowed. Active zones are where both individual and collaborative work take place which is very similar to touch-down spaces, but the difference with touch-down is that this workspace is used for a shorter time. Break-out spaces and open meetings spaces are for informal meetings and collaborative work and there are also walk-in rooms for both individual and smaller collaborative work and they go after the rule; first-come-first-served (Babapour, 2019). Kinnarps, which is the market leader in Europe within the development, manufacturing and selling of office furniture, sees an opportunity in the growing trend of an activity-based workplace (Kinnarps, 2020). Thus, they are looking to expand their production lines within this field and aim to have a new desk line-up matching the needs that emerges from an ABW office. Kinnarps ambition is to always deliver high-quality furniture with low environmental impact, for the entire chain – from raw material to finished solutions for the workspace (Kinnarps, 2020). Even though desks are a small part of the ABW environment, it can still create friction between the user and its capability to perform its responsibilities, because a consequence of an unsatisfactory design can lead to misuse of the ABW concept. Therefore, an improvement on it will ease users acclimatization to ABW (Appel‐ Meulenbroek et al., 2011). 1.1 Aim The aim is to develop a flexible and mobile desk for temporary workstation, that is, ABW compatible. A desk able to adapt to the ever-changing needs of the worker, giving the choice of setting for a variety of workplace activities, by being easily transformable to fit different situations while always being ergonomic and providing support for the user’s typical technical office devices. To fulfil this aim, Kinnarps have named four fundamental requirements for such a desk. They require the desk to be foldable, mobile, height- adjustable and provide electrical energy while being ergonomic. 1.1.1 Foldable By folding the desktop to a vertical state, desks can be stacked together and moved aside in a simple and quick manner, stated in this case, by one person in the event of changing needs. 1.1.2 Height-Adjustable To fulfil the aim of being flexible and ergonomic, the desk shall allow for the user to work in both a sitting and standing position. Thereby, offer good ergonomics within a larger proportion of the standard deviation for adult individuals. 1.1.3 Mobile The ability to be mobile makes for a flexible and versatile set-up well suited in an ABW, therefore it is a requirement. The common way of making a desk mobile is to put wheels on it. 1.1.4 Provide Electrical Energy A vision from Kinnarps is that the solution should be self-sufficient, providing energy thus supporting the users’ energy needs by giving the possibility to connect all their technical office devices to the desk and https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Rianne%20Appel%E2%80%90Meulenbroek https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Rianne%20Appel%E2%80%90Meulenbroek https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Rianne%20Appel%E2%80%90Meulenbroek 10 provide charging ability, by using a USB-C port. 1.1.5 Additional Requirements In addition to the following demands, the solution must meet “relatively high standards of aesthetics”, as expressed by Kinnarps, comply with safety requirements, prioritize profitability and quality. Furthermore, when creating a mobile desk, it must be able to clear a standard threshold when being moved for different activities, be anchorable when in use and be lockable in both folded and unfolded positions. Also, to easily be stacked together when not in use, have the measurement for the desktop area to be around 1000-1400 x 600-700 millimetres. There is also a set production cost put on the product which, is a part of Kinnarps’s business strategies therefore, it is considered sensitive information and will not be declared in the report. 1.1.6 Research Questions 1. Who are the users of an activity- based workplace? 1.1. What are their needs when using a desk within an ABW? 2. How can a desk be designed to fulfil the ABW users' needs? 1.2 Limitations The limitations concern the development of circuit boards, height-adjustment actuators, and switches, which are ready- made modules already utilized by Kinnarps. The development ends with a research of specifications and potential implementations for batteries and electronics, and with suggestions for material choice. The final concept should be presented as a completed CAD-model, thereby setting the scope for how far the development of the desk will progress. 11 1.3 Design Process The development process, sought to be used in this project, follows the traditional four-stage product development process (Cross, 2008). For illustrative purpose it is presented in a sequential manner in Figure 2, however, this is rarely the case. The design process is an iterative process far from a straight line. The exploration phase consists of a series of methods and acts that are meant to clarify the problem, its context, the user needs, and gaining general knowledge within the field, in order to be able to develop a solution (Wikberg Nilsson, Ericson & Törlind, 2015). The gained knowledge can be condensed into a requirement specification which steers the following work. In the generation phase, design solutions are ideated and evaluated in each section within different methods until there is only one final concept. This solution gets a final and last evaluation in the evaluation phase against the requirement specification. Lastly, the result will be communicated via, for example, drawings or cad-models. For this project, a flow chart of the process was made as a foreseeable guide for the work to come, see Figure 3. Here, the four stages are illustrated as black gates. The process starts with the brief given of Kinnarps consisting of fundamental requirements that go straight into the requirements specification. The other two parts of the requirements specification are user needs and remaining requirements that come from four different sub- categories. The two following phases, generation, and evaluation are an iterative procedure where concepts are being generated and evaluated until a result is achieved that satisfies the requirements. In addition to the design methods, this iteration also contains concept optimization methods Design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA), Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), and Design for environment (DFE) for ecological aspects of the product. The fourth and last phase, communication, is about mediating the result via a prototype and CAD. Figure 2: A visualization of the design process 12 Figure 3: A flowchart of the project’s process 13 8 Methodology 14 In the coming section, methodologies used during the product development phase are explained. First methods used during the exploration phase and then the methods used during the generation and evaluation phase 8.1 Market Analysis It is always important to understand what the competitors are up to. What they are doing right now and what could their possible strategies for the future be? Other reasons are to find voids in the market that can be exploited for opportunities for development (Wikberg Nilsson, et al., 2015). It is also a good opportunity to gather inspiration, and ideas for solving different technical or mechanical problems or in general see how competitors work within a chosen development segment. Collected information will act as part of the inspiration in the ideation phase, both esthetical design choices and features. 8.2 PNI PNI is an acronym for positive, negative, and interesting and is used to encourage evaluation of concepts or artefacts from more than one perspective by extracting features in said categories (Österlin, 2010). 8.3 Interviews By performing interviews, the interviewer obtains knowledge regarding how the user experiences the product, what they like and dislike about the product and their behaviour when interacting with the product (Wikberg Nilsson, et al., 2015). A semi-structured interview is when the interviewee is asked a series of questions but is allowed to side-track from the question, the same rules go for the person interviewing, who can ask follow-up questions (Wikberg Nilsson, et al., 2015). 8.4 A day in life A day in life method is an observation method where the user re-enacts how they normally would perform different tasks where the interviewer observes the user (Curedale, 2013). 8.5 Use 2 Use Toolkit The Use2Use design toolkit is a set of tools to help designers design products or services for circular consumption using the user's perspective. It comes in five different packages such as the thinking activation pack, the circular journeys exploration pack, the multiple use-cycles exploration pack, the circular designs ideation pack, and the circular designs evaluation pack (The Use2Use Design Toolkit, 2020). 8.6 KJ Method A KJ analysis is used to compile a large amount of data and provide an overall picture. The data, for example, the user needs from an interview, are written on post-its and placed together in different groups based on similarities. Each group is given a heading that explains what the category is about, and these categories can later in the process be used in a more optimal manner (Kaulio, M., Karlssson, M., Grubb, H., & Melby, C. 1999) 8.7 Objective Tree An objective tree is a hierarchical diagram which shows the relationship between the needs. If traveling upwards in the tree the answer to why a need or function exists is presented and downwards gives the answer to how a need can be fulfilled. The main function or need can branch out into several sub-objectives that together fulfils the main function. By defining sub- objectives, the main function will get divided into smaller and smaller sub- 15 objectives and finally, measurable requirements (Österlin, 2010). 8.8 Mood Board Mood boards are a way of visualising a feeling, by combining pictures representing an emotional experience. It can, for example, explore the emotion of modern, soft, and calm and can be used as guidance when designing new products (Wikberg Nilsson et al., 2015). 8.9 Requirements Specification The requirements specification is the result of information gathering, analysis, problem dissection and acts as a checklist for what the product in development shall achieve. Examples are dimensions, functions, design cues, ergonomics, and stages of det products life cycle like construction, production, assembly and so on (Österlin, 2010). The requirements specification list’s design can vary depending on the nature of the projects but usually comprises measurable metrics of requirements, corresponding value, and units (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2012). However, the requirements specification does not have to exclusively contain a list with bullets but also stories, descriptions, or pictures for an easier understanding of what the product shall fulfil (Österlin, 2010). 8.10 Fish Trap Model The Fish trap model is a systematic process for designing a product in stages with an increasing level of details and meaning. It utilizes vision-spatial thinking, that is, imagining and exploration by sketching what is essential for the current level of details and criteria (Muller, 2001). 8.10.1 The Structural Concept The first level is about defining the basic functional components that are needed for product use. These are then ordered in different structural orientations which make up ways of solving the problem. The structural concepts are evaluated against the criteria (Muller, 2001). 8.10.2 The Formal Concept The most promising structural concepts are brought on to level two for further development. The concepts enter a materialization stage where form meets material and the physical components that connect to each other. The evaluation of the concepts should be made by estimating their viability (Muller, 2001). 8.10.3 The Material Concept In the final level, the fidelity is brought up by determining manufacturing processes, assembly specification of materials, and colour. Evaluation against the criteria is important in this stage (Muller, 2001). 8.11 Brainstorming & Braindrawing Brainstorming is conducted to achieve a large number of ideas in a short period of time, by idea generating freely. There are no limitations, no ideas are bad ideas and the aim is to strive for quantity over quality. This can be carried out by using pencils and post-its or writing directly at a whiteboard. Being more than one person gives the possibility for discussions and creating an opportunity to be inspired by others (Wikberg Nilsson et al., 2015). Braindrawing on the other hand is a similar method with the exception that the focus for idea generation lays on sketching and that the generated ideas are presented and then built upon by other participants (Wikberg Nilsson et al., 2015). 16 8.12 Benchmarking Benchmarking is the study of similar or close related products. This external research can reveal existing solutions solving a particular problem to the product under development. Benchmarking can also be performed on products in different markets but with similar functionality to broaden the scope of solutions by inspiring new ideas that the project team’s internal knowledge and contacts cannot produce. 8.13 Workshop A workshop is when a group of people, it could be users of the product, experts, or randomly picked people without a connection to the subject gather and together generate new creative ideas. The intention of using a workshop is to take advantage of the group’s creativity and at the same time solve different problems that are planned out beforehand by the designer (Wikberg Nilsson et al., 2015). 8.14 Kesselring Matrix Kesselring matrix is used to evaluate if potential concepts fulfil different criteria, for example, requirements from the requirement specification. The potential concepts are then evaluated against a reference concept, which is set as an ideal concept, to measure if they are better or worse than the already existing concept. A scale that suits the project should be selected, for example, 1-5 or 1-10. This scale should also be used to weigh the criteria against each other to highlight the more vital criteria. Afterward, the weight of every criteria is multiplied with the number that the concept gets on the specific criteria. Which in the end shows the concept with the highest point and therefore is the “best” concept (Johannesson, H., Persson, J-G., & Pettersson, D, 2013). 8.15 SWOT Analysis The method is useful for determining the strengths and weaknesses and uncover exploited opportunities and make consideration for potential threats with a business opportunity. The four headings are categorized into two groups: strengths and weaknesses into internal and opportunities and threats into external. Those in internal can be acted upon whereas external cannot be affected (Curedale, 2013). 8.16 Dot Voting The dot voting method lets a number of participants use their group wisdom to collectively converge on a selection of ideas or concepts by individually scoring them. This is done by placing a number of dots, decided beforehand, on the concept that the participant likes the most. The concept or concepts with most dots will be selected as the winning concepts (Österlin, 2010). 8.17 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis The method is used to generate improvements for concepts. It is an effective way of exploring and investigating potential failures, the potential cause, the consequences, and how to correct them before they occur. In this way, the risk of faulty or even dangerous products reaching the customer can be reduced, which in turn leads to more consistent quality on the products. The method may include components, systems, processes, and functions. The analysis can be carried out by utilizing a table with six columns; process step/input, potential failure mode, potential failure effects, potential causes, recommended action and risk analysis, where the latter consists of severity, occurrence, detection which multiplied together results in the risk priority number 17 (RPN). The greater the RPN the more demanding is the need for action. (Ullman, 2016) 8.18 Design For Manufacturing and Assembly DFMA is a methodology utilized to address manufacturing and assembly costs and thereby increasing the profit margin without compromising product quality, development time and development cost. DFMA is performed throughout the development process, in all stages, even though cost estimates in many early phases are highly subjective and an approximation. For example, when functions and specification are being determined or when screening concepts. Though the estimations can be improved by applying cross-functional teams with individual specialties, that is, project teams consisting of participants (Cross, 2008). The process for designing for manufacturing can be condensed into a list: ● Estimate the manufacturing costs ● Reduce the costs of components ● Reduce the costs of assembly ● Reduce the cost of supporting production ● Consider the impact of DFMA decisions on other factors Subsequently a list for designing for assembly: ● The part is self-aligning ● The part does not need to be oriented ● The part requires only one hand for assembly ● The part requires no tools ● The part is assembled in a single, linear motion ● The part is secured immediately upon insertion ● Error proofing (Cross, 2008) 8.19 Design For Environment Environmental impact is inevitable when it comes to products; they all consume resources in some form. The impacts can be energy consumption, natural resource depletion, emissions, or waste. In DFE these impacts are divided into two broad categories: energy and material. Addressing the energy problem means developing a product that uses less energy. However, materials are not as easy, therefore the focus of the DFE method is put on materials. That is, choosing the right material and ensuring that the product can be recycled. The core of DFE is life cycle thinking, all the way from raw material to recycling and some of the impacts in the manufacturing phase are global warming, resource depletion, solid waste, and water pollution. To limit the impact in the manufacturing phase DFE provides a process that includes activities that are implemented throughout the development process, where one important activity is to set DFE goals. These goals are meant to define how the development team and the organization comply with regulations and how they strive to minimize the environmental impact. (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2012). 18 3 Exploration FÖRSÄTTSBLAD “they don’t know they want it, yet” 19 The first part of the project consists of gathering information about; ABW, the target group, the market, Kinnarps’s own products, the users’ needs, standards, and the products needed performance. The findings of the exploration phase are later concluded and presented in a requirement specification, which lies as a base for the development phase. 3.1 What is an Activity-Based Workplace? To increase the knowledge base surrounding ABW and acquire a greater understanding of the target group, a literature study was conducted regarding ABW. To achieve this, multiple articles within the subject were read through, information that were of relevance was selected and analysed and is presented below. 3.1.1 Theory Regarding ABW When implementing ABW some issues occur, as mentioned earlier, can both come from individuals or management misuse. For this project, the individuals’ misuse is more in line with what the desk can offer to make the ABW experience better and thereby, lead away from misuse of the concept. One of the bigger challenges that Babapour (2019) mentions, is that “rules” or “policies” appears when the ABW concept is implemented, for example, clean-desk rule or desk-sharing policy where the employee is to leave the desk in the same clean state as they found it in and with no items left. The existence of the clean-desk policy is quite obvious, hence the consequences of ABW desks is that when employees do not feel belonging to the desk, they do not feel any responsibility for it and thereby become careless and leave it a bit messy. The result is that someone else must clean the desk in a later stage. Not having your own desk has been problematic for some of the ABW users since it takes time to set up the workstation. Both bringing along individual instruments, like a bag or a computer, and installing these at the workstation with the collective instruments. Such as, monitors, keyboard, and as well adapting the height of the desk and chair to the right settings. This has led to some employees either not changing the workstation, therefore leaving belongings at the desk, and not following the share- desk policy or not setting the right settings of the desk and chair, leading to physical discomfort. The features of the collective instruments that help the employees adapt for the desk- sharing policy, besides quick set up time, is that the furniture should have material that hides traces of previous users, tolerate repetitive use, easy to clean to keep the clean-desk rule, instructions for the furniture intended functions, storage or hooks for individual instruments and some kind of mobility. The transition from having an own desk, where it is possible to stack and store all paperwork, to where it is required to move around and therefore keeping all information on the computer requires some kind of digitalization (Babapour, 2019). Another reason for the employees to not be willing to adapt or failing to implement ABW can come from the natural instincts of a human, wanting to feel security. When starting a workday the employees need to choose a desk for the day and some participants in Babapour Chafi et al. (2019) user study experience stress when having to compete for the “best” desk every day and not knowing specific social codes, like if they may or may not sit somewhere. 20 In summary, the theory on ABW shows that the user requires an activity-based workplace desk to; simplify the exchange of workstation by having an easy and fast set up time, have material that handles wear and tear and storage for individual instruments. 3.2 What Safety Requirements are There? Both goods and services have safety requirements and regulations that contain technical specifications that explain the requirements that need to be met in order to be able to sell the product. The result of not doing so may imply an injunction on a sales prohibition (Konsumentverket, 2020). Therefore, the desk in development needs to comply with the safety requirements. The standards that are relevant are already utilized by Kinnarps and the following work is therefore only a matter of understanding them. 3.2.1 Standards and Certification According to the Product Safety Act, goods must be safe for consumers and must not lead to any injuries. The act stipulates that a safe product is a product that, under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, does not present any risk of inflicting injuries (Product safety rules, 2020). This also applies to furniture so, in order to comply with this act, Kinnarps certifies their products according to EN 527-1:2011 and EN 527-2:2016. They include dimensions for legroom, desk height, working surface (SS-EN 527- 1:2011, 2020), and rules for stability, structural strength, sharp edges, and shear points (SS-EN 527-2:2016, 2020). The researched standards EN 527-1:2011 and EN 527-2:2016 have specific and measurable requirements and are therefore directly inserted into the requirement specification, except for EN 527-2:2016 strength and durability requirements. Due to the fact that it can only be approved by performing tests on a physical product, which is outside the scope of the project. Therefore, it will be excluded and instead seen as further development. 3.3 What is Out There? In order to create a desk that is competitive on the market and at the same time aligned with Kinnarps design cue, a market analysis and a design cue analysis was performed. The market analysis was conducted to obtain more knowledge about already existing products and to gather mechanical solution insights. Kinnarps’ own desks; Foldex and their height adjustable desk Oberon, were also included in the market analysis in order to get an understanding of Kinnarps’s own line-ups. The design cue analysis was performed on Kinnarps’s current product line to ensure that the new desk will conform with the same design cues, by expressing the same attributes and emotions. 3.3.1 Market Analysis In order to map the competition, different showrooms and exhibitions were visited with the intention to examine office desks and preferable ABW adapted desks with Kinnarps’s identified needs. That is desks with wheels, height adjustment, and folding mechanism. To evaluate the desks the design method PNI was utilized, special notices were taken to interesting features or attributes of various other furniture on display at the exhibitions and to gain a deeper understanding of a folding desk internal mechanisms, Foldex were examined further. Below is one of the desks that were analysed with the PNI, see 21 Figure 4. For the remaining PNI, see Appendix II - PNI of the market analysis. Balzar Beskow Figure 4: The desk in a horizontal and upright position, showing the desk when stacked Standard bent tubing as the frame. Foldable desk by pulling the locking lever beneath and then tilting the desk. Big wheels for transporting the desk easily when not in use and stackable. + Large wheels that can clear obstacles + No spring + Stackable when not in use - Poorly designed locking lever, hard to pull out to initiate folding - Badly balanced when folded, due to unbalanced centre of gravity - Not height-adjustable ⧫ Rounded edges ⧫ Distinct clicking feedback sound when locking 3.3.1.1 Foldex in Depth During the project, the desk Foldex was accessible for deeper analysis. To examine Foldex (Figure 5) it had to be disassembled. This showed how the desk had been manufactured, how the mechanism works, and how many parts it consists of. Figure 5: Kinnarps's desk Foldex The desk’s exterior is to a large extent built with stock materials such as sheet metal and square tubing welded together. The internals on the other hand contain several purposes and special made parts, both plastic and metal castings of complex vital parts and multiple fasteners to make everything stay put. Such a configuration entails extensive assembly time. One acknowledgment made is that the translation of the locking pins vertical motion to a twisting motion of the lock actuator at the front of the desk results in more components, see collage in Figure 6. 22 3.3.2 Design Cue Analysis The design cue analysis was produced by drawing black lines alongside the products to visualise their geometry and to easier be able to express them with words, see Figure 7. When performing the design cue analysis, a random selection of products was picked out from Kinnarps’s own website, Figure 7. The furniture expresses professionalism and office strictness, with its straight lines and fundamental geometry, but at the same time expresses joy and calmness through colours not traditionally found in an office. Though some of the furniture has organic and almost artistic shapes, they still clearly express their intended use by utilizing shapes modelled after the human body - “You are supposed to sit here”. The furniture is squarely but organic in the details like corners and edges, also tapering legs and cut-outs signals airy and light products. Figure 6: Parts of the internal mechanism of the Foldex desk 23 Figure 7: The design cue analysis with the complementing black lines and expressions 24 In summary, the What is out there section gave insight about features and criteria that the desk needs to fulfil to be competitive on the market. The features and criterions collected during the market analysis were categorised into different categories; practical, technical, user experience and production, which are presented below. Also, after the disassemble of Foldex, a decision was made that Foldex will stand as a benchmark in this project to compare the new desk against. Even though Foldex does not fulfil Kinnarps’s fundamental requirements for an ABW, by not being height adjustable, it is still Kinnarps’s marketed desk for flexible activities. Therefore, established details, for example, the part count shows what the desk needs to improve upon or equivalent. 3.3.2.1 Practical In order for a desk to be practical some required features were identified. The desk needs to have lockable wheels or some sort of anchoring to the floor, to stop it from sliding around. When testing some desks on a carpet, it stood clear that only locking two out of four wheels was not enough. The possibility to stack desks in a row when not used were common, this was sometimes made more convenient by making the legs asymmetric to easier fit into each other. In this folded state some desks had rubber knobs as protection on protruding parts between the desk. Some smaller desks utilized a docking mechanism for interlocking desks together and the market analysis also gave a sense of user-friendly lock actuators. 3.3.2.2 Technical Technical features that stood out was utilizing an expandable frame that enables easily scaled desks, that is, the mainframe parts can be the same and instead the desktop comes in various sizes. Many of the more economical desks were constructed with easily acquirable shelf parts and materials like flat bars and round stock, which keeps the costs down. Some salesmen at the exhibition, often highlighted the fact that they did not use mechanical parts that fatigue over time like springs, an important fact to have in mind when designing a desk that potentially gets adjusted many times a day. Other features were movable panels that can be placed on the table, hooks placed underneath the desktop, and the possibility to attach cabinets underneath the desk. 3.3.2.3 User Experience For a more pleasant user experience a greater focus was put on cable management, especially on the underside since this is something that gets exposed when folded. Some desks gave off a distinct clicking sound as feedback when engaging and disengaging the folding lock. New height-adjustment switches were discovered which, much like an electronic handbrake, were pulled up or down in the direction of travel which made it easy to use without looking and intuitive. Some manufacturers had spent more effort on the folding lock mechanism, some could easily be operated by one person and one hand, whereas others had to use two hands and sometimes even a knee. Some competitors also had rounded and chamfered edges, felt covered compartments and slidable desktop, which could be argued that it gives a more aesthetically pleasing look and touch. 3.3.2.4 Production One distinction made was that the more exclusive desks with more costly manufacturing methods like die casting were built on demand contrary to the mass- produced ones consisting of standard components and shelf material. They also, to a larger degree, consist of solid materials instead of veneers. With that said, that puts 25 a limit on potential material choices able to be made for this product to be developed with Kinnarps’s intended production cost. Furthermore, the design cue analysis showed what geometry, attributes, and emotions the product ought to comply with. This information was concluded into two mood boards, by searching online after pictures representing the captured emotions, for easier visualization and to express specific emotions to use during the generation phase. 3.4 What Does the User Need? This section is focused on the user. To develop a successful product, it is essential to not only create a product that is competitive on the market and follows Kinnarps design cue but also satisfies the user. By finding which the users of an ABW-desk are, exploring and understanding the users’ needs an appropriate product can be developed. First, the found users from the theoretical research were categorized by using Janhager´s (2005) user categorization system, to make it easier to visualize who the users are. Then to explore the user needs, interviews and observations were performed on three eligible companies having an ABW environment and within these companies’ facility managers, employees and cleaners were interviewed, in total, seven users were interviewed. The gathered information was analysed with help of two analysing methods resulting in a clearer view of the user needs. 3.4.1 Who Uses an ABW-Desk? Primary users, secondary users, side- users, and co-users are defined categories that follow Janhager’s (2005) user categorization system, which is used to describe all users. Where primary users’ use the product for its intended purpose whilst secondary users are defined as those who come in contact with the product somewhere during its life cycle but do not use it for its primary purpose. Side-users involuntarily get affected by the product, either with a positive or negative acknowledgment. Finally, the co-users are those who cooperate with a person who uses the product (Janhager, 2005). 3.4.1.1 Primary User Primary users consist of everyone working in the ABW environment that uses desks, both experienced and inexperienced users. In this case, the focus is on offices that utilize ABW, though flexible and active workstations can be found elsewhere, for example in educational contexts. 3.4.1.2 Secondary User The secondary users are cleaners, maintenance personnel, salespeople of the product and buyers of the desk, for example, the facility manager or the head manager buying desks for their office. 3.4.1.3 Co-User Co-users are those who are situated in the same location that see and hear the desk, from one perspective, they could also be primary users, but the focus is more on how a person, that is not using the desk, can be affected. For example, the experiences of a co-workers sitting in the same room and being disturbed by the product's sound when being height-adjusted by the primary user. 3.4.1.4 Side-User Side-users are those who assemble the desks, people who handle logistics and manufacturing. Developing a desk with all user categories generated, the project scope would be too extensive, therefore the attention will be placed on the primary user, the other user 26 categories will be under consideration during the development phase. The facility managers stood for most of the information gathered during the interviews, due to them being both primary users, as they work at the office daily, and that they have plenty of knowledge regarding ABW. Although, keeping in mind that they are the spokesman for ABW at the company, thereby a bit biased. 3.4.2 Interviews & Observations With these four identified categories of users (primary users, secondary users, co- users, and side-users) a mix of people at the companies were interviewed. Focus was on, as mentioned above, the primary users, which could be employees and facility managers. To both acquire information about how it is working in an ABW-environment and thoughts around how the companies have implemented ABW, two facility managers, four employees and one cleaner were chosen and for more input. “A day in life” method was used to gather information regarding how the user interacts with the desk, what collective and individual items they have and how they install them self at the desk. For more details, a semi-structured interview was chosen as it can help acquire the users underlying needs. When formulating the interview questions the multiple use-cycles exploration pack from the Use2Use design toolkit was used as a foundation for the interview. The multiple use-cycles exploration pack consists of 14 sets of empathy cards (Figure 8), which helped to identify the user’s challenges and gave insight into how the user interacts with the product in different activities (The Use2Use Design Toolkit, 2020). The interview started with some formal questions about the interviewee, for example, what their daily responsibilities are and how long they have been working in an ABW environment. Then the remaining questions were divided into three categories; topic specific questions, product opportunity questions and a day in life scenario, for better structure, see the whole interview material in Appendix I - Interview material. The topic specific related questions were about what they and their co-workers thought of ABW, how they became accustomed to working with ABW and adapting their workstation. The second category, product opportunity questions, were more focused on the product such as what kind of desk they have, what electronic & practical features the desk should possess and if there are any improvements to be made on the current desk. After knowing more about the interviewee and the companies’ desks, the interviewee was to show A day in their life. The task given to the interviewee was to select and get settled at a desk, set the right settings of the desk and chair, illustrate how they would work by the desk and additionally show how they would leave the desk when both going for lunch and leaving for the day. The interviews are summarized below and highlight some of the user needs that were found. Figure 8: The empathy cards from Use2Use design toolkit (The Use2Use Design Toolkit, 2020) 27 3.4.2.1 Company 1 First company that was investigated is a company that has used ABW for about two years and are working in an Agile way. The first interviewee is a facility manager at this company, that is working with the implementation of ABW. The way they are following ABW is that every team has their designated spot, which means that a team of four people have four desks to share between each other and if they need to have a meeting or similar, there are meeting/workshop spaces for this nearby. Each team also creates a team-mascot which is put on the wall behind their team to indicate that this is their area and they are also given a whiteboard, which is used for meeting or just putting team information on. "Designs for the team instead of the individual" - The facility manager at company 1 At this company, each desk was equipped with; one or more screens, a keyboard, a computer-mouse, a hub with USB-C connection, cables for the screen etc, electrical and network outlets. Individual instruments that the employees brought with them to the desks were a bag, a laptop, their phone and sometimes headphone or similar. The facility manager also thought of the importance of having a surface which allows the employee to use a computer-mouse without a mousepad, thereby keeping a cleaner workstation. The company also enforces a desk-sharing policy and clean-desk rules. To keep the clean-desk rules they store spray bottles and wipes in different locations for employees to take if needed. Three interviewed employees liked the idea of ABW but does not choose a different desk each day. Instead they have their own desk within their team, with their screen adjusted after them, same with the desk settings which also means that they leave personal belongings on the desk after each day. They mentioned that switching desks each day did not come natural to them and that this was something that felt quite uncomfortable, due to not having their safe zone that they routinely can go to. They feel that switching desks would only make them more stressed, not knowing where to sit the next day. The facility manager liked the idea of having wheels or something similar underneath the desks making them mobile but was concerned that the wheels would leave marks on the floor or just gather hair and dirt. After completing the interview questions the interviewee role played A day in life, Figure 9 shows the interview installed at the workstation with its individual instruments and the desk and chair set in the right settings. Figure 10 shows how the interviewee would leave the desk after completing its work tasks for the day and thereby following the desk-sharing rules. 28 3.4.2.2 Company 2 The interviewee has worked with ABW before and helped the company to implement an ABW environment in 2014 as a facility manager. How this company distinguishes itself from the first company was that they do not have designated spots for each team, but it is very likely that the teams sit together anyway. At this company more people accepted the ABW structure and changed desks frequently due to the fact that they had more options regarding where to sit and perform different work tasks, more semi-quiet zones, which seemed appreciated by the employees. Some frustrations that the interviewee had noticed by the employees was that some felt that even though the desk changed height in a matter of seconds, the employee could still feel that it took way too long to adjust “10 second could feel like 10 minutes” - The facility manager at company 2 citing the employees Therefore, setting the desk and chair to the right settings becomes an irritation and can lead the employees to either not changing the settings, which leads to a non- ergonomic workstation, or no changing desk as often as demanded from an ABW environment. To fix the problem of having a non-ergonomic workstation the employees were given information on how to set up their workstation. Unfortunately, some employees took this information too literally and continued to have the same height on the desk even if the conditions changed. For example, having different shoes which alters the initial height, thereby creating a non-ergonomic workstation. To have a pre-set height for both sitting and standing for everyone, in this case, would lower the irritation of the setting up-time but would enable for a non- ergonomic workstation. Same as at the first company, they have a clean-desk rule. To make the employees more comfortable with the clean-desk rule they prefer to call it a standard instead of a rule and also have wet wipes in different locations to make it easier for the employees to clean the desks. They also prefer to use material that Figure 9: The user’s desk when installed Figure 10: How the user leaves the desk 29 can handle wear and tear this to have furniture that has a longer lifespan and at the same time try to remove the feeling of “used furniture”. Each desk is equipment with the same collective and individual instruments as company 1 except that they also use mouse pads. The interviewee mentioned how important it is to have panels on the desk to make it easier for the employees to concentrate and hooks underneath the desks for the employees bags due to the fact that they always bring along all their individual instruments. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show a day in life for the interviewee, which is similar to company 1. 3.4.2.3 Company 3 The third interview was conducted at a company that has used an ABW structure for about one year. The first interviewee is an employee at the company and has worked there for about six months as a project manager. The employee sees this kind of workplace structure as a perfect match for consultants, who only visit the company in shorter periods and therefore do not need a permanent workstation. Thoughts on having panels for concentration and a desk-sharing policy is the same for this company as the others above, however, there were differences in which collective instruments they used and how they applied the clean-desk rule. As seen in Figure 13 and Figure 14, which is a part of the A day in life observation, the collective instruments are one larger screen with USB-C connection, electrical outlets, and cables for the screen etc. The individual instruments therefore also contained a keyboard and a computer mouse. Instead of having a clean-desk rule it was common sense to clean up with a cloth from the kitchen if one were to spill something, but they also had the cleaning staff wipe all areas more frequently. The cleaning staff at this company mentioned a few things that would make the cleaning easier, the space between the legs of the desks big enough to fit a mope or similar, having the same height on the desks and also something collecting all the cables because there is no time to lift them all up when cleaning. New problems that have occurred for the cleaning staff was cleaning of the electrical outlets, now when they are facing upwards from the desk it collects more dust due to the fact that it does not have a cover protecting it. Figure 11: How the user leaves the desk Figure 12: The user’s desk when installed 30 At this office, the employees moved around depending on the work task, many stayed close to their own lockers. The lockers, containing personal items, were placed so people of the same team had their lockers in the same place, thereby making people in the same team sitting close to each other. For more creative work tasks, they had a workshop room with movable whiteboards, tv-screens, and fixed standing desks. The interviewee mentioned that some of the corners and edges of the desks were damaged when height-adjusting them, due to collision with other desks or furniture, therefore some kind of protection would be needed. Pre-set settings of the desks were commented as a pleasant feature, but not something to use every time. To have a desk with a depth suited for using a screen all day was important and also somewhere to place the computer, some sort of magazine holder. In summary, all statements above including the unmentioned user needs, such as good cable management and lock with auditory feedback amongst others, are the derived user needs. The user needs are generally stated in an informal language as subjectively expressed by the user and are not easily objectively concluded as fulfilled in that state. Therefore, these are converted to requirements which is a precise description of what the product has to do (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2012). Before converting the needs from a subjective statement into something measurable a KJ analysis was performed, this to group the user needs together based on similarities and give them a category name. Seven categories were identified, see Figure 15 for an example of the versatile category: • easy to use • sound ergonomics • Inviting • Cleanness • Durability • Easy to adjust • Versatile Figure 13: The user’s desk when installed Figure 14: How the user leaves the desk 31 Figure 15: One of the seven categories and the associated needs on post-its Next step was to transform the needs into a measurable state, which was done by creating an objective tree with the seven categories, which can be seen in Appendix III – Objective three. 3.4.3 Contradicting needs Before concluding this section, the extracted and analysed needs were supposed to be weighed against each other to know the internal ranking of each need in case all needs cannot be fulfilled or are counteracting, a prioritization can be made. But what was discovered is that the interviewed company's way of implementing an ABW differs from Kinnarps’ view of implementing ABW. The literature describes ABW as when the employee chooses their own workstation depending on which activity they are to perform at the moment, which opens up for different ways of implementing an ABW (Babapour, 2019). Hence in this case, employees relocate from one workstation to another, choosing the workstation that fits the work task OR the actual workstation/room transforms into the desired activity. The three companies follow the former implementation of ABW due to the fact that they have space and capital to create each zone and therefore not needing to have these flexible workstations/rooms. Whilst Kinnarps’ goal is to develop a desk for the latter implementation of an ABW. Kinnarps argues that companies in Europe and dense cities have gained interest in these flexible workstations/rooms and therefore the companies, mostly in Sweden, do not know that they want it, yet. This information was confirmed during the market analysis where other company representatives and sales personnel claimed that Asia and more dense cities in Europe, have a large demand for modular and flexible offices due to physical space restriction whereas in Sweden, as mentioned, there is no particular space shortage. This showed that all needs gathered in this section are from companies that expectantly will, in the near future, require these kinds of furniture. Therefore, a company that implements an ABW as a flexible workstation/room that transforms into the desired activity, will need to validate the derived needs. Because of external circumstances this was not possible. Therefore, an executive decision had to be made concerning the user’s needs. The decision, based on the knowledge gained from the literature study, the interviews and Kinnarps fundamental requirements, was that all users' needs that were collected will be seen as features that delight the user if they are implemented, making the product more appealing, rather than basic requirements. Regardless of the implementation of ABW, the users that were interviewed are still users of desks in an office environment and their needs are still applicable but some of them clash with the latter, flexible workstation implementation. Therefore, some needs have to be eliminated. The user needs, mentioned in the interviews and displayed in the objective tree, network outlets, 230 outlets, housing cleaning supplies, collective instruments and colour coordinate desks will be removed from the list of needs. Network outlets and 230 outlets do not align with Kinnarps’ 32 fundamental requirements of being self- sustained and using a USB-C port. Housing cleaning supplies and collective instruments clashes with having a clutter free desktop. Because, having unnecessary space creates an opportunity for leaving behind stuff, for example, old post-its or trash and most importantly, having a lot of loose stuff attached to the desk makes for a cumbersome folding and storing process. Colour coordinated desks help strengthen the team spirit, but this does not help the user to change workstation every day, which might not be optimal when having an ABW. In summary, the collected user needs will be included in the development phase but seen as features to make the product more appealing. For example, easy to adjust, connectivity by USB-C and material that is easy to clean. The priority will be to fulfil Kinnarps’ fundamental requirements first, therefore, proceeding with a flexible workstation/rooms that transforms into desired activity as an ABW. To visualise how the desk could be used and what is needed of the desk within a flexible workstation/rooms, three scenarios were created. 3.4.3.1 Scenario One Four employees working together for one week on a project that needs frequent communication and plenty of space to discuss work material, mainly using laptops, paper and pencils. Therefore, needing four desks that have electricity and a desktop size to fit all material. 3.4.3.2 Scenario Two An employee that varies between standing and sitting by the desk and needs a monitor to be able to have multiple windows open at the same time. Therefore, needing a desk that is height-adjustable, has electricity, a monitor and a desktop size that fits both monitor, laptop, keyboard and computer-mouse. 3.4.3.3 Scenario Three A team of six people sitting separately by their own desk, some with only laptops and some with monitors due to different work tasks. They also rearrange four desks each week to a conference desk to have workshops. Therefore, needing six desks that are mobile, stackable, and foldable to be able to stack away the unwanted desks, height-adjustable and have electricity, monitors, keyboard, and computer-mouse. 3.5 What are the Target Values? Before inserting the users’ needs as well as Kinnarps fundamental requirements, the features, and criteria from the market analysis into the requirement specification, some requirements have to be defined and therefore, require further testing to obtain a target value. These requirements are desk size, easily adjustable, battery capacity, wheel size for thresholds and cleaning space. 3.5.1 Desk Size To determine a functional desktop area for the user and investigate Kinnarps proposed area of 1000-1400 x 600-700 mm, user tests were performed. Before starting the test, three pilot tests were conducted on four students and these pilot tests showed which scenarios to use during the formal test and some small details that needed to be improved. After the pilot tests, users familiar with an office environment participated in the tests. However, to make the participants as similar as possible to the target group, their individual and collective instruments were the same as the interviewees had during the interviews. The tests consisted of two scenarios: 33 In the first scenario, see in Figure 16, the participants were told to imagine an ordinary day where they arrive at work around in the morning, they are supposed to send some emails or do a smaller work task and then, before lunch, leave the desk to go to some meetings. This scenario only lets the participant have individual instruments, such as a phone, laptop, computer-mouse, coffee mug (or similar) and one more personal item, for example headphones. Figure 16: First scenario In the second scenario, Figure 17, the participant should imagine that they and their team are going to work together for about 3-14 days on the same spot, thereby having to sit for a longer period of time at the desk. For this scenario, the participant has the same individual instruments as in the first scenario and also collective instruments as a screen and a keyboard. The tested depth was 50-70 cm, since the recommended viewing distance to the screen is 50-80 cm (Arbetsmiljöverket, 2018) and Kinnarps request for desk depth is 60-70 cm. When performing the pilot test a depth of 50 cm was considered too narrow to even be able to work with a laptop, therefore the following tests had 60- 70 cm depth. The width was tested from 120 cm down to 80 cm, the same issue of the desk being too narrow was seen here as well, thereby not testing smaller width than 80 cm. Each test started with a desktop area of 120x70 cm, then the participants were told to “Spread out and sit comfortably as you would normally”, and then area was decreased incrementally with help of three cardboard pieces, see figure 16. First was the depth tested and then the width with the already determined depth. After each reduction of area, the participants were asked about how they felt about the new area given. When a satisfying area had been determined a desk and a figurine was placed next to the original desk to see if the personal space would be affected and thereby require a greater area to distance themselves. The collected opinions were summarized, see Tabell 1. The result stagnated and therefore, the test was terminated after four participants were tested. The result shows that a depth of 70 cm is required for both screen and laptop, but the screen requires more width then a laptop; 110 to 120 cm. Since unused rental space in an office is a waste of money, more desk means more material and both widths were ok according to the test, the smaller width of 110 cm was chosen. Smaller desktop widths than 110 cm was rejected by the participant when another desk and figurine was placed next to it and thereby confining the participants personal space. Figure 17: Second scenario 34 “The desk area could be smaller because my stuff on the desk would still fit and it would be possible to work but my personal space would be invaded” - Participant three in desk size test Tabell 1: The collected opinions of the desk size tests No screen (cm) With screen (cm) Depth Width Comment Depth Width Comment 60 70 70 120 95 80 Unpleasant* Ok* Unpleasant 60 70 70 70 120 110 95 80 Unpleasant Ok Less Ok* Unpleasant 60 70 70 120 110 100 To close* Ok To close 60 70 70 70 120 120 110 95 Unpleasant Ok Less Ok Unpleasant 60 70 70 70 120 110 100 95 To close Ok Less OK Unpleasant 60 70 70 70 120 120 110 100 To close Ok Ok Unpleasant 60 60 60 60 120 110 95 80 Ok Ok Less Ok Unpleasant 60 70 70 70 120 110 95 80 Unpleasant Ok Ok Unpleasant *Ok = Not perfect but not bad either. *Less Ok = The user does not feel that it is perfect but could work like this for a shorter time. *To close= The desk area satisfies the need for the user, but it is too close to co-workers which makes it uncomfortable for the user *Unpleasant = The user is not comfortable working with this size of desk area The “standard” rectangular shape was chosen due to ease of manufacturing but foremost due to the fact that chamfers, rounds, and other attributes just are aesthetically aspects but at the same time decreasing the efficiency by not 35 maximizing the usable area. Rectangle is also the easiest to pair together with another to avoid gaps. The shape is also exclusively used by the competitors, which tells that it is a requested shape for an office desktop. 3.5.2 Easily Adjustable One user need that arose during the exploration phase was that the desk has to easily be adjustable and one aspect of that is time. During the interviews it was mentioned that some employees who are struggling with the adoption could experience that the few seconds it took to set up their chosen workplace felt as minutes, therefore smooth and swift adjustment is essential. The most prominent feature to adjust on a “ready to use” desk is the height of the desktop, the other one being the time to fold and unfold the desk when it is in a stored state (folded). These two features were tested separately on four office employees, unfortunately not users working in an ABW environment, due to external circumstances. Setting a target time for height adjustment time is not a straightforward task since the time is based on the distance the desktop has to travel; from the original height to the preferred height, which varies from occasion to occasion. Therefore, the velocity for the desk’s vertical motion was determined. To test what a preferred velocity could be, the participants were asked to rate two different types of a height-adjustable desk, one being Kinnarps own desk Oberon. The desks were set to a height that ergonomically is not correct for the participant, and then they were to set the desk to a height that they prefer. Afterwards, the participants were asked if they were satisfied with the time it took to adjust the desk, if it was quick enough, did it feel fast or slow. With this information the preferred velocity was calculated. Setting the target time for folding and unfolding the desk was done by having the desk Foldex as reference. The reason for that is that it is a straightforward, single action procedure, carried out by one person, as described in the requirements of Kinnarps. To test the folding time of Foldex the participants were clocked on the time it took them to fold and unfold the desktop. However, the tasks were performed in a competition-like fashion. Therefore, to get a more credible time, the participants were secretly clocked during their more casual trials during the following discussion. The average over all time was then calculated. The fastest desk was unanimously chosen as the preferred one. Therefore, a target velocity of 3,6 cm/s is set to the requirement. It is important to note that having a too fast adjusting desk can carry a risk of accidents by reducing the reaction time. The folding test showed that the average time to fold the desk was 3,72 seconds and 3,98 seconds to unfold, therefore the time of 3,5 seconds was chosen as target value. 3.5.3 Battery Capacity A vision from Kinnarps is that the solution should be self-contained, providing energy thus supporting the users’ energy needs by giving the possibility to connect all their technical office devices to the desk and provide charging ability. To be useful, the battery needs to have a capacity that is large enough. However, the capacity has a strong correlation to volume due to energy density of batteries and the price, which are two restricting factors in this project. Therefore, in agreement with Kinnarps, the target capacity should be set so that the desk can provide energy for one day, for one computer, one cell phone and a 36 monitor. Consequently, the energy capacity for an average laptop battery, cell phone battery and the energy consumption for a monitor for eight hours, were investigated. This by doing external research about the energy consumption of a number of different models of the objects and then an average was calculated. Three laptops, two cell phones and four monitors were used in the calculation of finding an average energy consumption value, see in Tabell 2. The total amount of energy needed for one day sums up to almost 300 Wh, where the monitor contributes with the major part. Kinnarps’s supplier of electronic control systems for their desks supplies a battery with a capacity of 65 Wh. Apart from occupying a lot of space and being heavy, supplying a capacity five times larger than the existing 65 Wh, would cost more than the production budget for the whole desk. Therefore, it was concluded to not incorporate the monitor in the calculation and the sum of the needed capacity for the cell phone and laptop is 64,7 Wh, which makes one battery sufficient. Tabell 2: The calculation of the laptops, cell phones and monitors Object Laptop Cell phone Monitor Consumption (Wh) 51 15,04 192 35 11,67 240 68 288 200 Average consumption 51,3 13,4 (230) 3.5.4 Thresholds To clear thresholds when rolling the desk through a door, the ground clearance is important and more so, the wheel size so that the desk rolls over the thresholds in contrary to bouncing over or getting stuck. The ground clearance will be determined with a margin to common thresholds, the wheel diameter will be set with a test. The wheel diameter test was done by taking an available desk with wheels and rolling it over, in the threshold spectra, a large threshold to be on the safe side. The used threshold was 23 mm high and made for sound proofing doors, see Figure 18. Then based on the performance of the wheel, whether it gets over or not and in what way, a target value could be determined. Figure 18: The threshold used for testing the wheels In summary, the target value for ground clearance was set to 30 mm so that it clears 37 common thresholds. The wheel size diameter was set to 75 mm. However, there was only one type of desk available for the test and thereby only on wheel size, more specifically, a 75 mm one. So, to be able to perform the test at all, the 75 mm wheel was used, and it fulfils the requirements of not getting stuck or bouncing over the threshold, but it was just enough and could optimally be slightly larger. 3.5.5 Cleaning Space Between the Desks The cleaning space between the desks is about the cleaning staff having a hard time getting in between the legs of two lined up desks to clean the floor between them if the legs are placed near the edge of the desktop. To ease the job of the cleaning staff the space needs to be sufficient to fit cleaning supplies in between. However, making the gap too large entails in a confined space for the office worker sitting at the desk. To determine the needed space, measurements of the depth for flat mops were investigated. The investigation of flat mop showed that the space in between the legs of the desks to be 12 cm. 3.6 Conclusions of the Exploration Phase The findings of the exploration phase regarding; ABW, the target group, the market, Kinnarps own products, the users' needs, standards, and the products needed performance is concluded and presented in the requirement specification below, see Tabell 3. The requirement specification will serve as the foundation which all product decisions are matched with throughout the development process. The requirement specification is structured by the three main categories; standards, Kinnarps’ requirement and user needs & market analysis, followed by sub- categories and the definition of the requirement. Then, each definition is given a unit, a value, which is the minimum value to achieve and an optimal value, which is a preferred value to achieve. As mentioned earlier, the user needs are treated as features thereby are, they only given an optimal value. Some needs cannot easily be translated into quantifiable metrics and are therefore marked with “subj” for a later subjective evaluation. Other non- quantifiable data elicited from the exploration phase, for example, the mood board, are not part of the requirement specification, nevertheless it will be a part of the development phase. Furthermore, duplicates that are to be found in both, for example, standards and user needs like sharp edges, are only specified once in the requirement specification. 38 nr categories sub-categories definition of requirement sub definition value / range optimal value unit source date comments 1 Height of the work surface Sit/stand 650-1250 618-1306 mm EN 527-1:2011 2011 2 At the front 55 mm klass D 3 At 500 mm from the front edge 80 mm 4 Min. height of knee clearance for standing position only Applies only to tables with a height more than 850 mm 700 mm EN 527-1:2011 2011 5 knee 80 mm 6 foot 150 mm 7 Sitting only and sit/stand From 600 mm to 800 mm from the front edge 120 mm 8 Standing only from front edge to 150 mm 120 mm 9 Minimum legroom depth Sitting only and sit/stand 800 mm EN 527-1:2011 2011 10 Minimum desktop depth 800 mm EN 527-1:2011 2011 11 Sitting only and sit/stand 1200 mm 12 Standing 790 mm 13 All edges and corners are free from burrs and rounded or chamfered. Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 14 Chamfered >1 mm 15 Rounded >2 mm 16 Ends of feet and hollow components are capped or closed. Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 17 Movable & adjustable parts designed so injuries avoided. Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 18 Not possible any load bearing part to come loose unintentionally. Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 19 All lubricated parts designed to protect users from stains. Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 20 During setting up & folding - S&S points created are acceptable (unless 21 or 22 are applicable). Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 21 Powered mechanisms – no S&S points which close to <25mm unless always <7mm. Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 22 During use – no S&S points close <25mm unless always <7mm. Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 23 Stability under vertical load Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 24 Stability for work tables extension elements Pass Pass / Fail EN 527-2:2016 2018 EN 527-1:2011 EN 527-1:2011 St an da rd s D im en si on s Max. desk top thickness EN 527-1:2011 2011 Min. depth of clearance for standing position only 2011 EN 527-2:2016 2018 2011 EN 527-1:2011 2011 Sh ea r a nd s qu ee ze p oi nt s St ab ilit y re qu ire m en ts Min. height of min. foot clearance Minimum legroom width Sa fe ty re qu ire m en ts Edges/corners of top surfaces are 25 Mobile Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 26 By one person Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 27 When folded Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 28 When unfolded Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 29 Foldable Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 30 By one person Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 31 Quickly ≤3,5 Seconds Brief 21-1 32 Stackable Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 33 By one person Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 34 Aesthetically Pleasing Yes Subj Brief 21-1 Evaluated by Kinnarps 35 Provide electrical power 65 >65 Wh Brief 21-1 Derived from "provide charging ability" For computer, cellphone, monitor, desk. 36 Desktop width 1100 mm Brief/test 21-1 37 Desktop depth 700 mm Brief/test 21-1 38 Production cost 5000 SEK Brief 21-1 39 Height-adjustable Pass Pass / Fail Brief 21-1 40 Ground clearance 30 mm Brief/test 21-1 41 Wheel diameter 75 >75 mm Brief/test 21-1 42 Anchorable Lockable wheels Pass Pass / Brief 21-1 With two hands maximum Can easily be transported Can not be folded/unfolded without intention With two hands maximum Ki nn ar ps C lie nt R eq ui re m en ts Lockable Foldable Stackable Clear standards threshold Mobile Tabell 3: The requirement specification 39 43 One standard height Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3 w.8 To make the cleaning easier for the cleaners 44 Protection for the vertical outlets Hinder dirt from entering the Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3 w.8 45 Cleaning space between the desks >100 mm Interview 3 w.8 46 Material that is easy to clean Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3 w.8 47 Prevent hair cumulation in the wheels Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3 w.8 48 Legs Pass Pass / Fail 49 Wheels Pass Pass / Fail 50 Desktop Pass Pass / Fail 51 Electronics Pass Pass / Fail 52 Durable material Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3 w.8 Collision. have inte mind (not glass etc) 53 Folded Pass Pass / Fail 54 Unfolded Pass Pass / Fail 55 Minimize use of textiles On wear surfaces 0 mm^2 Interview 1 w.7 56 Minimize wheel marks Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1 w.7 On carpets 57 Pre-set settings Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3 w.8 58 Velocity 3,6 m/s Interview 2 w.8 konkurent vs kinnarps reference 59 Lowest/highest Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3 w.8 Button 60 Communicating the intended function Yes Subjective Literature study 2019 61 Lock with auditory feedback Pass Pass / Fail Market analysis 62 Wireless charging Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1,2,3 w.7-8 63 USB-C Pass Pass / Fail Interview 3/Brief w.8 64 Desktop enables use of mouse Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1 w.7 65 Maximal stroke in both directions Provide physical comfort Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1,2,3 w.7-8 66 Clutter free desktop Yes Subjective Interview 1,2,3 w.7-8 67 Coordinate outlets with close proximity / same side Pass Pass / Fail Interview 2 w.8 In case of multiple outlets and dock 68 Cable storage/hidden cables Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1,2,3 w.7-8 Look clean and no cables interfering the cleaning 69 Quiet desk Minimize mechanical noise Yes Subjective Interview 1 w.7 Konkurent referens. testat utan vetskap 70 Panel compatible Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1,2,3 w.7-8 Accepts Kinnarps panels 71 Provide a range of desks Different colors and sizes Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1 w.7 72 Individual instruments Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1,2,3 w.7-8 73 Stand for laptop Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1,2,3 w.7-8 74 Multipurpose desktop Whiteboard Pass Pass / Fail Interview 1 & 3 w.7-8 Cable mangement Provide storage Market analysis Market analysis U se r n ee ds a nd m ar ke t a na ly si s C le an lin es s D ur ab ilit y In vi tin g So un d er go no m ic s Ve rs at ile Ea sy to u se Interchangeable parts Side/lateral edge protection Easy to adjust Connectivity 40 4 Generation FÖRSÄTTSBLAD 41 In the generation phase, different methods for developing and analysing products were conducted, which in the end resulted in a final concept. A modification of the fish trap model was made, instead of thinking of all parts of the product, the development was centred around the locking mechanism and other parts were instead designed around it. This to simplify a complex system by developing it component by component and thereafter, adding non-structural details in the end. It is the fact that this product is complex, a large ecosystem consisting of many components that depend and build on each other, that the method is utilized. It breaks the problem down into more manageable parts. 4.1 Basic Elements of a Desk In this level, the basic functional components are defined, and different structural orientations are investigated, which helps develop an understanding for the components’ dependency. By performing brainstorming sessions, screenings and workshops, this level generated a few rough concepts that in the next phase will go on for further development. To even start to define the core components, the ways in which the desk can be folded had to be investigated. It sets the rules for which components are needed. To determine in what way the desk could be folded, brainstorming was used. The result was sketched on a whiteboard (Figure 19) and followed up with a screening based on pros and cons with each idea. Figure 19:Sketches from the brainstorming session Multiple ways of folding were generated, see Figure 19. Solutions where the desktop consists of more than one part that folds increases the part count and complexity, this was observed in the market analysis. It also entails a complicated frame since the frame needs to fold in the same way while supporting the desktop. Desks that fold the frame by letting the legs approach each other were perceived as unstable in transport in the market analysis. The chosen way of folding was a rectangular desktop that folds in one piece away from the user, the reason being that it fulfils the previous mentioned criteria and is one of the desktops that satisfies the requirement of using the desktop as a whiteboard in a folded state. To summarize, the core components are the desktop(1), a frame(2) that supports the desktop, two consoles(3) that connect the frame to the legs(4), a support bracket(5) that connects the two legs which makes it 42 more rigid and finally, a cable tray(6), see Figure 20. Figure 20: The core components of the desk 4.1.1 Ways of Folding To generate variants of ways of folding the chosen desk, a Brainstorming session was performed to compose the core components together in different ways. Four people participated in the method and the ideas were sketched on a whiteboard, see Figure 21. The core components acted as a starting point for concept generation and also a means of explaining the boundaries, that is, the four fundamental requirements. 43 Figure 21: Sketches from the brainstorming session The brainstorming resulted in four ways of folding the desk; a hinge, like the desk Foldex - rotating around a shaft, slide & fold and like an architect table. In total six concepts and these were each constructed as CAD-models for easier understanding, see Figure 22. Thereafter, these were presented to Kinnarps for screening. Which eliminated the hinge and slide & fold concepts due to their inherent squeezing points (Figure 23). The Foldex lookalike and the architect table, which basically have the same kind of folding but with different appearance, was chosen as the main way of folding the desk, since the shaft acts as the pivot point which entails no shear or squeeze points. The combination of these two will later be referred to as the shaft. Figure 22: Cad-models of the four ways of folding the desk 44 Figure 23: Squeeze points 4.1.2 Ways of Locking Before entering the next level, which included details, further screening of the concepts needed to be done and a selection of the most suited locking mechanism. A Brainstorming session during a workshop was performed and generated multiple ways of locking. Inspiration for the workshop was gathered from the market analysis and external research about already existing kinds of locking mechanisms in general. In the section about Foldex in depth, the acknowledgement that translation of motions when connecting components will generate more parts was made. In an effort to mitigate that, compliant mechanisms were used as inspiration and in particular products that used them were investigated. Compliant mechanisms are flexible mechanisms that transport forces via elastic body deformations which entails advantages like fewer components and less risk for backlash among others (Arumugam & Kumar, 2016). The workshop was performed by four people with mechanical engineering backgrounds on a whiteboard, where the participants were told that the intention was to create a locking mechanism that can be locked in both folded and unfolded state. The workshop resulted in three ways of locking that fulfilled the intended function; either clamping the movable parts, using friction or a sprint, Figure 24, Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows some samples of ways of using these locking mechanisms. Figure 24: Shows a classic nail-clipper, which is a compliant mechanism, inspired sprint that goes in from the short side of the desk Figure 25: Shows a keyed shaft which means having a square end that enters a square hole, that is inspired by both the clamp and friction lock and pushed horizontally back and forth, thus locking the desk 45 Figure 26: Shows a friction and clamp inspired lock To move forward with the different ways of locking, a discussion with Kinnarps was required to determine if they are feasible to use and the negative aspects of each locking mechanism, since they have experience within this area. The insights from this discussion was: Clamps To use clamps the tolerances need to be low or almost zero otherwise backlashes will occur, but this creates high friction, which means that to unlock, an extreme force will be needed. Depending on design, there is a risk for an abrupt snatch when realising the clamp. Friction Is very unreliable depending on outside forces and will often need maintenance to ensure quality. Sprint Can potentially have backlash depending on the geometrics. Since the sprint has only one negative aspect according to the information above, and that this only depends on the design of the geometrics, the sprint was chosen as the most optimal solution for this project. To sum up the first level, it gave more an understanding of what locking mechanisms are feasible, rather than specific concepts and an orientation of the basic components that fulfils the requirement. The lock will have a sprint locking mechanism and have the shaft folding. This level also generated insights about what to have in mind when developing the desk. The two most important are to keep the height of the concepts low so that they will comply with the standards and if there is the slightest backlash in the locking mechanism it will scale to a much larger backlash on the edge of the desktop. Therefore, a zero- tolerance solution is preferred if the friction can be solved. Moreover, the folding mechanism’s pivot point should be located as near the desk’s centre of gravity as possible, so that it does not cause a jerk and uncontrolled folding. The desktop should also have locks on each side so that the desktop does not flex on the opposing side of the lock. The lock should also be locked in the folded state and always be locked in its normal state (normally closed) to prevent accidents and withstand the torque when placing a weight on the edge of the desktop. When folding the desk, it should not change its occupational area of the desktop. For instance, making it deeper when utilizing a sliding desktop, so that the desk could be folded when standing against a wall or next to a sound panel. The last insights were that the desktop needs support between the consoles, if frameless and avoid using parts that need frequent maintenance. 4.2 Defining the Desk This level takes the gathered information about concepts from the previous chapter, diverging and builds upon them and then develops them further by increasing the level of detail. Other components then the core components are developed and analysed by both performing a SWOT and PNI and later added to the concept. Ways of connecting components are also investigated. The concepts are then screened again with a Kesselring matrix where one concept is chosen to be finalized. 46 4.2.1 Selection of Locking Mechanism At this point, the solution scope for the locking mechanism has converged to just conclude locks with a sprint like solution. However, it suffers from the same weakness as the keyed shaft solution; it only generates zero backlash if the sprint and corresponding hole are perfectly made with very high tolerances which in its turn makes for a sprint that is hard to withdraw. Therefore, new geometrics that automatically generates high tolerances were investigated. This was done by external research for other applications where minimizing backlash is important. The research gave an evolved sprint lock with, instead of a cylindrical rod, a cone shaped rod that slides into a round hole. The cone takes care of all demands put on manufacturing by automatically taking up the tolerances when fully seated. The research also generated two inspiration sources; the locking mechanism on folding knives and hirth couplings. The former has a simple but effective, so called, spine lock that consists of a bar with a latch retained on one side with a spring and with a pivot point in the middle. This solution is from now on referred to as the latch, see Figure 35. The other inspiration source is a hirth joint, see Figure 27, which is a cylindrical shaft with star shaped teeth milled on the end face. The advantages of having a hirth coupling is that the large surface area can cope with large amounts of torque and that the star shape automatically eliminates backlash ("Hirth joint”, 2020). Figure 27: A sketched hirth joint The new diverged solution base for locking mechanisms can now be the starting point for a Brainstorming session. This was done by simultaneously combining it with the previously developed shaft concept. This resulted in three new sprint concepts, two latch concepts and one hirth concept, see Figure 28, Figure 29, Figure 30, Figure 31, Figure 32, and Figure 33. Figure 28: Concept S1: A sprint that is inserted directly into the folding joint and which is released by pulling outwards on the handle 47 Figure 29: Concept S2: A sprint that is enclosed by the folding joint which is released with a rod that presses the sprint outwards and is located inside the console. Figure 30: Concept S3: A sprint that also is enclosed by the folding joint and hidden inside the console but has drawn inspiration from the nail clipper Figure 31: Concept L1: A latch is inserted in the receiver that is located on a separate part than the latch Figure 32: Concept L2: Basically, the same as L1 but has drawn inspiration from the nail clipper in the way it is disengaged 48 Figure 33: Concept H1: One coupling is fixed to the leg and one is fixed to the console. They are forced together with a rod that is inserted into the shaft and slitting to sleeves apart These five concepts were then screened against each other, with a modified version of the kesselring matrix (Tabell 4). This is to eliminate concepts that do not meet the criteria, shown in the matrix below, to be able to continue with only one or two concepts to the next level. Instead of making the existing concept, Foldex, as an ideal concept it was rated with 3 on a scale of 1-5. This is to be able to let the potential concepts be better than the ideal concept, which is very similar to a Pugh's matrix (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2012) but in this evaluation, the range is wider for a more varied and accurate result. The criteria derived from the result of the conclusion of the first level, for example, fail safe comes from the fact that the lock needs to handle torque, have end stroke locks and be normally closed. Tabell 4: The kesselring matrix result According to the result of the kesselring matrix, one sprint concept and one latch concept are the two locking mechanisms that are the most feasible ones and are chosen for further development, see Figure 34 and Figure 35 . 49 Figure 35: The latch concept that was chosen for further development 4.2.2 Lock Actuator After screening the locking mechanism concepts, the next step was to decide which lock actuator to use. The actuator is defined before choosing its shape, for example, should it be a push or pull actuation to disengage the lock. There are three variables to be taken into consideration when developing an actuator for a desk: what kind of motion should the actuator perform, one or more interaction points, where should it be placed, and how does these three variables affect the user. The variations of variables were analysed by performing a SWOT analysis, the chosen variation from each variable were combined and analysed with the PNI method, thereafter, one actuator concept was chosen. The variants of the first variable, what motion the actuator could have, was push, press down, press up, pull, twist horizontal, twist axial and a combination twist and pull. Due to deal breakers, for example, accidentally triggered or squeeze points can appear, twist horizontal and twist axial where the chosen variant from the SWOT analysis (Figure 36 and Figure 37), the SWOT analysis on the remaining motions is seen in Appendix IV - SWOT. Figure 34: The sprint concept that was chosen for further development 50 Figure 36: The SWOT on the twist horizontal motion Figure 37: The SWOT on the twist axial motion The variants of the second variable, number of interaction points, was either a single, a double or a combination of both. Single meaning using only one actuator to disengage the lock, double meaning using two actuators to disengage the lock and a combination is having two actuators but only having to use one to disengage the lock. From the SWOT analysis, (Figure 38), the combination actuator was chosen, also due to deal breakers. For example, a weakness for the double actuator was that it cannot be used by all users if the desk is too wide and the single actuator is not seen as fool proof, other deal breakers from the SWOT analysis can be seen in Appendix IV - SWOT. Figure 38: