Engineering Design and The Product Life Cycle

EBOOKS Engineering Design and the Product
REID • ESTELL
FOR THE Life Cycle GENERAL ENGINEERING AND K-12
ENGINEERING Relating Customer Needs, Societal ENGINEERING EDUCATION COLLECTION
LIBRARY Values, Business Acumen, and Technical John K. Estell and Kenneth J. Reid, Editors
Create your own Fundamentals
Customized Content
Kenneth J. Reid • John K. Estell
Bundle—the more
books you buy, Design, within the context of engineering, is a term that is sometimes
the greater your
discount!
difficult to define. Design can be innovative, impressive, and earth
shattering, but it can also be observed in the building of simple devices
using everyday materials in a classroom environment. This text e
xamines
Engineering Design
and the Product
the concept of design, where success means that the designers fulfilled
THE CONTENT the established requirements, stayed within the specified constraints,
• Manufacturing and met the evaluation criteria as optimally as possible.
Life Cycle
Engineering Design and the Product Life Cycle

Engineering
Along the way, the reader will walk through an example design
• Mechanical
process (no, there is not a single, universally accepted design process)
& Chemical that presents relevant terminology and will examine design in a broader
Engineering
Relating Customer Needs,
context through means of the product life cycle, where a product is
• Materials Science followed from its initial definition to the end of its life. Finally, the text
& Engineering attempts to answer the question of what is good design by exploring
• Civil &
Environmental
some of the fundamental principles associated with design.
Societal Values, Business
Acumen, and Technical
Engineering Kenneth J. Reid is assistant department head for undergraduate
• Advanced Energy programs, engineering education, Virginia Tech. He earned his PhD
in engineering education in 2009. Among other awards, he and his
Technologies
THE TERMS
coauthors were awarded the Wickenden award (2014), best paper

award for the E
ducational Research and Methods Division of ASEE
Fundamentals
(2014) and IEEE-USA Professional Achievement Award (2013) for
• Perpetual access for designing the n
ation’s first BS degree in engineering education. He is
a one time fee active in engineering within K-12, including the Technology Student
• No subscriptions or Association (TSA) Board of Directors.
access fees
• Unlimited John K. Estell is professor of computer engineering and computer
concurrent usage science at Ohio Northern University. He is well known for his work in
streamlining and standardizing outcomes assessment processes. His
• Downloadable PDFs
research includes examining the nature of constraints in design and
• Free MARC records
improving student-client collaborations. Dr. Estell was recognized for
For further information,

the breadth, richness, and quality of his service to, and scholarship
for, the betterment of engineering education by being named a Fellow
Kenneth J. Reid
a free trial, or to order,
contact:
sales@momentumpress.net
of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) in 2016.
John K. Estell
ISBN: 978-1-60650-562-5
ENGINEERING
DESIGN AND THE
PRODUCT LIFE
CYCLE
ENGINEERING
DESIGN AND THE
PRODUCT LIFE
CYCLE
Relating Customer Needs, Societal
Values, Business Acumen, and
Technical Fundamentals
KENNETH J. REID AND JOHN K. ESTELL
Illustrated by
BRYAN REID AND CHRISSIE REID
MOMENTUM PRESS, LLC, NEW YORK

Engineering Design and the Product Life Cycle: Relating Customer
Needs, Societal Values, Business Acumen, and Technical Fundamentals
Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published by Momentum Press®, LLC

222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net
ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-562-5 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-563-2 (e-book)
Momentum Press General Engineering and K-12 Engineering Education

Collection
Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America

Abstract
Engineering can be defined as the field that uses principles of mathematics

and science to solve problems through design. Design can be innovative,
impressive, and earthshattering: examples in space travel, nanotechnol-
ogy, and alternative energy show us the power of design. Design can be
observed on a smaller scale as well: teams in a competition to build a
water filtration device out of cotton, charcoal, sand, and coffee filters are
engaged in design.
This text introduces the concept of design, a term that is sometimes
difficult to define. We find that successful design means that the designers
met the established requirements, stayed within the specified constraints,
and met the criteria for success as optimally as p ossible. Along the way,
we cover relevant terminology and walk through a f ormal Design Process
(no, there is not a single, universally accepted design process). We will
also look at design in the broader context of the Product Life Cycle, allow-
ing us to follow a product from the initial definition to the end of its life.
Finally, if you have visited an art museum or a gallery, you may have
seen a work of art that was particularly aesthetically pleasing—a work that
“spoke to you.” Most people have listened to music and have a style or
artist they consider “good.” How can we define good music or good art?
We have a similar dilemma defining “good” design. We can quantitatively
claim whether a design effectively meets all necessary requirements; this
text explores the characteristics of good design including these essential,
quantifiable elements.
KEYWORDS
constraints, criteria, design, engineering design process, engineering,

good design, product life cycle
Contents
List of Tables ix
Acknowledgments xi
1 What Is Design? 1
1.1 Design: Meeting Needs 3
1.2 Cultural Norms 6
1.3 Why Do We Design? 10
2 Engineering Design 13
2.1 Engineering Design and the Scientific Method 16
2.2 An Example of a Successful Design 24
3 The Engineering Design Process 27
3.1 Design is a Salient Characteristic of Engineering 29
3.2 The Engineering Design Process 29
3.3 Planning: Define the Problem, Scope the Problem, Ideate 34
3.4 At this Point, Consider: What about the Processes
that Do Not Include “Research”? 37
3.5 Comparing Various Design Processes 43
3.6 Terms and Vocabulary 43
3.7 The “Engineering Design Process” Looks
Like the Scientific Method 46
3.8 Deciding the “Best” Design: Using a Decision Matrix 47
4 The Product Life Cycle 53
4.1 The Product Life Cycle 54
4.2 Why Be Concerned Beyond Design? 56
4.3 “Our” Product Life Cycle: Conceptualization 57
4.4 Introduction 62
4.5 Growth 63
4.6 Maturity 65
viii • Contents
4.7 Decline 66
4.8 Discontinuance 66
5 Constraints and Criteria: A Closer Look 69
5.1 Constraints 69
5.2 Terminology 74
5.3 Criteria 75
5.4 The “Best” Design 78
6 What Is Good Design? 79
6.1 What Makes a Design a “Good Design”? 79
6.2 Dieter Rams’s 10 Principles of “Good Design” 84
6.3 Good Design Is Innovative 85
6.4 Good Design Makes a Product Useful 88
6.5 Good Design Is Aesthetic 88
6.6 Good Design Makes a Product Understandable 89
6.7 Good Design Is Unobtrusive 90
6.8 Good Design Is Honest 91
6.9 Good Design Is Long Lasting 92
6.10 Good Design Is Thorough Down to the Last Detail 94
6.11 Good Design Is Environmentally Friendly 95
6.12 Good Design Is as Little Design as Possible 97
6.13 An Example: The Wii U Game Console 98
6.14 Summary 101
About the Authors 105
Index 107
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Strength of carbon fiber, steel, and aluminum 14

Table 3.1. Comparison of design processes 44
Table 4.1. Defects per million and yield rates 61
Table 5.1. Classifying constraints 72
Table 5.2. Constraints and criteria for the purchase of a minivan 75
Table 5.3. Decision matrix for a robot arm 77
Table 6.1. Music purchases by format 87
Acknowledgments
We would like to extend special thanks to our reviewers, David Reeping

and Natalie Van Tyne, and to our artists and illustrators, Bryan Reid and
Chrissie Reid. Special thanks to Joel Stein for his consistent nudging and
support. Finally, thanks to our families for their ongoing support.
To Jenny—thank you for putting up with hearing “time to work on the

book” so many evenings. Your support continues to mean the world!
—Ken
To my wife, Melinda—thank you for being very understanding when I

spent yet another evening in the home office. To my kids, Patrick and
Rebecca—I owe both of you many trips to the Whippy Dip for ice cream!
—John
CHAPTER 1
What Is Design?
You cannot understand design if you do not understand people;

design is made for people.
—Dieter Rams, German industrial designer
Design is the practice of intentional creation to enhance the world.

It is a field of doing and making, creating great products and
services that fit human needs that delight and inform. Design is
exciting because it calls upon the arts and humanities, the social,
physical, and biological sciences, engineering and business.
—Don Norman, design author
Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it

looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it’s really how it works.
—Steve Jobs, Apple Corporation
If you think good design is expensive, you should look at the cost
of bad design.
—Dr. Ralf Speth, Jaguar
We find ourselves surrounded with objects that have been designed for
our use, many of which we consider essential to our daily existence
(although our ancestors would respectfully disagree). So what, exactly,
is design? This is a simple question, but it is one without a simple, direct,
and singular answer.
How does design affect our everyday lives? No longer does human-
ity exist as hunter-gatherers who sleep upon bare ground; we now live
within a designed environment where nearly everything that one encoun-
ters involves aspects of design, with those designs ever changing and ever
evolving.
2 • ENGINEERING DESIGN AND THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
We wake up on a bed
containing a mattress sup-
ported within a frame.
Two hundred years ago
this might have consisted
of rough-hewn logs with a
thin, feather-filled mattress
resting upon a lattice made
of ropes. Today we have a
variety of mattresses featur-
ing different technology, such as adjustable, memory foam, pillow top,
and support systems (such as spring coils) contained in a manufactured
frame.
Bathing was once done either down by the river or by hauling pails
of well water to fill a tub where each member of the household took his or
her turn. Today one can simply turn on the tap to fill a fiberglass-molded
bathtub with an appropriate mix of cool and heated water.
Elimination of bodily wastes was once performed in an outhouse that
provided privacy over a hole in the ground. We now have devices such as
high-tech Japanese toilets loaded with such attributes as warmed seats, fra-
grance dispensers to cover objectionable odors, bidet services, and warm
air driers. Cleansing is now performed with perforated rolls of extra-soft
toilet paper produced in part from various paper-recycling streams instead
of corn husk or pages torn out from a Sears catalog.
One once dressed for daily activities using clothes cut from a bolt of
cloth and sewn by hand at home, with buttons made from shells or wood
used as fasteners. We now can wear a shirt made in Bangladesh with pants
What Is Design? • 3
made in Honduras, both manufactured using machines that cut the fabric
and stitch the pieces together, with a multitude of fasteners to choose from,
including plastic buttons, metal zippers, magnetic clasps, and even Velcro.
These clothes are then sent to markets around the world in standardized
containers loaded onboard ships that could easily contain the Niña, Pinta,
and the Santa Maria—typical merchant ships of their era—while requiring
only a fraction of the crew that Columbus required for his 1492 journey.
Many in the past worked at home on the farm or at a small-scale trade.
Travel was conducted either by foot or on horseback (what pollution con-
trol there was at the time consisted primarily of a shovel); most now travel
to work via some mechanized means of transportation: car, train, bicycle,
even airplanes for some.
Dinner was once made from simple ingredients cooked over an open
fire. Today we can open our refrigerator and take out a beverage stored in a
plastic bottle, and then open our freezer for a frozen microwavable dinner,
both presented in aesthetically pleasing containers. The contents of a can
of vegetables can be placed into a nonstick skillet and cooked on an elec-
tric stove. Afterward, the dirty dishes are loaded into a dishwasher with a
stainless steel door while the bar codes from all of the products consumed
are scanned into our smartphone via a calorie-counting app.
For the evening’s entertainment,
mom is sitting in a chair beside a lamp
using an LED-based energy-efficient
light bulb, eReading the latest New York
Times bestseller while listening to her
custom mix of music on an MP3 player.
Dad is in the basement watching a game
streamed from a server on the Internet
while the kids are watching videos or
playing competitive games online with
people potentially from other nations.
Turning back the clock, we would see the lack of electricity limiting one’s
ability to do much of anything other than sleep—perhaps reading by can-
dlelight, or listening to a family member playing a bellows-operated reed
organ with the sheet music illuminated by oil-filled lamps.
1.1 DESIGN: MEETING NEEDS
What constitutes design varies according to the perspective of the person

considering the question; an artist or architect might give a definition that
involves form, whereas an engineer’s definition will usually incorporate

function. Additionally, the current needs that an individual desires to have
satiated will drive that person’s perception of a particular design as to
the degree that those needs are or are not being met, thereby biasing the
definition of design toward the meeting of such needs. To be successful
in the marketplace, designs must appeal to the target audience’s sense of
both form and function as well as being perceived as meeting one or more
desired needs.
While the issues of the form and function of design tend to garner
most of the attention, the key aspect of design is that it addresses human
needs. Therefore, to best understand design, it is essential to have at least
a working knowledge of the various aspects of human needs. In his sem-
inal 1943 paper, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Abraham Maslow
established a set of basic human needs organized into a relative hierarchy
where, once needs at one level are met, a new level of needs emerges.
Self-actualization
Esteem
Love/belonging
Safety
Physiological
At the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy are the physiological needs

of hunger, thirst, and sex, which he characterized as the “pre-potent” of
all needs in that persons who are totally lacking in having their needs met
would care more for food and water than for safety, love, or self-esteem. It
should be noted that these terms are narrowly defined. The need to satiate
hunger differs from the need to satiate appetite as a function of the ability
to procure a desired food; hunger implies an absence of food to draw from
for nourishment whereas appetite implies that the body is calling for nour-
ishment or to satisfy a craving.
It was Maslow’s contention that, as one need is satisfied, another need
emerges. As more of the physiological needs are met, new needs arise
from the safety needs category. Designing for such needs goes beyond
the obvious needs for shelter from weather, wild animals, and criminals;
for example, the development of food preservation through such means

as curing, canning, or pickling arises from the need to procure a safe
food supply and hopefully avoid food poisoning through such designed
practices.
The satisfaction of safety-related needs leads to the desire to have
what Maslow referred to as the “love needs” gratified. This set of needs
incorporates desires for love (as opposed to the physiological need for
sex), affection, and belonging. Advances in technology have allowed for
designs that satiate such needs, particularly via forms of communication,
whether it involves sending a love letter through the mail, using video
via the Internet while traveling to tell one’s children how much they are
missed, or connecting with people sharing a particular interest via a social
media-based group.
The esteem needs constitute the next level of Maslow’s hierarchy.
Generally, people desire a high evaluation of themselves, in terms of both
self-respect and the respect given by others. The need for esteem can man-
ifest itself through desires such as achievement and independence, and
through attention and recognition. The recent development of gamifica-
tion techniques incorporated into mobile applications works on this level
of needs. If one uses an app when running and runs either fast enough or
far enough, she can earn a badge of accomplishment, which can then be
shared with friends on social media via the click of a button, who then
offer congratulations on the achievement through their responses.
Walked 1 mile
badge earned
The final need in the hierarchy is that of self-actualization, which

refers to the desire for self-fulfillment in achieving what one is capable of.
While this is not necessarily a creative urge, it can often be expressed via
such forms, such as an artist’s desire to paint or a musician’s desire to per-
form or compose. The formulation of new types of paint or the develop-
ment and refinement of keyboard instruments, such as from the pianoforte
to the modern grand piano, find their basis in designing to help meet such
needs. In conjunction with this would be the fulfillment of our cognitive
needs; mainly, the desires to know and to understand. The use of movable
type with a printing press, developed by Gutenberg around 1439, ush-
ered in an information revolution, first through the greater dissemination
of static information through books, and later through the dissemination
of ephemeral, time-sensitive information through broadsheets and then
newspapers.
It should be pointed out that Maslow posited that the aforementioned
five sets of needs are not construed to be in a “step-wise, all-or-none rela-
tionship;” that is, the concept that a particular need (or set of needs) must be
100 percent satisfied before the next need (or set of needs) emerges is not
the case. Needs are met via degrees of relative satisfaction, where a realistic
accounting of how one’s needs are being met would be in terms of decreas-
ing percentages of satisfaction as one ascends the hierarchical levels. In his
paper, Maslow presents a hypothetical example where the average citizen
“is 85 percent satisfied in his physiological needs, 70 percent in his safety
needs, 50 percent in his love needs, 40 percent in his self-esteem needs, and
10 percent in his self-actualization needs.” Furthermore, Maslow contended
that the emergence of new needs occurs gradually, “by slow degrees from
nothingness.” For example, given the prepotent need N1 and a subsequent
need N2, if need N1 is satisfied only 20 percent, then N2 may not even be
visible; however, as the satisfaction of N1 increases—say, to 40 percent—
need N2 emerges and begins to be met, albeit at a lower level—say, at only
5 percent—than its prepotent need.
As Maslow concluded in his paper, “man is a perpetually wanting ani-
mal.” Therefore, one possible answer to the question of “what is design?”
is that “design is an attempt to meet human needs.” However, there are
other aspects that affect human motivation, such as personal desires based
on perceived instead of actual needs, cultural norms, and conditioned
behaviors, that often must be accounted for in design. For example, one
purpose of advertising is to convince the consumer that the company has
a solution to a problem—it does not matter if that problem is real, or is
manufactured to be more than it may be. Accordingly, one might be moti-
vated to buy a particular product because of an advertising appeal to their
esteem needs, having been convinced that they will now “fit in” by their
use of the product.
1.2 CULTURAL NORMS
Cultural norms, which are guidelines or expectations for proper behav-

ior, can be broken down into four major categories: folkways, mores
(pronounced ‘mo-rays’), laws, and taboos. A folkway is a norm for every-

day behavior that is followed for the sake of convenience or tradition. The
violation of a folkway usually is without major consequence. A more is a
norm based on morality or definitions of right and wrong. Because of the
basis of a more, its violation usually results in disapproval. For example,
having a cell phone ring during a religious service or the performance of a
play is considered as being disruptive and is therefore looked down upon;
therefore, phone designs attempt to accommodate this norm by includ-
ing a mute switch that allows the phone to silently vibrate when a call is
received. A law is a norm that is written down and enforced by an official
agency. The consequence of violating a law is the possibility of having a
punishment, usually specified as part of the law, enforced upon the vio-
lator. Finally, a taboo is a norm that is held so strongly that its violation
results in extreme disgust. In order to be successful, a designer needs to be
aware of the cultural norms of the society or societies being designed for.
Failure to account for such norms in design has, on occasion, led to
disastrous consequences. The 1853 Enfield Pattern Rifled Musket was
developed as part of the major transformation from smoothbore to rifled
muskets on the part of the British Army. This rifle had a bore diameter of
0.577 inches that fired a Minié-type bullet that was 0.568 inches in diam-
eter and hollow at its base; this bullet was housed within a wax-coated
paper cartridge that also contained the required amount of black powder
for firing. To load this rifle, a soldier was instructed to bring a cartridge to
the mouth with the bullet in hand, bite off the top of the cartridge, shake the
black powder into the barrel, insert the bullet, and then ram it into position.
The hollow at the back end caused the bullet to expand when the black
powder within the rifle was fired, thereby causing contact with the rifled
grooves within the barrel that imparted spin upon the bullet, improving
the accuracy of the shot over distances up to 800 yards in range. However,
as the use of black powder produces a fouling effect within the barrel, the
designers needed a lubricant that would keep the fouling from hardening
so that, while soft, the fouling could simply be blown out by the next fired
shot, thereby allowing for continuous firing during battle. The solution
was to incorporate mutton tallow (that is, fat rendered from butchered
sheep) into the beeswax used to seal the cartridges. Eventually, the 1853
Enfield found its way into the hands of the Sepoy soldiers who served in
colonial India (which now consists of the countries of India, Pakistan, and
Bangladesh) via a government controlled by the East India Company. The
East India Company operated under a Royal Charter granted by Queen
Elizabeth in 1600 and grew to control nearly half the world’s trade through
its monopolies.
To generate unrest, native leaders spread the rumor that the lubricant
was actually a mixture of beef and hog tallow. Such rumors were tar-
geted to affect the taboos held both by Hindus, to whom cattle are sacred,
and by Muslims, to whom pigs are highly unclean. For members of either
religion, the act of placing the cartridge to the mouth and biting it open
constituted an act of self-defilement. While assurances were provided by
the British governor general that the cartridges were sealed only with a
combination of mutton fat and beeswax, the risk of committing a taboo
act based on trusting the word of an occupier was too much to bear. The
subsequent dissension within the Sepoy ranks was one of the triggers for
the 1857–1858 Sepoy Mutiny through northern India. The consequences
of this mutiny included the deaths of thousands, as well as the even-
tual dissolution of the East India Company. There was a solution that, if
adopted, would have steered far away from such cultural taboos. Samuel
Colt designed a ramrod for the 1853 Enfield that incorporated an oiler
reservoir, thereby allowing the use of dry cartridges similar to those used
by the Sepoys for their smoothbore muskets. Although the design could
be completely sensible from a process point of view, the public can form
a variety of opinions once it enters the market; this may render the design
infeasible as a solution to the problem.
It is also a possibility that a design
incorporates the use of positive or
negative sanctions for social control,
which are methods adopted to encour-
age people to observe norms. Posi-
tive sanctions serve to encourage the
continuance of appropriate behaviors
whereas the intent of negative sanc-
tions is to discourage the continuance
of disapproved behaviors. For exam-
ple, in the United States a commonly violated folkway involves chil-
dren not brushing their teeth before going to bed. While many folkways
involve interpersonal behavior, encouraging children to engage in appro-
priate dental hygiene activities prior to bedtime is something that can be
incorporated into a design. One such design solution is a toothbrush that
provides two minutes of music transmitted solely via vibrations in the
toothbrush head to the teeth and to the head. By having musical selections
of that length, children are encouraged to not only brush their teeth, but
to do so for what is considered a sufficient amount of time to be effective.
Laws are being increasingly enforced through design. The design of
traffic enforcement cameras for detecting red-light or speeding violations
find at their basis the application of character recognition technology for

the acquisition of license plate information. This serves as a means to
automate the application of negative sanctions to enforce laws governing
the proper operation of motor vehicles. This has led to a public pushback
with a lack of “due process” associated with such cameras. Many scan-
ners, color photocopiers, and illustrator software applications come with
built-in anti-counterfeit provisions that use complex algorithms to detect
encoding embedded within banknote designs. One known system is the
“EURion constellation,” where patterns of five small circles arranged in
the pattern of the Orion constellation are inconspicuously incorporated
into the banknote design of many countries.
Designers also have to deal with conditioned behaviors. Can an auto-
mobile be operated with a joystick, where moving the stick forward or
backward controls both speed and direction while moving the stick left or
right controls the steering? It probably could, especially for those who have
grown up using joysticks in gaming environments. However, to drive an
automobile, one “gets behind the wheel”—specifically, a steering wheel, and
uses foot pedals to control acceleration and braking. While there are other
vehicle-control solutions available, including prototypes of the self-driving
Google car that provides neither an acceleration pedal nor a steering wheel,
we are conditioned to the use of a wheel and pedals for automobiles.
With self-driving cars, what will become of a phrase like “get behind
the wheel”? The phrase may live on with a societal understanding of
its meaning, much like “roll down a window” or “hang up the phone.”
Another issue involves the use of touch screen for character input. For
the 2013 Hyundai Sonata Limited owned by one of the authors, entering
street addresses into the onboard navigation system was disconcerting,
as the software keys were presented in alphabetical order instead of the
traditional QWERTY ordering; thankfully, one could go into the settings
and select the QWERTY key layout. Why QWERTY? The person credited
with the development of the first mass-produced typewriter, Christopher
Sholes, created the QWERTY layout for the 1878 Remington Standard
2 for one or both of the following reasons. The apocryphal story is that
this design was implemented to deliberately slow typists down so that
the hammers containing the type elements would not jam and possibly
break. However, another reason posited is that it was a deliberate attempt
to develop a proprietary layout that would require operators to undergo
training—for a modest fee. Such an investment would also help to rein-
force brand loyalty, resulting in greater sales over the long run.
1.3 WHY DO WE DESIGN?
So what is design? Let’s return to the quotes that began this chapter. Don
Norman stated that design “is the practice of intentional creation to
enhance the world.” Unfortunately, many similar definitions for design
end here; however, Norman goes on to explain that design “is a field of
doing and making, creating great products and services that fit human
needs, that delight and inform.” In many ways, this is the key element
in trying to understand the concept of design in general, and engineering
design in particular. Many students contemplate entering the engineering
profession with the desire to design the longest bridge, the fastest car, or
the thinnest smart phone. However, without understanding that the design
of such products involves human needs, being enamored of the “coolness”
of the technology employed can often serve as blinders, thereby prevent-
ing the designers from seeing the actual needs, motivations, and desires of
those for whom they are designing the product.
Norman said that design “calls upon the arts and humanities, the
social, physical, and biological sciences, engineering and business.”
Anyone can design a product; good design involves making a product
both useful and understandable, which encompasses the human condition.
Accordingly, to become good at design, one must become at least familiar
with the various aspects of the human condition as experienced through
the study of fine arts and humanities. Products interact with people at sev-
eral levels; therefore, designers require at least an understanding of the
pertinent concepts emanating from the social, physical, and biological sci-
ences. Products, once designed, need to be manufactured and marketed;
designers must understand the critical roles that both engineering and
business play in getting a design out into the marketplace and accepted by
consumers. To be good designers, engineering students require a broad-
based education, grounded not only in STEM-related topics (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics), but also in the liberal arts
and in business. This, therefore, is the underlying rationale for engineer-
ing majors to take “general education” courses, and is best expressed by
the following quote from Dieter Rams, the famed head of design for the
German company Braun: “You cannot understand design if you do not
understand people; design is made for people.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Dieter Rams On Good Design As A Key Business Advantage.” http://fastcode-

sign.com/1669725/dieter-rams-on-good-design-as-a-key-business-advantage
(accessed August 7, 2014).
Henderson, R. 2014. “On the Thin Red Line: Loading and Firing British Muskets
During the Crimean War, 1854–1856.” The Discriminating General. http://
militaryheritage.com/enfield1853.htm (accessed August 7, 2014).
Liautaud, A. 2014. “Driverless Cars Get Green Light for Road Testing in Britain.”
Bloomberg News, July 30. http://businessweek.com/news/2014-07-30/driver-
less-cars-get-green-light-for-road-testing-in-britain
Maslow, A.H. July 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review
50, no. 4, pp. 370–396.
Norman, D. 2012. “Does Culture Matter for Product Design?” Core77 (blog),
January 9. http://core77.com/blog/columns/does_culture_matter_for_prod-
uct_design_21455.asp (accessed July 24, 2014).
Norman, D., and S. Klemmer. “State of Design: How Design Education Must
Change.” https://linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140325102438-12181762-
state-of-design-how-design-education-must-change?trk=mp-edit-rr-posts
(accessed August 7, 2014).
“Remington Standard 2.” The Virtual Typewriter Museum. http://typewritermu-
seum.org/collection/index.php3?machine=rem2&cat=ku (accessed August 7,
2014).
Sholes, C.S. 1878. Type-Writing Machine. US Patent 207, 559, filed March 8,
1875 and issued August 27.
“Christopher Lathan Sholes 1815–1981.” The Virtual Typewriter Museum. http://
typewritermuseum.org/history/inventors_sholes.html (accessed August
7, 2014).
Stamp, J. 2014. “Fact of Fiction? The Legend of the QWERTY Keyboard.” Smith-
sonian.com. http://smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-the-leg-
end-of-the-qwerty-keyboard-49863249/?no-ist (accessed August 7, 2014).
Wise, J. March 1957. “The Bullet that Lost an Empire.” Guns 3, no. 3, pp. 22–25,
38–41.
CHAPTER 2
Engineering Design
We cannot make a living as an engineer unless we know the truths

of engineering.
—Fulton J. Sheen, Bishop, televangelist, and author
Engineering is the art of organizing and directing men and con-

trolling the forces and material of nature for the benefit of the
human race.
—Henry Stott, Electrical and Mechanical Engineer
In October 2014, Apple introduced the iPhone 6. According to Forbes,

Apple sold 10 million of these iPhones in three days. Before the launch,
the media and public speculated on the new, innovative features: it was
larger, but how much larger? Faster processor? Probably. But how much
faster? Is it safe to assume that 10 million people conducted thorough
research, weighed the new features and benefits, and made an informed
decision before upgrading? Technology customers known as “early adapt-
ers” would argue that the advantages of the new technology are not the
primary reason for buying the latest and greatest; the opportunity to say
that you had the newest technology early is a primary motivator. Does this
mean that the engineering design that went into the newest generation of
this phone was insignificant? Not at all; but it does show that there is more
to a new design than the engineering that goes into the product.
The iPhone 6 was followed by the iPhone 7 in September 2016.
The new iteration had improved internal hardware (as expected) and an
improved camera. However, consumers pointed out the removal of the
standard headphone jack as the key difference from the prior version, a
change that was not entirely welcomed. Consumer reviews were mixed;
yet, most major carriers said that iPhone 7 sales were far ahead of sales for
any previous version, and some models sold out before they were launched
due to preorders. This illustrates that, to a great extent, consumers were

largely driven by the desire to own cutting-edge technology.
Cars represent a complex engineering system, which presents mul-

tiple opportunities for effective engineering design to make an impact.
As the cost of gasoline continues to fluctuate, the quest for cars that have
better fuel efficiency continues. For example, typical car body panels are
made with steel and aluminum; after all, these materials are strong, plenti-
ful, and relatively easily formed into almost any shape. Further, although
not necessarily an effective characteristic of engineering design, the mind-
set that cars have “always been made this way” can constrain any innova-
tion in design. Carbon fiber was first implemented in high-end race cars
and boats in the 1980s. Carbon fiber is composed of strands of carbon
woven into thread, which in turn can be woven into a cloth-like material.
This cloth is coated with a material and molded into shape, then hardened
through heating. It is an ideal material for cars—it is as strong as steel
(although this depends on the configuration of the component) and in most
cases it can be easier to configure. Can a woven material be as strong as
metal? We can look at two material characteristics to determine how strong
a material might be. The Modulus of Elasticity, or Young’s Modulus, mea-
sures the ability of a material to be deformed based on applied stress; the
higher the value, the less pliable the material. The tensile strength is a
measurement of the ability of a material to resist breaking under tension.
Table 2.1 shows typical values of the amount of stress that must be applied
to a material before it breaks; a higher value means the material is more
difficult to break. These values are approximate—higher heat and humid-
ity can affect the strength of carbon fiber. As shown in Table 2.1, carbon
fiber is a very strong material.
Table 2.1. Strength of carbon fiber, steel, and aluminum

Modulus of Elasticity
Material (stiffness): msi Tensile strength: ksi
Carbon Fiber 33 500
2024-T3 Aluminum 10 65
4130 Steel 30 125

Engineering Design • 15
Replacing steel with carbon fiber when manufacturing cars can reduce
the weight of a car by approximately 60 percent, which could mean a fuel
savings of 30 percent, which in turn could lead to a 10 to 20 percent drop
in greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately for proponents of the use of
carbon fiber, while the cost of carbon fiber has dropped from $150/pound
to $10/pound in the past 10 years, the cost of steel is less than $1/pound.
Increased demand would tend to push the price of carbon fiber lower still,
so in the future it may be viable for cars that are not meant as high-end
luxury items or used for racing.
If we continue to think of high-efficiency cars, we can certainly look
beyond the material for the body panels. The source of power for cars
has traditionally been gasoline from refined fossil fuels. However, electric
cars have been developed, and hybrid cars are readily available for the
general public. If electric cars simply needed to be plugged into the wall to
recharge, why are cars powered by gasoline still prevalent? A few aspects
that might be considered are:
1. The travel range of a gasoline-powered car, assuming a mileage of

20 miles/gallon and a tank holding 15 gallons, is 300 miles. The
General Motors EV1 electric car had a range of 70 to 100 miles
on full charge in warm weather. Cold weather could significantly
reduce the range of the car; therefore, the EV1 needed to be charged
more often.
2. When the fuel runs out, whether that fuel is gasoline for a typical
car or electric charge for an electric car, the car needs refueling.
A gasoline engine requires the driver to pull over in a gas station
and buy 15 or so gallons of gasoline, a process that takes roughly
10 minutes. The electric car needs to be plugged in for many hours,
especially if the charge is coming from a typical household outlet.
The use of new and innovative materials is one area that distinguishes
engineering design from design in general; the cost of the material and
associated changes to manufacturing processes must be considered,
the new design must be applicable within the constraints specified and
the criteria to be used to assess success. As we consider the design—or
redesign—of cars to be more efficient, safer, and more environmentally
friendly, we can conceptualize the car as an entire system or look at indi-
vidual components of the car. Whatever approach we use, a methodical
approach to our design proves to be useful.
2.1 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND THE

SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Engineering design is distinctly different from the Scientific Method, a

method that drives toward a single conclusion. In engineering design, mul-
tiple acceptable solutions are typically possible. Indeed, in our example
looking at materials for body panels of cars, carbon fiber and aluminum
both have advantages. The use of different materials in car body panels
requires an analysis of multiple trade-offs between technical consider-
ations, financial considerations, user requirements, and societal values.
The design of a product is one portion of a larger process known as
the product life cycle. Students of engineering naively believe that their
role is over once the design is “done”—however, it is often the case that
the design is never truly “done.” Designs are modified to revisit the bal-
ance of features considered through trade-offs or items uncovered through
manufacturing, or as a result of independent product testing performed
for certification. Additionally, a product does not have to be bad for a
company to want to make changes; accordingly, inputs from customers
or competition from the marketplace often result in modifications being
made to a design value.
Consider the iPhone again. As the design of the iPhone evolved,
designers undoubtedly considered trade-offs among weight, where lighter
is better; cost, where a lower cost to manufacture is better; functionality,
which can be defined in a number of ways, but more functionality is better;
and marketing considerations, including when to release a new version
and how to create significant “buzz” to build public curiosity. The iPhone
4 was released in 2010 and featured significant upgrades to the internal
hardware and features, including an accelerometer, gyroscopic sensor,
upgraded camera, more internal memory, and an upgraded antenna. The
promise of significant improvements in the internal hardware successfully
created a “buzz” as consumers anticipated the newest technology. Upon

release, reports began to surface about a signal loss if the phone was held
in a natural position to make a phone call. Apple acknowledged the issue,
telling customers not to hold the phone in a way that the hand was on the
lower left corner of the phone. Customers could either adjust their grip
or cover the iPhone with a case that would keep the user’s hand from
making contact with the phone. This is an illustration of consideration of
trade-offs: the new antenna design, which uses the case to boost signal
strength, turned out to cause the user to take action to effectively use this
feature. While there is no evidence that the engineers at Apple consid-
ered the function and location of the antenna as a trade-off, it can serve
to illustrate a potential scenario where engineers would need to consider
trade-off between a technical feature and the desires of the user. Would it
be preferable to make a phone that was a little thicker or a little larger, or to
ask consumers to hold the phone in a different way? Given that future iter-
ations of the iPhone were not thicker and that no instructions on “proper
holding techniques” were issued, it seems that, if this was a trade-off,
Apple opted to make technical improvements rather than ask customers to
fundamentally change the way they hold a phone during a call.
Engineers necessarily follow a design process, often formally defined

via a project management framework, which includes both criteria, estab-
lished for the purpose of objectively evaluating the extent to which a par-
ticular design meets the established needs of the client or market segment,
and constraints, which are requirements that form boundaries limiting
the extent of the potential solution space of acceptable designs. Criteria
must be defined to objectively decide among trade-offs: if one of our main
c riteria in a design is to minimize cost, we may not want to implement

a huge technological improvement that would raise the cost of a device.
Defining constraints may sound negative, as though we are limiting the
potential of our engineering teams or design possibilities, but they may
be better thought of as “bounds” to the design. If we want to design a
high-efficiency, high-speed transportation system to cross an ocean, we
may want to consider a transporter (primarily as seen in sci-fi such as Star
Trek). However, we are obviously constrained to considering only tech-
nology that actually exists; the technology to transport matter by breaking
it into energy, then sending that energy to the destination and reassembling
the matter is not in existence (yet). The development of both criteria and
constraints is derived from the designers acquiring knowledge bases rela-
tive to the design from the following four key areas:
• An understanding of all aspects of the technical fundamentals of

engineering related to the product, including the elements of design
verification, characterization, qualification, validation, and stan-
dardization for long-term sustainability.
• An understanding of customers, such that designers will first think
in terms of product benefits for their customers before they think in
terms of design features.
• An understanding of business, to support the organizations in
which they work, including the basics of financial management and
organizational management with respect to cross functional team
effectiveness, interpersonal communication skills, and conflict
resolution.
• An understanding of societal values, so as to be aware of how
their product is connected to people throughout the world, particu-
larly in how the implementation and use of the product will affect
other people, from the workers who manufacture and distribute the
product to the society in which the product is used.
An example that can serve to illustrate the interaction of all of the

above areas is the PlayPump. In the 1990s, a system to deliver water to
sections of Africa that were stricken by drought was designed and imple-
mented. The design of the PlayPump was similar in operation to a wind-
mill-driven water pump; however, rather than implementing a wind-driven
turbine, the pump would be powered using a merry-go-round. By placing
the merry-go-round at a school in South Africa, children could play on
new playground equipment and their energy would run a pump, filling a
holding tank and giving the school a source of drinking water. The design
included a 2,500-liter (660-gallon) tank, with the intent to supply water to

the school and surrounding community. This design not only addressed a
basic need for water, but powering the system using the boundless energy
of children at play met a higher-level need for the children. In order to
fund maintenance, the tank had rectangular faces on the water tank that
could be used for advertising.
When the PlayPump was introduced, it quickly gained worldwide

attention. In 2005, the PBS show Frontline did a story on this fantastic
development. Wealthy potential donors and charitable foundations saw
videos and heard presentations—school children were given a piece of
playground equipment and were overjoyed. As they played, water was
delivered and stored so that the children and their families had an endless
source of water. If the system broke down, they simply called a number and
someone would visit and repair, all funded through advertising. Funding
poured in with the intent to expand the PlayPump technology throughout
Africa, including a grant in 2006 for $60 million and funds from celebri-
ties, fundraisers, and benefits. The funding allowed for the construction of
a factory and production of PlayPump hardware was ramped up quickly,
with plans to install 1,500 pumps.
The technology for the PlayPump was considered proven; therefore,

it could be argued that the engineering design was successful. As Play-
Pump systems were installed, old-fashioned hand pumps were removed—
after all, they were clearly no longer necessary. By 2010, hundreds of
PlayPumps had been installed.
In 2010, Frontline again ran an investigative story on the PlayPump;
however, this time it documented the spectacular failure of the promising
technology in an episode entitled “Troubled Water.”
While the technology worked as the prototype demonstrated, the quick
and largely unplanned rollout posed problems, especially in areas where
societal and environmental needs were largely unaddressed. For example,
one of the requirements for success was an adequate supply of groundwa-
ter. As a large number of PlayPumps were deployed, sites were often not
adequately inspected to ensure that sufficient groundwater was available
to implement the PlayPump. If the groundwater supply was insufficient,
the pump could deplete the water supply quickly. In these instances, the
implementation team failed to consider a complete understanding of tech-
nical requirements and ignored a constraint upon the design: the design
only functioned where an adequate groundwater supply existed.
Installation of PlayPumps spread throughout Africa, and as a result,
PlayPumps were installed at sites that were far more remote than that of
the original prototype. This led to two issues: first, companies that had the
resources to advertise were rare and, if they existed, they were not willing
to pay for advertising that may only reach fewer than 100 people living
in a remote village who also lived in extreme poverty. The economic con-
straints of the original design were ignored in these cases.
Second, if the population didn’t have a large number of children willing
to regularly play on the apparatus, the merry-go-round was not necessarily
welcomed as a new piece of playground equipment. However, to access water,
it must still be turned. It is typically the role of women in these villages to get
water for the families or for the village, so the adult women of the village,
whether they were young or elderly, would have to spin the m erry-go-round.
Although the merry-go-round was a brightly colored apparatus that seemed
in place in a playground, it was now a significant daily chore to spin a
merry-go-round to fill the holding tank. Women of these villages were often
upset that the hand pumps they had used for years were removed to imple-
ment the PlayPump, which led to the call to reinstall the hand pumps.
In the remote villages as well as sites where the PlayPump seemed to
be an ideal solution, hardware would inevitably fail, and maintenance was
required. Advertising revenue was intermittent, which meant expected
funds for repair weren’t materializing. The company was designed to
quickly produce PlayPumps, but without an organizational structure to

maintain those that had been installed; delays to repair the pumps were
extensive, and eventually calls for repair went unanswered. When this
happened, the residents in the village quickly lost trust in the technology
and the organization. Unlike in fully developed nations like the United
States, repair shops, hardware stores, and contractors in other parts of the
world are simply nonexistent. Imagine a scenario where technology that
was widely used were replaced with little to no explanation. In Africa, a
well-meaning group came to a village, removed hand pumps, and installed
in their place a PlayPump with promises that if anything failed, a call to
a given number would reach someone and help would be dispatched to
perform the repairs. Now imagine if a well-meaning group came to a town
in the United States and replaced all gasoline mowers with solar-powered
mowers, taking the gasoline-powered mowers away in the process. Now,
just as PlayPumps began to fail, imagine the solar mowers began to fail
and calls to the group that promised service went unanswered. In the
United States, these citizens would likely demand their old gasoline mow-
ers back as they lost faith in the reliability of the solar-powered mower.
People in Africa may want a similar solution: reinstallation of the hand
pumps. However, where those in the United States typically have the
means to travel somewhere to find a mower or the means to call someone
else who could repair the solar-powered mower, the people in Africa had
only one number to call. Even when repairs were eventually made, the
trust in the technology and the company that designed the systems had
already eroded. The people of the villages wanted their hand pumps back.
Effective design requires that the designers meet the needs of their
customers. This implies more than meeting the needs as defined by the
designers; this also requires that the customers have the perception that the
design meets their needs. The iPhone 4 could make calls as long as you
held it in a certain way; therefore, it met the needs of the user. However,
many consumers would disagree that their needs were met. In the case of
the PlayPump, once the confidence of the public was lost, any perception
that the design successfully met the needs of that community was also
lost. The customers—the users—no longer considered the design to be
effective. Thus, the designers failed to meet the required social aspect of
their design.
The list that follows offers a review of the principles to be considered
in engineering design in the context of the PlayPump implementation.
• An understanding of all aspects of the technical fundamentals of

engineering related to the product: Often, sites were not adequately
inspected to ensure that the solution (the PlayPump) would work

reliably in the environment where it was to be installed.
• An understanding of customers: The integration of playground
equipment that could be desirable at a large school was less than
attractive for remote villages, especially for those with few chil-
dren and for those that relied heavily on the elderly women living
in the village for a household’s water procurement needs. In addi-
tion, the customers had a deep appreciation and trust for the hand
pumps with which they were familiar. Had the installers appreci-
ated this, perhaps they could have left hand pumps installed when
they installed the PlayPump.
• An understanding of business, to support the organizations in
which they work: The plan to raise revenue by selling advertising
could have been quite effective if there were adequate demand for
advertising. Once more, placing a billboard in a populated area,
especially near a school, would probably lead to advertising rev-
enue; but the same billboard in a sparsely populated area would
often fail to generate any revenue.
• An understanding of societal values: In cases where an organization
came to a town to install a new technology without soliciting sup-
port or listening to those who should be helped by the technology
in a culture that values trust is not a recipe for success. Additionally,
if supply could not meet demand for a community, children in the
community could be in danger of exploitation as they would be
required to “play” for hours at a time to produce more supply.
Overall, the PlayPump could be considered a successful engineering

design from a technical standpoint: the system, when implemented prop-
erly, successfully helped to solve a problem. However, the implementa-
tion plan arguably failed to adhere to several important constraints. The
PlayPump should have been installed only in locations where an adequate
supply of water was available, where commerce was sufficient for effec-
tive use of advertising as a revenue stream to fund maintenance support,
and where its functionality as a piece of fun playground equipment would
have been a benefit instead of a drawback.
The design of any system meant to solve a problem or improve cur-
rent condition(s) should give full consideration to the constraints that will
bound the solution and to the criteria that will be used to judge the suc-
cess of a design. The Engineering Design Process is a methodical process
used to guide an engineer through a design, ensuring that relevant con-
straints and criteria are considered. Perhaps it is more accurate to call it
an engineering design process rather than the engineering design process,

as there are a wide variety of processes available both in print and online.
The number of steps may vary, and the names at each step may not be
entirely consistent, but each process is actually quite similar to the others.
Any of these processes involve a number of areas in which steps to
accomplish the design can be classified as follows:
Problem Definition and Clarification—This step involves gather-

ing the information necessary to clearly articulate the problem. It
requires working with the client to identify the relevant stakehold-
ers, determine the (nontechnical) goals of the design, specify the
(technical) objectives against which all designs will be compared,
and define the criteria to be used for such comparisons.
Impact (or Context) Analysis—This step identifies the constraints that
may potentially affect the design goals and/or objectives based on
the possible contexts that involve the production and/or utilization of
the product. The impact of design decisions in many contexts may be
considered, including global, economic, environmental, and cultural.
Those in engineering or technology programs in academia may rec-
ognize these as seen in ABET Criterion 3, in place for accreditation
for programs from 2010 through 2019: engineering programs are
required to show that graduates have, among other skills, “the broad
education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solu-
tions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.”
Design Synthesis: Concept Generation—This step involves the
identification of multiple possible design solutions existing within
the framework of the goals, objectives, and constraints previously
identified. At this stage, criteria defining successful designs may be
considered, but the analysis of how well criteria are met will follow
in its own design phase.
Design Synthesis: Concept Selection—This step involves objectively
applying the specified criteria to winnow the number of identified
design solutions down to a small subset containing the most prom-
ising design solutions.
Engineering Analysis—Designs are evaluated against the specified
objectives through modeling, simulation, and prototyping; results
are used to either refine the design and/or reformulate the problem.
Through engineering analysis, a final solution should emerge.
Recommendations—A final design is selected; appropriate materials
are developed to present the design description and accompanying
technical specifications to the client.
2.2 AN EXAMPLE OF A SUCCESSFUL DESIGN
Anyone who has driven any distance on a highway has seen billboards on
the side of the road. From an engineering design perspective, they are not
necessarily spectacular. Their purpose is to briefly but effectively catch
your attention as you travel. However, a billboard in Peru, designed by the
University of Engineering and Technology of Peru, not only captures the
attention of travelers but generates drinking water as well. Lima, Peru, is
located on the edge of the Atacama Desert, the driest desert in the world,
with less than 1 inch of rainfall per year. However, it is near the Pacific
Ocean, which means that the city is humid, with humidity around 80 per-
cent. At a reported cost of $1,200, the billboard uses electricity to run a
series of condensers that condense water vapor. The water flows through
a reverse-osmosis filtering system into a 20-liter (about 5.3 gallons) tank,
producing about 96 liters (about 25.3 gallons) per day.
For this initial billboard, it seems that the technical details are well
understood and the billboard seems to be functional. The strength of this
design seems to be in the understanding of customers and society. Lima,
Peru, is a large city with major issues regarding a shortage of clean water.
Hundreds of thousands of Lima residents receive their drinking water via
unregulated water delivery companies; the opportunity to generate drink-
ing water using billboards (or perhaps other large structures) seems to be
a smart engineering solution to a problem. This solution clearly illustrates
the quote from Henry Stott’s 1908 Presidential Address to the American
Institute of Electrical Engineers that begins this chapter: “Engineering is
the art of organizing and directing men [and women] and controlling the
forces and material of nature for the benefit of the human race.” This may
seem like a brilliant solution to a problem. However, as we found from the
example of the PlayPump, an idea that works beautifully in one area may
not be ideal for another. While there may be an application of this technol-
ogy in the United States, for example, adding 25 gallons of fresh water per
day to a community would barely be a drop in the bucket (pun intended).
The average person in the United States uses between 80 and 100 gallons
per day, so a community could use hundreds of thousands to millions of
gallons per day. Other than implementing these billboards for some spe-
cific purpose or to make an impression, this technology is certainly more
applicable in Lima, Peru, than in Lima, Ohio.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Apple’s iPhone: A Definitive History in Pictures 2017.” The Telegraph—Tech-

nology. http://telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/02/25/apples-iphone-a-defin-
itive-history-in-pictures/ (accessed March 2017).
ABET 2016. “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2016–2017.” http://
abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineer-
ing-programs-2016-2017/#outcomes (accessed December 2016).
Chambers, A. 2009. “Africa’s Not-So-Magic Roundabout,” The Guardian,
November 24.
Computerworld 2016. “How to Solve the iPhone 4 Antenna Problem.” http://
computerworld.com/article/2518626/apple-mac/how-to-solve-the-iphone-4-
antenna-problem.html (accessed December 2016).
Deaton, J.P. 2016. “Can Carbon Fiber Solve the Oil Crisis?” http://auto.how-
stuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/carbon-fiber-oil-crisis1.htm
(accessed December 2016).
Dexcraft 2017. “Aliminum vs. Carbon Fiber—Comparison of Materials.” http://
dexcraft.com/articles/carbon-fiber-composites/aluminium-vs-carbon-fi-
ber-comparison-of-materials/ (accessed February 2017).
DragonPlate 2017. “What is Carbon Fiber?” http://dragonplate.com/sections/tech-
nology.asp (accessed February 2017).
Earth Institute, Columbia University 2016. “The Playpump: What Went Wrong?”
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/07/01/the-playpump-what-went-wrong/
Electric Transportation Applications 2016. “General Motors EV1.” https://avt.inl.
gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/genmot.pdf (accessed December 2016).
Frontline World, Public Broadcasting Service 2016. “Troubled Water.” http://pbs.
org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/video_index.html (accessed
January 2016).
Goetz Composities 2017. “Why Carbon Fiber?” http://goetzcomposites.com/
why-carbon-fiber/ (accessed February 2017).
“The History of the iPhone 2017.” History Cooperative. http://historycooperative.
org/the-history-of-the-iphone/ (accessed March 2017).
“How to Prevent iPhone 4 Reception Problems 2016.” http://deadzones.

com/2010/06/how-to-prevent-iphone-4-reception.html#.VHnz7jHF_85
Lifewire 2017. “The iPhone 4 Antenna Problems Explained—and Fixed.” https://
lifewire.com/iphone-4-antenna-problems-explained-2000280 (accessed
December 2017).
Milovich, D. 2017. “How Much Lighter is Carbon Fiber than Steel and Alumi-
num?” https://quora.com/How-much-lighter-is-carbon-fiber-than-steel-and-
aluminium (accessed March 2017).
Peckham, M. 2013. “Finally, a Billboard that Creates Drinkable Water Out of Thin
Air.” Time, March 5.
Prois, J. 2017. “Billboard in Lima, Peru Creates Drinking Water Out of Thin Air.”
Huffington Post. http://huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/billboard-lima-peru-
water-crisis_n_2901882.html (accessed February 2017).
Roundabout Water Solutions 2016. “Playpumps: Welcome to Roundabout Water
Solutions.” http://playpumps.co.za/ (accessed December 2016).
Smith-Strickland, K. 2013. “A Billboard that Condenses Water from Humidity.”
Popular Mechanics. April 25.
Zareva, T. 2017. “The First Billboard in the World to Make Drinking Water out of
Thin Air.” Big Think. http://bigthink.com/design-for-good/the-first-billboard-
in-the-world-to-make-drinking-water-out-of-thin-ai (accessed February 2017).
CHAPTER 3
The Engineering Design

Process
A lot of trial and error goes into making things look effortless.
—Bill Moggridge, founder of international consultancy IDEO
Questions about whether design is necessary or affordable are

quite beside the point; design is inevitable. The alternative to good
design is bad design, not no design at all.
—Douglas Martin, author
Imagine a classroom: the teacher has assigned the students to build a

robot arm out of a pile of common classroom materials such as cardboard
strips, paper clips, string, tape, and binder clips. The task is to build an
arm capable of lifting a bottle of water without spilling or toppling, move
the bottle, and place it in a different location. In another classroom, teams
of students are given 20 sheets of paper and tasked to build the tallest
structure that will support a full box of tissues for 30 seconds. In both
cases, the teacher reviews the instructions, answers any questions, and
specifies the required steps. The students need to work on the design for a
specified time, then build the structure, then test it.
What do these classroom activities have in common? If the intent is to
see the teams design a solution before building, the teacher must enforce the
“design first” portion of the activity, typically with a time allocated to work
on the design. Often, even a verbal reminder to begin with a design is not
sufficient, and some other incentive must be employed. Perhaps the materials
for the activity are held back and not made available, or perhaps teams are
required to show their design before starting to build. Usually, once the clock
starts and there is no intentional incentive to design, the students will dive in,
pick up materials, and begin to build. Without the preliminary design, many
of these products will fail to function; however, some may work well! If we
have some chance to stumble upon an optimal design through simple trial
and error, is there value to allocating resources to design?
Now, consider a more high-stakes engineering design, such as a

bridge. Imagine a scenario where the engineering firm in charge of the
bridge design called the supplier and said, “We need a bunch of beams,
and some rivets, a couple loads of cement, maybe some pipes, and a pile
of metal scraps—we’ll figure it out!” Once the material is delivered to
the site, the person in charge says, “OK—build that bridge!” The bridge
may be successful, but the odds that the company would build the optimal
bridge are probably small.
The Engineering Design Process • 29
3.1 DESIGN IS A SALIENT CHARACTERISTIC OF

ENGINEERING
In these likely hypothetical cases (and we certainly hope the bridge exam-
ple is purely hypothetical), the teams often skipped a formal design pro-
cess. The students in the classrooms may argue that building the device is
the most fun, but it may become apparent that, if one team spent the time
to design the robot arm or tower, they are far more likely to end up with
the best design. Of course, this certainly depends on how we define “the
best design”; we will discuss this shortly.
3.2 THE ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS
In general, a search for “engineering design process” on the Internet or

in textbooks will result in many different diagrams with different number
of steps. Some appear concise while some appear quite elaborate. Some
appear circular and may have a feedback loop back into a step within the
process; some are linear from a start point to a stop point.
In many instances, the design process shown will be labeled as “the”
engineering design process—but in truth, there is not one, universally
accepted design process. Fortunately, almost all of the processes we find
should be similar to each other and, upon analysis, each will likely have
a set of steps that largely walk the designer through the same sequence of
events. As we examine them further, we usually find that steps that may
appear to be missing from one process are included, or at least implied, in
one of the existing steps of that process. For example, while a crucial part
of an engineering design is to “define the problem” or “specify the given
information,” this may be specified as exactly one step or broken into, for
example,
• find information given in the problem statement;

• specify constraints imposed upon the final solution;
• investigate additional necessary information;
• and so forth.
Let’s take this opportunity to explore several design processes.

One of the most basic diagrams is described in documentation for VEX
Robotics, an organization that develops robotic competitions primarily
for K-12 students. This process consists of only three steps:
• Ideate,
• Implement, and
1. Ideate • Test (then back to Ideate).
Our prior example of “define

the problem” and all of the associ-
ated or related tasks would fall into
“Ideate.” While this process may
3. Test 2. Implement
look incomplete, the fact is that
each of the three main “circles”
implies multiple required steps.
A more typical design process that we may find as we explore design
processes is as specified by teachengineering.com. This slightly more
elaborate process consists of seven steps:
• Ask: Identify needs and constraints

• Research the problem
• Imagine: Develop possible solutions
• Plan: Select a promising solution
• Create: Build a prototype
• Test and evaluate prototype
• Improve: Redesign as needed.
Ask: Identify
the need
and
constraints
Improve:
Research
Redesign as
the problem
needed
Imagine:
Test and
Develop
evaluate
possible
prototype
solutions
Create: Plan: Select

Build a a promising
prototype solution
If we revisit our earlier in-class example of designing and building a

robot arm, we may be able to identify that some of the steps we want to
encourage in “defining the problem” would probably fall naturally under
“Ask” and “Research the problem.”
One more example of a design process is as specified by Sandia
National Labs in New Mexico. The Complex Adaptive Systems of
Systems (CASoS) engineering process shown is noticeably different since
it is not a simple linear progression or loop.
Designing and
Defining Actualizing
testing solutions
Define
Define detailed
CASoS solutions
Compare Define
Test Define solutions Field Monitor
detailed
aspirations aspirations under solutions attainment
models
uncertainty
Define
conceptual Characterize
model models
University programs often build a specific and somewhat unique

design process from a combination of different design processes. Two
examples are those used in first-year programs at Virginia Tech and Ohio
Northern University.
The process as defined for first-year students at Ohio Northern Uni-
versity is shown to consist of nine steps, represented linearly, from “Prob-
lem Statement” to “Communicate Final Solution.” While the specific
steps may differ from those previously shown, it becomes clear that many
of the steps shown in one design process are very similar to those with a
different name in another design process. Further, although no paths are
shown to go back to a previous step when reconsidering a design choice,
that path certainly is allowed.
A process used at Virginia Tech shows eight steps with the addition
of “iteration,” representing the notion that, at any time, the engineering
design team may use information to go back to a prior step. A second
diagram represents this design process applied to a specific project. Note
that the steps in similar locations within each process are closely related to
one another. This illustrates that, while there may be eight specified steps
in the official process, implementing and applying it to a specific project

(resulting in nine steps) gives a similar path through the process.
Problem Problem
Needfinding
statement scoping
Evaluation of Communicate Concept

the solution final solution generation
Modeling of Concept Concept

solution selection reduction
Ohio Northern University Design Process
At first glance, these design processes look different. However,

with a minimal review, one can see that there is a lot of similarity from
one to the next. Each process begins with (and probably should begin
with) a charge to define the problem or specify the needs. Our first
example ends at “Test,” while the two samples taken from university
projects go further to specify the communication of results. In truth,
although the number of steps and the granularity of steps vary from
process to process, the steps are largely the same regardless of which
process we review. Also, the steps through an engineering design typi-
cally occur in the same order, although there is some flexibility within
each major task.
Which of the above is the engineering design process? There is no

official design process, but reviewing the overlap of these processes can
show us that there are some required elements of a design process.
Problem
definition
Iteration Requirements
Reporting Concept
results generation
Concept
Concept evaluation/
testing selection
Concept
modeling/
build
Use scenarios
Iteration Constraints/
criteria
CAD
Presentation (Inventor)/
project sketching/
report drawing/
MATLAB
Prototype MATLAB
testing Decision
matrix
Prototyping Prototype
(low/high) testing
frith lab
Virginia Tech Design Processes

3.3 PLANNING: DEFINE THE PROBLEM, SCOPE

THE PROBLEM, IDEATE
Why do math teachers give students story problems? One goal is to deter-
mine if the students can parse the given information and define the essence
of the question: if they can find the question in a sea of relevant and
loosely relevant information. In our “robot arm” scenario, the problem is,
for the most part, given directly in the question. If we are hired to “design
a bridge,” our problem may seem to be easily defined; however, the fur-
ther we proceed, the more questions appear. “Design a bridge” clearly is
only a place to begin—we must define specific information to truly deter-
mine the question.
Design processes begin with a problem-definition stage. This initial
stage of an engineering design involves identifying, clarifying, and
establishing the question. This includes many aspects of the question;
for example, we need to define the given information, any constraints
that apply to our design, criteria (sometimes referred to as evaluation
metrics) for determining success, the demands and needs of the customer,
the customers themselves, and so forth. Most of the planning within the
design process happens here.
As an example, we can consider
a task. Suppose we have been asked to
design a smart watch that will interact
with our phone as well as household
appliances. Our company intends to offer
features that will outperform any watch
currently on the market and ensure that
the watch is compatible with any phone.
Our initial task is to understand the
question. It should be clear that there is
more to our quest than to just “design a
watch.” Establishing the question also requires clearly understanding the
assumptions we will make and establishing aspects of the design such as
criteria, specifications, constraints, requirements, and so forth. We can see
that there is significant overlap in these terms: design criteria, or traits that
define a successful design, clearly interplay with specifications, or traits
specifically defining design requirements.
This initial step of defining the question often leads to additional
questions or issues we need to consider. For our example, we will pretend
that our team has been at work on this task already. Thus far, they have
determined the following (certainly not complete lists):
Our task: Design a smart watch to be compatible with any phone and
household appliances.
Assumptions:
• The watch should be similar in size and weight to other watches to

ensure the consumer will consider purchasing.
(Clarification: We are assuming that the consumer would look for

an innovative watch, but it needs to look and feel like a watch.

Imagine if our watch ended up similar in size and weight to a
phone—that could be interesting, but then our product would not
be a watch. However, a watch that is lighter in weight than that of
the competition could wind up having that lightness featured as a
selling point.)
• It is possible to communicate with phones that have a proprietary
operating system.
(Clarification: We need to assume that communication between our
watch and a given phone is possible; this implies that we will need
to incorporate this into our final design.)
• There is a standard protocol to communicate with appliances.
(Clarification: Communication with a refrigerator and a stove
would happen in the same way, and we do not need to invent a new
computer language for our watch and each individual appliance.)
Constraints:
• There is likely a practical limit to the cost of the watch.

(Clarification: This implies a limit both to the cost of designing and
manufacturing the watch and to its sale price.)
• There are likely limits to the capability of the watch based on
expected battery life.
• As the basic purpose of a watch is to tell time, such information
needs to be readily available.
• There is a physical size constraint: anything we need must fit inside
of the watch (although using the band is also a possibility).
Evaluation Metrics/Criteria: how will we eventually measure success?
• The watch should be compatible with the most popular phones on

the market at the time of its release.
• The watch should control the appliances (a list of appliances is to
be determined).
As we read though each of these lists, more questions may surface.

Perhaps we hadn’t thought of establishing the list of appliances, how to
communicate with an appliance, if our smart appliances even exist and,
if so, if they share a common interface. The idea of a similar interface is
much like a remote control of a television: if you replace a TV with a newer
model, you probably get a new remote as well. Wouldn’t life be a little eas-
ier if all televisions used the same remote? Of course … and yet, they are
different from one to the other. At this stage in our design, we are assum-
ing that controlling an appliance is the same whether it is a refrigerator or
stove. If this turns out not to be the case, we will need to adapt our design.
Establishing a valid list of assumptions, identifying the constraints
that can potentially impact the design, and defining criteria for evaluating
multiple designs are extremely important to the process. We will take a
closer look at constraints and criteria in Chapter 5.
3.3.1 RESEARCH THE PROBLEM, ESTABLISH

REQUIREMENTS
Once we have defined the problem and assumptions and established cri-
teria and constraints, it’s time to do some research. It’s not yet time to
design or build; this is an opportunity to find the background information
we will need to intelligently inform our design. This also clearly illustrates
why there are seemingly several “different” design processes, as there is
significant overlap between the first and second phases.
In our smart watch example, we will need to do some research into
the protocols involved in communicating with smart appliances. We will
need to see if communicating with phones that have a propriety operating
system is possible. We need to find the physical volume within a “typical”
watch to see just how much room we have to work with.
This step is likely to be revisited throughout the design process: as we

discover more questions, we discover more research we will need to
complete.
3.4 AT THIS POINT, CONSIDER: WHAT ABOUT

THE PROCESSES THAT DO NOT INCLUDE
“RESEARCH”?
Only one of our sample processes has a specific “research” step. How can
this be? We certainly must do research in any design process, whether it’s
specifically called out or not.
In our smallest process with only three steps, one could argue that
“research” is included (or implied) in the “Ideate” step: part of specifying
the needs and articulating the problem would involve necessary research.
In another example, one could argue that “concept generation” in the Vir-
ginia Tech process would require research. Since we obviously need to do
some research in most cases, we can find research implied or embedded
within step(s) in each of the other design processes as well.
3.4.1 EXPLORE AND DEVELOP POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS/

CONCEPT GENERATION
Exploring potential options is key within the design process. If the best
answer is so obvious that only one solution needs to be investigated, it is
not an engineering design at all.
Brainstorming is one technique that is used quite often in this case:
team members throw out ideas; each idea is recorded but not yet discussed.
Once the idea cloud is created, ideas that would not meet requirements
can be discussed, combined with others, and/or eliminated. Other meth-
ods that can be successful include breaking into small groups to begin
to define possible solutions or working individually to sketch out one or
more high-level solutions. Techniques such as structured brainstorming
can also be utilized. One example is the 6-3-5 method, which involves
presenting a question or problem statement to six team members. Each
team member has five minutes to record three ideas in writing. At the end
of five minutes, the paper is passed to the next participant, who can add
three new ideas or something inspired by the idea(s) on the paper. Each
few minutes, the papers are passed again. This generates a lot of ideas in a
fairly short time, and participants have seen a plethora of ideas. From here,
the group can begin a more informed discussion.
Many factors can influence how many potential solutions should be

considered, and there are certainly no firm rules. The scope of the problem
as well as the constraints and requirements specified in the design, time,
budget, expertise, and culture can all play a role.
Let’s apply this to our smart watch design. Brainstorming different
possible designs, or different components of the final solution, can give
the team different concepts; some valuable, some that may end up com-
bined or eliminated.
• Can the watch band be used as part of the hardware necessary for
communication?
• What about a watch with a small digital component to tell the actual
time, with most of the real estate available for controlling appli-
ances and communication?
• What about modeling it in a “retro” design like the original digital
watches of the 1970s?
• What about different models for different customers, targeting cus-
tomers based on gender?
• Perhaps the watch could also contain a GPS unit?
• Perhaps the watch could be similar to other watches on the market—
for example, similar enough that customers would recognize it as a
model similar to one they are already familiar with, yet dissimilar
enough to avoid any legal action.
Of course, these suggestions don’t rise to the level of proposed

designs. The alternative designs would likely come with sketches and cal-
culations for power requirements, communication protocols, and so forth.
The team would likely decide on a few specific designs that are worth
exploring at this point, and it’s possible that multiple models of devices
would be built and tested.
Eventually, the “best” design must emerge. While this seems simple
and somewhat obvious, one question that usually becomes apparent is:
How do we decide the “best” design? There are a few factors to consider,
and different designs may be significantly better than others in one area,
but worse in another. Which would be better: a smart watch that is inex-
pensive but meets only our minimal requirements, or a smart watch that
costs twice as much but has more capabilities and better battery life?
There are a few tools we can use to quantifiably figure out the best
design. One such tool is a decision matrix. We will explore this tool
toward the end of the chapter; for now, this step ends with a set of potential
s olutions, each of which has merit. Transitioning to the next step requires
the team to pick one “best” solution.
3.4.2 CREATE A SOLUTION AND PROTOTYPE
As much as we would like to build and test each bridge, each robot arm,
each paper skyscraper, or each smart watch, we need to identify what we
believe will be the “best” solution. The team must consider several aspects
of the design, including the following:
Specifications and requirements: If the final product fails to meet

one of the specifications or requirements, it is not an acceptable
solution. The final design should meet each design constraint
(some of which are certainly requirements). Ideally, the final
design is the one that best met the evaluation criteria. At this stage,
we have the design that we anticipate to be the “best” design. How
can we be sure? One solution is to develop a prototype. A proto-
type is a (mostly) fully functional model that can be tested. It may
not have all of the final polish, it may have only partial function-
ality, and it may never leave the laboratory. The prototype needs
to be functional enough to verify that the chosen design will work
and does appear to meet all requirements. It is easy to imagine a
prototype of our smart watch. Although we weren’t in the lab as
it was developed, we can be fairly certain why a prototype would
be important in this case. While the prototype of the watch does
not specifically need to be slim, sleek, or attractive, it does need
to show our team that the final version in all of its sleekness, slim-
ness, and attractiveness is possible and can hold all of the func-
tionality we require.
Functionality: Depending on the final list of technical capabilities
of the watch, we need to know that the watch can perform various
tasks, such as link to a computer or wireless environment to send
and receive data, can communicate with some smart appliances
(receive the state of the appliance and send instructions to the appli-
ance), accept voice commands, or provide an indication of an alarm
received via an emergency communication from an appliance. Com-
munication from the watch to the wearer might be visual, audible, or
tactile (it might vibrate, for example). Our team may have identified
other requirements along the way, which should be demonstrated by
the prototype. Additionally, we should keep in mind that it should

consistently give the accurate time of day, although even this seem-
ingly minor capability can lead to some questions that should be
decided at this point: does the watch require the user to set the time,
or does it automatically set the time through the use of Wi-Fi or
some other network connection?
It is important to note that, if all goes well in this step, we will proceed
to the next: Test and Evaluate. However, if our prototype reveals issues
that require us to go “back to the drawing board,” we may need to back-
track and go back a step or two. This may or may not be explicitly drawn
in a diagram of a design process.
3.4.3 TEST AND EVALUATE
We have discussed some of the features of our smart watch that we need
to test in the prototype phase. If we’re looking at the robot arm or paper
tower, we also must test our design. The characteristics for which we
test depend on the design. If all goes well in our test, our design process
continues to be a linear path through each step. In real life, things don’t
usually go as planned 100 percent of the time. In that case, we need to go
back to the appropriate step.
For example, consider a few things that testing might uncover with
our smart watch. What if:
• The watch battery drains far too quickly? This would, of course,
depend on our requirements or criteria specifying how long the bat-
tery must last. Functionally, the battery lasts … well, it lasts as long
as it can—the power drains, we recharge … repeat. However, our
end user, our watch consumer, would not be happy if the charge
didn’t last long enough, where “long enough” is defined by the user.
If we find this to be a problem, we need to go back—perhaps as far
as the Research the Problem phase. We need to find a way to boost
the stored charge that can be held in the battery or find which com-
ponent might be drawing too much power.
• The watch loses communication with the appliances it is to power?
This could be an issue with the strength of the Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
connection, or it could be an issue with the appliances themselves,
or with the software used to establish and keep the connection.
Troubleshooting will be required.
Troubleshooting: Troubleshooting is more than identifying a prob-

lem. It involves finding the exact cause of an issue and eliminating the
potential causes of a problem that do not contribute to that problem.
At the end of our Test and Evaluate phase, we should be confident that
our final product is ready for our customer. Consider what this means for
different designs:
• Smart watch: Successful testing means that we are confident that

our watch meets all of our specifications, operates within our con-
straints, and meets or beats our criteria for success. It should be
ready to go to manufacturing and marketing, and after this, we
should be confident that it is ready to sell.
• Bridge: We should be confident that the bridge, again, will meet
all of our specifications, and if built as designed will operate within
our constraints and should meet or beat our evaluation metrics for
success.
• Paper tower and robot arm: We have defined the criteria to deter-
mine the “best” paper tower, and as designers, we should be confi-
dent that our tower will be (or will at least compete to be) the best.
3.4.4 PRESENT RESULTS AND COMMUNICATE
We may have designed the best device ever—a device that can change
the world. If we can’t communicate and disseminate the information, the
device would probably sit in the lab, without ever emerging in the market.
Communicating is a key component of the design process.
The technique by which we present results may vary tremendously

depending on the project. No matter how we communicate our results, this
step is crucial—its importance should not be taken lightly. Let’s examine
potential ways we might communicate our results based on our examples.
Smart watch—We would certainly produce written documentation
for our user. This could include instructions, which may be printed and
included in the package, posted online as a pdf, or built into the watch
itself and made visible on the screen when circumstances warrant. If we
chose to embed it into the watch, then we need to be aware that some users
may not be able to do anything more than (perhaps) turn the watch on
before they see instructions.
We would also need to document the design in writing for our com-
pany. This means fully describing each feature, each component, and the
entirety of the software. This information allows the company to have the
watch manufactured, either internally or by contracting out to a manu-
facturing firm, offer technical support, develop training materials for our
internal personnel as well as our users, develop marketing material, and
eventually update the watch design to fix observed design flaws or add
additional functionality.
We also would likely present our results using visual and verbal
communication to our supervisors and others. Many within our company
would prefer a concise but complete presentation.
The design team may
also be involved in com-
munication to our customer
base. For example, Apple
typically calls a press con-
ference to roll out any new
product (including their
smart watch). The highly
anticipated press confer-
ence creates a buzz extend-
ing well past Apple employees. Steve Jobs, onetime CEO of Apple,
would present to the press in front of a giant screen and extoll the virtues
of the newest technology. The design team’s ability to communicate spe-
cifics in advance of such a press conference is key. As packaging and
advertising are developed, the design and marketing teams must be on
the same page.
Bridge—A new bridge usually does not involve advertising or a
public rollout, beyond the welcomed removal of road construction signs.
However, our customer, perhaps the government at the local, state, or
national level, will certainly need to know the details of the design. This
is probably conveyed through a written report whose requirements are

probably described in the original proposal. The report will need to be
complete and must cover each requirement and criterion.
Robot arm and paper tower—The means of communicating the
results is probably specified by the teacher or contest organizer. It may
be that the necessary communication is minimal: perhaps the score is
recorded, the winner is announced, and the devices are disassembled.
However, a teacher or organizer may want the submission of a technical
report or either a written or verbal reflection.
3.5 COMPARING VARIOUS DESIGN PROCESSES
Most, if not all, design processes will lead the design team through a sim-
ilar set of activities and steps. All design processes may send us back to a
prior step, especially when in a testing phase. This is sometimes explicitly
drawn and sometimes implied.
Table 3.1 shows a comparison of the steps in our four sample pro-
cesses. As we expected, each process can generally be mapped onto the
series of steps we defined, and each process leads us from the preplanning
and problem definition through final design and communicating the solu-
tion. If you explore other engineering textbooks or online resources, you
will probably find a different series of steps in a new design process. Any
of the new processes you may find is likely similar and can be mapped to
the sequence that we defined.
3.6 TERMS AND VOCABULARY
Some of the terms we have used seem to overlap. As we define these

terms, we will find that the definitions are generally understood by engi-
neers working in “the real world”; however, you may find some variability
with these definitions when moving from site to site or from application
to application.
Constraint: A constraint is usually thought of as a limitation, yet it might

be better to consider it as serving to place bounds upon our potential
set of possible solutions. The constraints are things we must consider
with our design. These are yes/no items, or q ualities/characteristics
that our design must meet. For example, if our c ustomer says that
the final cost of the smart watch must be less than $200, and our
design proposes a watch that will cost $210 just to produce, then
Table 3.1. Comparison of design processes
Our design map: VEX Teachengineering CASoS Ohio Northern Virginia Tech
University
Planning: Defining the Ideate Ask: Identify the Defining Problem Statement Problem
Problem, Problem needs and constraints Definition
Scoping and Ideation
Researching the Problem, Research the Problem Problem Definition Needfinding Requirements
Establish Requirements and Model Definition Problem Scoping
Explore and Develop Imple- Imagine: Develop Concept Generation Concept
Possible Solutions/ ment Possible Solutions Generation
Concept Generation
Plan: Select a Design Solutions Concept Reduction Concept Evalua-
Promising Solution tion/Selection
Create a Solution and Create: Build a Concept Selection Concept
Prototype prototype Modeling/Build
Actualizing Modeling of
Solution
Test and Evaluate Test Test & Evaluate Test Solutions Evaluation of Concept Testing
Prototype Solution
Improve: Redesign Field Solutions and
as needed Monitor Attainment
Present Results and Communicate Final Reporting Results

Communicate Solution
we clearly did not meet that constraint. This is quite different than
saying that the watch should be low cost. Other constraints are real-
istic: if we are designing a transportation system, we cannot specify
a Star Trek–style transporter (since they do not exist). Our bridge
may need to be designed to handle a minimum weight defined by a
local community. Our company might have a nonnegotiable policy
that all of our products are to be a specific shade of blue. This would
be a constraint defined internally (by our own group) rather than
externally (by our customer, the government, etc.).
Criteria or Evaluation Metrics: Criteria are characteristics that help
determine if one design is better than another. Criteria we typically
encounter are, for example, a desire for lower cost, whether it be for
resources, for manufacturing, or for the consumer; a longer shelf
life for processed foods; a longer battery life for smart watches; or
greater range for an electric vehicle. Not all criteria are considered
equal; it is often the case that each criterion in a design evaluation is
weighted according to its importance. A bridge should be aestheti-
cally pleasing, but its traffic capacity and load-bearing ability should
be valued higher. Completely defining our criteria for success by
specifying how design attributes will be measured and what the rel-
ative importance of each criterion is gives us a way to evaluate the
best design among the set of proposed solutions developed.
Guidelines: Guidelines are merely recommendations—things that we
should follow, but don’t necessarily have to. We could specify a
guideline for our bridge that it would be nice if we could paint the
underside of the bridge in a local school’s colors; if a much better
bridge design emerged, we would go for it even if it could not be
painted.
Requirements: Requirements are similar to constraints, but are defined
specifically by an individual or entity outside of the design team.
Some of the examples used for constraints would also be classified
as a requirement (those defined by our customer). For example, the
intended customer for our smart watch can state that it must work
in a range of up to 500 feet, or the government can dictate (via stan-
dards, laws, or regulation) that our bridge must have load-bearing
capacity of at least 20 tons. These can be considered both criteria
and requirements.
Specifications: When the characteristics, including requirements, con-
straints, and criteria are taken as a whole, this can define our speci-
fications. This is a list of all characteristics—a list of things we need
to know to complete the design.
Distinguishing between criteria and requirements can be a muddy

issue. In many cases, all requirements are also considered to be c onstraints.
Constraints would consist of requirements defined by external entities
plus any based on whether a design is possible, safe, or extremely cost
prohibitive. To use an extreme example, the payload for our bridge would
increase dramatically if we build the bridge on the moon instead of on
Earth; however, this is clearly impractical. “Must build bridge on Earth”
could be considered a constraint (albeit one we would never list).
3.7 THE “ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS”

LOOKS LIKE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The engineering design process can look similar to the Scientific Method,
especially when we see it as a diagram, but they are quite different.
Both can be represented by a series of (often colorful) steps with arrows
directing us through the process, but they have different functions. The
Scientific Method is a process by which we can investigate the phenom-
enon to gain new knowledge or correct or adapt prior knowledge. It is
a process of discovery as opposed to a process in design. The Scientific
Method draws us toward a single conclusion.
Make
observations
Develop Think of
general theories interesting
questions
Refine, alter,
expand, or reject
hypotheses
Gather data to Formulate

test predictions hypotheses
Develop
testable
predictions
The Scientific Method begins with observations, and these observa-

tions lead to questions. Eventually, we derive theories. In the engineering
design process, we begin with a goal in mind: the design of a device, a

process, a component, or similar item. The process guides us from the
concept to an implementation, whether that is a prototype or a mathe-
matical model. The engineering design process may lead us to multiple
acceptable designs, and not necessarily drive us toward one definitive
conclusion.
3.8 DECIDING THE “BEST” DESIGN: USING A

DECISION MATRIX
If our task is at all complex, we may come up with a few design possi-
bilities that appear to be acceptable … or even a few that could contend
for “the best” design. Identifying the best requires us to look at which
designs meet all specified constraints (they cannot break the defined rules)
and which designs best meet the criteria. One design may meet one crite-
rion best, while another may meet a different criterion better. We need a
quantitative method to determine which design is “the best” overall, and a
decision matrix is one such tool.
We begin by defining each criterion that we wish to measure, assign
a percentage to the importance of that characteristic (its weight), and for
each criterion determine a minimum and maximum value. Let’s use our
smart watch for an example.
Our first step is to decide how many criteria will be used to pick the
best design; for our example, let’s oversimplify our smart watch criteria
and keep it to three characteristics:
Price (to consumer): We know a lower price is better, and our design
team determines that the importance of “price” is worth 60 percent
of our “total importance.” We also know (from our initial research)
the valid entry must be between $50 and $500.
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth range: A larger value is better, and this is worth
25 percent of our total importance. Through our research, we deter-
mined an acceptable range would be 20 feet to 400 feet.
Aesthetics: This is a completely subjective characteristic, so we must
figure out a way to measure aesthetics quantitatively. Also, we need
to specify the percentage of importance, and since this is our last
characteristic, it would be 15 percent. We can measure this by ask-
ing a small group of impartial evaluators to review each design,
assign each a value of 1 to 10, with 10 being most aesthetically
pleasing, and then statistically analyze the results.
For comparison, we have four potential smart watch designs, as given

in the following Table.
Range Design A Design B Design C Design D
Price $50–$500 $60 $500 $250 $120

Wi-Fi /Blue- 20–400
200 390 50 390
tooth range feet
Aesthetics 1–10 7 8 10 1
The choice isn’t necessarily clear. Design A has the best price, which
accounts for the greatest share of the decision. However, Design B and
Design D have almost twice the range of Design A, and Design C is the
most aesthetically pleasing.
Our goal is to assign points to each entry in each category, then add
these totals for each design to find the greatest total. The alternative that
receives the highest total number of points is the best choice. The three
equations used in the decision matrix are presented as Equations 1, 2, and
3 in the text that follows.
Equation 1 provides the formula for determining the total number of
points for each alternative—that is, the sum of the points earned for each
criterion.
m
Pt = ∑ j =1 PijW j
where
• Pt = total points given to each alternative i
• Pij = rating that alternative i receives for a specific criterion j
• Wj = weighting factor for that alternative
• m = the number of alternatives
Equation 2 gives the formula to determine the number of points

assigned to the alternative for a given criterion if lower is better (such as
Price).
C j max − Cij
Pij =
C j max − C j min
where
• Pij = points that alternative i receives for a specific criterion j
• Cij = value of alternative
• Cjmax = maximum value of criterion range

• Cjmin = minimum value of criterion range
Equation 3 gives the formula to determine the number of points

assigned to the alternative for a given criterion if higher is better (such as
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth range).
Cij − C j min
Pij =
C j max − C j min
where
• Pij = points that alternative i receives for a specific criterion j
• Cij = value of alternative
• Cjmax = maximum value of criteria range
• Cjmin = minimum value of criteria range
Each value of each characteristic will receive some points. These

points are added for each design.
Points for Price is calculated using the “lower is better” equation
(Equation 2). For example, points for Design A in Price ($60) are:
500 − 60 440
Pij = = = 0.978
500 − 50 450
Equation 1 says that we will multiply our point value (0.978) by our
weight (60), then sum these for each design. We will enter 0.978 * 60 =
58.68 into the cell for the price of Design A. We will repeat this for each
value, using the appropriate equation for higher is better or lower is better.
Design Design Design Design

Range
A B C D
Price (60%) $50–$500 $60 58.68 $500 0 $250 33.36 $120 50.64
Wi-Fi/
Bluetooth 20–400 ft 200 11.84 390 24.34 50 1.97 390 24.34
range (25%)
Aesthetics
1–10 7 10 8 11.67 10 15 1 0
(15%)
We can find our totals by summing for each design:
Range Design Design Design Design

A B C D
Price (60%) $50–$500 $60 58.68 $500 0 $250 33.36 $120 50.64
Wifi/Bluetooth
20–400 ft 200 11.84 390 24.34 50 1.97 390 24.34
range (25%)
Aesthetics
1–10 7 10 8 11.67 10 15 1 0
(15%)
80.52 36.01 50.33 74.98
From here, we can say that quantitatively, Design A is the best design
based on our criteria, that being the metrics specified for both the mini-
mum and maximum reasonable values and for the weighting we assigned
to each. Note that Design D is close to the final score of Design A and
is nearly a best design choice, but suffers from its very low score on
aesthetics. If we modified Design D (or any other design), we could redo
the decision matrix and may find a better design choice. In other words,
this procedure may also help identify any shortcoming of a particular
design.
If we have more designs to compare, our table would have more
columns (as shown). If we had more criteria, we would need more rows
and weights for each adding to 100.
There are other quantifiable methods to choose “the best” design, but
the decision matrix is easy to implement and gives an unbiased answer.
We can find a variety of different Design Processes if we look at text-

books, online documentation, engineering competitions, or professional
societies. Upon examination, we find that most, if not all, realistically
follow the same path through:
• Planning: Define the Problem, Scope the Problem, Ideate

• Research the Problem, Establish Requirements
• Explore and Develop Possible Solutions/Concept Generation
• Create a Solution and Prototype
• Test and Evaluate
• Present Results and Communicate
We can use a design process to develop a suite of potential design

solutions and finally develop and test one final design. We need to com-
municate our design appropriately.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Glass, R.J., W.E. Beyeler, A.L. Ames, T.J. Brown, S.L. Maffitt, N. Brodsky,
P.D. Finley, T. Moore, M. Mitchell, and J.M. Linebarger. 2012. “Complex
Adaptive Systems of Systems (CASoS) Engineering and Foundations for
Global Design.” Sandia Report SAND2012-0675, January.
TeachEngineering 2016. “Engineering Design process.” https://teachengineering.
org/k12engineering/designprocess (accessed June 2016).
“VEX EDR Curriculum: What is the Engineering Design process?” http://curric-
ulum.vexrobotics.com/curriculum/intro-to-engineering/what-is-the-engineer-
ing-design-process (accessed June 2016).
Zukunftslabor CreaLab and Interspin CreaLab 2016. “6-3-5 Method of Brain-
storming.” http://becreate.ch/en/methods/6-3-5-method.aspx (accessed June
2016).
CHAPTER 4
The Product Life Cycle
What we did ten years ago with the PlayStation was a phenomenal
success story for the company. That product had a ten-year life
cycle, which has never been done in this industry.
—Ian Jackson, free software author
Don’t find customers for your products, find products for your
customers.
—Seth Godin, marketer and author
They always say time changes things, but you actually have to
change them yourself.
—Andy Warhol, American artist, director and producer
Our engineering team has followed an engineering design process

and developed what we believe to be the ultimate, the quintessential, the
finest smart watch ever seen. The final design is within our outlined con-
straints. All requirements have been met. All criteria were used to judge
the design, and the design seems to be the very picture of perfection. Its
price is reasonable, its Wi-Fi range superlative. And the aesthetics? When
our team members saw the watch, they were speechless upon viewing our
work of art. Our design is so wonderful, we are certain that not only will
everyone purchase one, but they will never throw it away.
Such a scenario—while ideal—is unlikely. Imagine a family
in 1984, restricted to watching television shows at the mercy of the
networks—if they wanted to choose a particular show, they needed
to actually be home and seated around the TV set at 8:00 p.m. every
Wednesday. If they missed an episode? They could simply wait six
months and repeat the necessary steps to ensure they would not miss
the rerun! However, imagine this family decided to purchase the latest
in technological innovation—the v ideocassette recorder, or VCR. Now,
they would simply pop in a videocassette, program the VCR to record
whatever was showing on Wednesday at 8:00 p.m., and they had the
means to watch their favorite show any time they chose! For this family
and many others, VCRs became almost a necessity. Roughly 15 million
VCRs were purchased that year. Fast forward to 2016 and the last major
manufacturer of VCRs, the Funai Corporation of Japan, announced it
would no longer manufacture the units. VCRs had long since gone out
of favor with families, replaced by DVD players and recorders and,
eventually, DVR units and Internet streaming, allowing you to watch
anything you like whenever you like—and in many cases, skipping
commercials automatically.
Once our family purchased their VCR, what happened? The family
enjoyed many hours of recorded video. They purchased prerecorded tapes
and blank tapes, eventually owning so many tapes they needed to pur-
chase a sizable storage unit. The VCR broke once, and their friend was
able to buy a replacement part, repair it, and have it back and running. In
our imaginary scenario, this family used their VCR until a fateful day in
1990 when they noticed strange noises, a pop, a grinding noise and then
… nothing. The machine would be replaced by a brand-new DVD player.
This VCR joined 15 million of its closest friends in a landfill, regard-
less of the expertise of the design team, how excited the family was, and
whether this was the technology of the future. Eventually, the product
breaks down or is replaced. Therefore, our new question is: Does the fact
that the product may break and will surely eventually outlive its useful-
ness matter to the design team?
4.1 THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
The Engineering Product Life Cycle is the cycle or the complete story
of a design from the idea of the device, through design, manufacturing,
sales, maintenance, and finally disposal. The Product Design Lifestyle
Management or Product Lifestyle Management (PLM) is the process of
managing a design or product from its inception through disposal. We
found multiple lists of steps in the design process that vary from site to
site; this is also the case for the product life cycle. However, as we pre-
viously saw with design processes, we will find that different life cycle
diagrams will, to a great extent, follow similar steps. Some examples are
shown as follows:
The Product Life Cycle • 55
Initial
product
design
New
Drawings,
revision to
specs, docs
part
Initial
Engineering
revision no.
change
MoM; BoM,
order (ECO)
operations
Dream
Product
Deploy life cycle Design
management
Develop
Product Product
introduction strategy
Product Product
support management
Product Product Product

testing development architecture
Market need
Product end of Product

life design
After sales
Manufacturing
services
For our purposes, we have summarized our product life cycle as

shown:
Conceptualization
Feasibility
Definition
Implementation
Introduction
Growth
Maturity
Decline
Discontinuance
4.2 WHY BE CONCERNED BEYOND DESIGN?
In almost every case, the purpose of engineering design is to produce

value. Often, this is in the form of “positive cash flow”—that is, money
in the form of profits. Other than altruistic designs—perhaps a design
intended to alleviate some effect of poverty, or one implemented to address
new regulatory concerns regarding our environment—our team would
u ndertake a design for a customer who will be paying. In our example of

the bridge, we designed and manufactured with the goal of payment from
some government entity. Our smart watch was designed with the intent to
manufacture and sell as many as possible until they fall out of favor, they
are replaced, a new model rolls out, or they meet some other end.
Our engineering team is certainly interested in designing the best
device or process and, in some cases, our team may be satisfied with
“building a better mousetrap”; however, the success of our company relies
on selling as many of these mousetraps as possible.
4.3 “OUR” PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE:

CONCEPTUALIZATION
Perhaps the initial step is obvious: there must be a reason to tackle our
design. The reason may be an identified market need, a directive from our
employer, or a request from a customer. We have examined a few designs.
Did we adequately define the market need?
• Paper tower and robot arm: In these examples, the teacher in the
classroom defined the need by telling the student teams that this
was an assignment. The teams didn’t need to do much analysis.
• Bridge: This would likely have been either a team working for or
selected by a government, or a team in a company that won a con-
tract. In this case, the need was likely expressed by a governmental
body and the requirements would be established by that entity.
• Smart watch: In this case, our company decided to design a watch.
It is likely that we did some market analysis, talked to some poten-
tial customers, and looked closely at our competition to establish
our criteria. If we intend to design a watch that will sell well, we
need to find out what our potential customer is looking for.
In each of these cases, the conceptualization step is where most of

the criteria and many of the constraints are developed or specified. For
our watch, we know a lower cost is desirable, but how low is considered
“low cost”?
4.3.1 FEASIBILITY
After conceptualizing the design, we would move to a decision on the fea-

sibility of successfully completing a design, given the desire and definition
based on our customer’s list of needs. Further definition of constraints,
requirements, and criteria would occur at the feasibility stage. Require-

ments are developed to provide the guidelines necessary for the design
of the product. Each requirement must be identified as being associated
with one or more product capabilities; these requirements are then broken
down into criteria and constraints. The criteria requirements express the
desirable characteristics of the product, usually providing specific per-
formance functionality as compared with a provided benchmark that the
device is to achieve. In contrast, the constraint requirements specify the
limits to the product development due to technical, business, consumer,
and/or societal influences.
A business would make a go/no-go decision at this point. If the idea is
sound, the requirements, criteria, and constraints are adequately specified,
and continuing with the design is judged to be a positive for the team and
the company, the design can head to the definition phase.
4.3.2 DEFINITION
At this stage, we have determined that we should proceed with develop-

ment of the device or process we are designing and we are ready to define
each aspect. In the case of a product design, we would have a finalized
design, including any manufacturing drawings and specifications. Specifi-
cations include a Bill of Materials—a list of all materials used in the man-
ufacture of the product. In the case of an electronic product, for example,
we would find lists of electronic components consisting of sizes, values,
tolerances, and any special instructions we need to consider in the manu-
facturing process.
4.3.3 IMPLEMENTATION
We have established the need for our device. We have established con-
straints and requirements, and have started to define criteria that will help
us determine if a design is acceptable or better. When the market needs and
customer needs are defined, we may generate multiple possible acceptable
solutions. Once the final design is selected, we reach the implementation
phase. We need to manufacture a few pieces and prepare to introduce the
device to our consumer.
Not only does this apply to an electronic device, but also to our class-
room projects, where manufacturing is the building of the device, and to
the bridge, where manufacturing is the act of constructing the bridge.
For our smart watch, manufacturing may be a complex venture. Our

watch may have some exceptionally small and potentially expensive elec-
tronics inside with a custom case made to be comfortable but durable. We
might incorporate an innovative band as well. We plan for the watch to use
Wi-Fi, so we need to be aware of any connectivity or security issues (and
we should have accounted for this in our design).
Manufacturing is often an engineering process on its own. Imagine
the differences involved in manufacturing an aircraft versus microscopic
electronics versus a high-pressure pipeline!
Let us examine the manufac-
turing process for electronics. An
electronics manufacturer would
typically buy electronic compo-
nents (the parts that will go on a cir-
cuit board) from a supplier. A part
may come in different sizes, differ-
ent levels of accuracy, and different
configurations. For example, a circuit board in a washing machine may
be able to use larger parts with leads (which look like legs coming from
the part), where the leads are inserted through holes physically drilled into
circuit boards. A cell phone has limited room inside and therefore cannot
accommodate such components; smaller surface-mount parts would need
to be used. Two components that function the same way could appear vastly
different: a through-hole resistor may be the size of the head of a pushpin,
while a surface-mount resistor may be slightly larger than a grain of pepper.
The manufacturer may also order circuit boards from a supplier, or
may manufacture those in-house. The process of manufacturing a circuit
board begins with a thin sheet of a mix of fiberglass and epoxy (called an
epoxy-glass board) with thin copper plating on both sides. Large, copper-
clad epoxy-glass boards go through a chemical-etching process where the
unwanted copper is removed chemically, leaving pads (where our compo-
nents will be mounted) and traces (lines of copper connecting components
to each other to form the circuit). Holes are drilled through the board using
an automated system, and another chemical process is used to plate the
inside of the holes with copper. The process has multiple steps where a
chemical is used to remove or to deposit copper. The boards are then cut
from the larger panel.
Components are generally soldered onto the board. An automated
system takes a board and places an exact amount of solder paste on each
pad. Another system picks up each part and places it with a precise force
onto a pad (if the part is surface-mount) or bends the legs to the exact loca-
tion of the holes, places the part through the holes, bends the legs against
the circuit board, and then clips them off (if the board is through-hole).
This happens at a rate of tens of thousands of components per hour.
Each board enters an oven where the heating profile is carefully
controlled to melt the solder, allow the solder to remain molten for a
controlled time, then cool and resolidify at an appropriate rate, all without
damaging the board or the components.
Assemblies are then cleaned, again, with the requirements that the
cleaning process does not damage the assembly in any way. Other steps in
the process may involve applying a coating over the assembly to protect
the assembly from its intended environment, writing on the board (apply-
ing a trademark or other markings), or special preparation for packaging.
The manufacturing process for electronic assemblies can vary depend-
ing on customer specifications. Assemblies intended for use by the mili-
tary or in space must be able to survive extreme conditions: excessive heat
or cold, a salt-laden environment (if intended for use in or near oceans),
or radiation. These devices must be manufactured to standards that are
near perfect. They will be inspected and tested—which adds significant
cost. Inexpensive consumer electronics may not undergo any inspection
and may undergo minimal testing. Consider this: if a board integrated into
a system designed to generate breathable oxygen in space malfunctions,
that failure can be catastrophic. If an assembly designed for use in a child’s
toy malfunctions, a family would, at most, probably return the toy for a
replacement. The risk (a need to process some percentage of defective
devices) may not be worth the extra cost of testing and inspection if the
assembly is used in a low-stakes environment.
4.3.4 SIX SIGMA MANUFACTURING
Manufacturers that implement specific practices designed to (almost)

eliminate manufacturing defects may be Six Sigma Certified. The intent
is to tightly control all processes in the manufacturing process. Math-

ematically, sigma (σ) is the standard deviation (a measurement of the
spread of the measured values) within a process. For example, if an
assembly is to have a thickness of 12 mm to 13 mm, the average (mean)
thickness would be 12.5 mm, and 0.5 mm would be 6 standard devia-
tions. Processes with a Normal distribution, common to most processes,
is as shown:
Lower limit Average(mean) Upper limit
99.7%
95%
68%
−6σ −5σ −4σ −3σ −2σ −1σ Mean 1σ 2σ 3σ 4σ 5σ 6σ
This shows that if the average thickness is 12.5 mm, 68 percent of

manufactured assemblies would be within 1 standard deviation. In our
example, this means thickness between 12.417 mm and 12.583 mm.
Further, 99.7 percent of our assemblies would be within 3 standard
deviations (3σ) from our mean, or between 12.25 mm and 12.75 mm.
Finally, 99.99966 percent of our assemblies would be within 6 sigma
of our mean, with thickness between 12.0 mm and 13.0 mm.
So, how many defective devices would be manufactured? Most man-
ufacturing processes can operate within 3σ producing a yield of 93.32
percent (or producing 6.68 percent defects). A Six Sigma process results
in less than 3.4 defects per million products, or a defect rate of less than
0.00034 percent (as shown in Table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Defects per million and yield rates

Sigma Level Defects per Million Yield
1 690,000 30.85%
2 308,000 69.15%
3 66,800 93.32%
4 6,210 99.38%
5 230 99.977%
6 3.4 99.99966%
4.3.5 MARKETING OUR PRODUCT
Our device is ready to hit the market, and while we have spent money and
resources thus far, it is now time to seek profit. We can plot the Product
Life Cycle and show the cash flow as follows:
Cost of development and production

Sales, cost, and cash flow
Sales revenue
Net revenue (Profit)
cash
flow
Negative
cash flow Loss
Introduction Growth Maturity Decline
4.4 INTRODUCTION
We announce our new product rollout to the public in the Introduction

phase. Up until now we have had a negative cash flow, as we are funding
the design team, the development of prototypes, and the marketing of the
device, as well as establishing the distribution, among other costs.
The introduction stage varies widely depending on our design. Our
new smart watch may generate a buzz and, if we are fortunate, we may
have a hugely successful introduction; we may find that consumers camp
out or line up early to be the first to own our product. We may have a
design of a product for which we need a more intentional strategy.
Some companies are masterful at generating buzz for a new product.
Consider any device introduced by Apple or the almost annual introduc-
tion of new videogame systems. A new game system (or a new iteration
of an existing system) is introduced almost every holiday season and con-
sumers are often met with shortages and have difficulty finding the new
product. The consumer anticipation means that the introduction phase was
a huge success (although one might wonder if it could have been more
successful had the company manufactured more units to better meet the
demand).
Most products are introduced with less fanfare. We may need to
establish a marketing strategy or find a sales outlet for our device. If we
are designing a component of a larger system or have a single customer,
the introduction phase may be straightforward: we let our customer know
the device is ready.
4.5 GROWTH
Our goal is to maximize the Growth period. During this time, we hope that
we have created a buzz significant enough that our product is flying off
the shelves. In this phase, we may make price adjustments to maximize
profit; we may need to modify our markets, promote our product in a dif-
ferent way, modify our distribution mechanism, or make other changes
to increase sales. At some point, we expect to recover the costs from our
introduction phase and to see a positive cash flow; we should be earning
more than we are spending. In many cases, the design team may be back
working on the introduction phase of the next iteration. For example, as
new iPhones are introduced and enjoy a healthy growth phase, designers
are already developing the next version.
4.5.1 AFTER-SALES SERVICE
Our engineering design team is qualified. Our manufacturing process met

Six Sigma guidelines. Therefore, our smart watch should never break.
However, our smart watches will be sold to real people in the real world,
so sometime, somewhere, one will certainly malfunction.
Our business model should take repair and maintenance into consid-
eration. In one extreme, we may manufacture and market a device that is
considered a “throw-away.” For example, a small, electronic toy may be
inexpensive and we may not offer any guarantee on it. If it breaks, the con-
sumer is welcome to return to the store, buy another one, and throw away
the broken piece. Our risk in this case may be limited to the occasional
angry family returning to the store and arguing with a customer service
representative. This may affect the desire of the retailer to sell our future
products, but if it was a profitable venture for them, they would probably
be willing to carry any new products.
The other extreme may be a lifetime guarantee, encouraging our
customers to return defective devices for repair or replacement. Automo-
bile manufacturers face rel-
atively high expenses in this
category. Extensive research
may go into costs associated
with breakdown in compo-
nents covered by manufac-
turer warranties. An extreme
example of an attempt to
manipulate these costs, which also gives us a chance to see the intersection
of engineering and ethics, is the Volkswagen emissions scandal.
As clean air requirements came into existence in the United States
and Europe in the early to mid-2000s, Volkswagen introduced “clean
diesel” automobiles. The company won praise for its technology. How-
ever, in 2014 and 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), responding to reports of testing showing that emissions were
ETHICS:
CAN WE DEFINE RIGHT VERSUS WRONG?
Designers and engineers are expected to adhere to a high ethical stan-

dard. Engineers routinely design devices and systems that affect lives:
bridges, automobiles, space travel vehicles, biomedical devices, heart
monitors, water filtration systems, to name a few. Even our smart
watch could affect a life: if someone is exercising and notices an
extreme heart rate, they may seek medical attention. If we i ntentionally
designed a heart rate monitor that gave values considered perfect in
order to show our user that they have no need to worry, we would not
be following appropriate ethical guidelines.
Guidelines for many engineering disciplines are available. The
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has published the
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. The code does go into some detail,
but the Fundamental Canons give the high-level ethical responsibilities
of engineers:
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and law-
fully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of
the profession.
We can see that, in our example of the Volkswagen emissions

scandal, Volkswagen engineers arguably directly violated canons 1, 3,
5, and 6 to some extent.
less environmentally friendly on the road as opposed to during testing,

began to test the emissions from Volkswagen cars. After a v oluntary
recall was offered, Volkswagen admitted (in September 2015) that it
had intentionally designed software to cheat during emissions tests,
and that e ngineers knowingly programmed the cars to pass testing, then
emit more p ollutants during use. The “defeat device,” or the software
designed to sense if the vehicle was undergoing emissions testing, relied
on testing engine speed, steering wheel position, air pressure, and other
information: if the software determined the vehicle was under test,
emissions were lowered to acceptable levels. During standard operation,
emissions were up to 40 times beyond allowable levels. Further testing
revealed that reported CO2 emission and fuel mileage values were also
questionable. Eventually, Volkswagen had to recall, repair, retrofit, or
purchase back over 11 million vehicles at a cost of over $10 billion and
faced a fine of $4.3 billion.
It is doubtful that Volkswagen designers anticipated a cost of
$14 billion in recalls, buybacks, and fines as part of the normal “after-sales
service” portion of the product life cycle; indeed, Volkswagen stock lost
37 percent of its value in the days following the announcement. This situ-
ation illustrates the importance of ethics within engineering. Fortunately,
there are relatively few case studies of similar unethical behavior causing
huge financial issues for corporations or causing damage to property,
injuries, or even death.
4.6 MATURITY
The Maturity phase means that our costs are stabilizing: we have likely found
a model where our advertising is effective, our distribution mechanism is
working and, while our pricing may be appropriate, we may lower prices
to boost sales to keep our revenue strong. At some point, we should have
enough positive cash flow to turn a profit—and the earlier this happens, the
better. We may face new levels of competition: competitors may develop
products to compete with our successful product. We may find additional
costs in maintenance and repair in this phase as well: in the case of the iPhone
4, Apple issued free cases to customers to keep their hands at a safe distance
from the antenna, thereby improving reception. This was likely an unplanned
cost that emerged during the growth or maturity cycle. Almost any p roduct
will need a mechanism for repair, return, and replacement—or perhaps
simply telling consumers, “too bad.” This would minimize costs, but would
not build goodwill toward any future products marketed by that company.
4.7 DECLINE
Finally, demand trails off in the Decline phase. At some point, sales decline
to a level lower than we care to support, or the cost of maintenance means
we no longer want to support an item. Our business decision may be to
drop prices extremely low to clear the shelves, or we may pull the product
back and roll out the next iteration.
4.8 DISCONTINUANCE
Even the most successful, earthshattering, and monumental designs even-

tually go out of style, lose their significance or usefulness, or are simply
replaced by a superior design. In each case, discontinuance from an engi-
neering standpoint implies more than simply throwing something away.
We should anticipate the discontinuance phase in our design. Can we man-
ufacture a device that is recyclable at the end of its life? If the product is
discarded in a landfill, can our product be manufactured to minimize any
toxic components, and if so, is there an additional cost? These trade-offs
may need to be assessed at the beginning of the product life cycle even
though they won’t be realized until the end of the product’s life.
4.8.1 ENGINEERING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
4.8.1.1 The Decline and Eventual Discontinuance of a Product
The decline phase is a good example of other considerations that interact

with our engineering decisions. Consider our VCR example: in one year,
15 million units were manufactured and sold, and arguably, most of these
are no longer in homes.
A rough estimate of the
weight of a typical VCR is 6
pounds. As many families dis-
posed of broken or outdated
VCRs, most units went to land-
fills. Some effort certainly goes
into recycling components, but
considering that less than one-
third of all trash in the United
States is recycled, it leaves roughly 10 million units, manufactured in one
year, headed directly to landfills.
Given our estimate of 6 pounds per unit, approximately 30,000 tons

of VCR waste (not including millions of tapes) was eventually generated
for the production year in question. Each unit had some percentage of
plastic and metal in the casing, small motors, circuit boards, and other
electronics inside. Many circuit boards were manufactured using solder
that is an alloy of tin and lead, leading to fear that millions of discarded
units could result in lead contamination of drinking water. Lead, which is
HOW DANGEROUS IS LEAD IN SOLDER IN A

LANDFILL?
Lead use in solder in plumbing and electronics was effectively banned.

However, the alloy of tin and lead was very effective. It has a eutectic
property: as tin-lead solder is heated, it transitions from a solid to a
liquid at a lower temperature than that needed to liquefy tin or lead.
Further, it turns into liquid without going through a softening stage,
making it ideal to use in manufacturing. As lead was banned, other
metals, including silver and zinc, were explored to form an alloy.
On one hand, it is commonly known that anything causing us to
ingest lead is dangerous. The water supply in Flint, Michigan, made
headlines as the municipal water supply became contaminated. How-
ever, a 2005 report by the EPA indicated that environmental damage
from alternative metals used in alloys may pose a greater harm than
lead; mining practices and processing needs are rarely considered, and
as is the case with many banned substances, the directive didn’t specify
that a safer metal was to be used.
In addition, other alloys were less effective, and at least in the
beginning stages the cost of modifying manufacturing processes and
increased failure rate of electronics posed issues. Furthermore, elec-
tronic waste contributes only a very small percentage of lead in the
environment: 80 percent of lead is used in automotive batteries, and
this is largely recycled.
However, on a global scale, electronics sent for recycling often
are shipped overseas, where impoverished workers and children dis-
assemble electronic devices with no safety precaution, which certainly
introduces lead (and other dangerous elements) into their environment.
In the end, a number of analyses have shown that replacing lead
in electronics manufacturing may not have been an environmentally
friendly decision.
a potent neurotoxin, was effectively banned in electronics in many parts of

the world from 1995 to 2005.
Effective and responsible engineering design dictates that design
teams should have a responsibility to consider the ultimate disposal of
devices. Do teams build in the ability to recycle the device? When possible,
can the device be designed to decompose or cause minimal potential threat
to the environment?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atiyeh, C. 2017. “Everything You Need to Know about the VW Diesel-Emissions

Scandal.” Car and Driver, May 11.
Black, H. October, 2005. “Getting the Lead Out of Electronics.” Environmental
Health Perspectives, US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of
Health 113, no. 10, p. A682.
Bromwich, J.E. 2016. “The Long, Final Goodbye of the VCR.” New York Times,
July 21.
Carey, N., and D. Shepardson. 2017. “Volkswagen Pleads Guilty in U.S. Court in
Diesel Emissions Scandal.” Reuters, March 10.
Cornellnorcal 2017. “Custom Electronics Factory Tour Makerfaire Trailer Event.”
http://envisageinc.com/lifecycle (accessed March 2017).
Crestek 2017. “Product Lifecycle Management.” http://cresttek.com/product-life-
cycle-management/ (accessed March 2017).
Environmental Protection Agency 2016. “Wastes—Non-Hazardous Waste—
Municipal Solid Waste.” https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/
web/html/index.html (accessed March 2016).
Environmental Protection Agency 2005. “Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle
Assessment.”
Envisage 2017. “Lifecycle.” http://envisageinc.com/lifecycle (accessed March
2017).
Gates, G., J. Ewing, K. Russell, and D. Watkins. 2017. “How Volkswagen’s
‘Defeat Devices’ Worked.” The New York Times, March 16.
Hotten, R. 2015. “Volkswagen: The Scandal Explained.” BBC News, December
10.
National Society of Professional Engineers 2016. “NSPE Code of Ethics.” https://
nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics (accessed January 2016).
Titus, J. 2011. “Was Lead-Free Solder Worth the Effort?” ECN Magazine,
December 28.
CHAPTER 5
Constraints and Criteria:

A Closer Look
Constraints shape and focus problems and provide clear chal-

lenges to overcome. Creativity thrives best when constrained.
—Marissa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo!
An inner process stands in need of outward criteria.

—Ludwig Wittgenstein, Austrian-British philosopher
Constrained circumstances can bring the best out of you.

—Cameron Mackintosh, British producer
The word constraint may sound negative; after all, engineering as a pro-
fession and design as an activity are inherently creative. We are supposed
to “think outside of the box,” which implies that we should not be con-
strained by convention. However, constraints play a crucial role in design.
We need an objective way to determine the best solution to a problem
or the best design for a device. We do this by establishing and weighting
criteria—these criteria inform our decision on which of many options is
optimal.
5.1 CONSTRAINTS
Every design faces constraints; if nothing else, we are limited by fundamen-

tal laws of nature, the existence or nonexistence of components or processes,
or lack of an infinite amount of resources. Constraints are fundamental quali-
ties of our design that must be met; they are attributes upon which noticeable,
realistic limitations have been placed due to externally sourced influences.
Realistic constraints are imposed to eliminate designs that would fail.
Our first instinct might be to

look at constraints as limiting, and
therefore, negative. However, we
might consider them as bounding
our possibilities or keeping our
potential designs within the realm
of possibility—this should sound
more positive.
Any realistic design is lim-
ited by the laws and forces of
nature. If we are working on the
design of an airplane, we cannot work under the assumption that we
will use some antigravity force to get our airplane off the ground.
If we are working on a solution to cross one of the Great Lakes, we
cannot implement a particle-transporter system or propose to travel at
the speed of light; we have yet to invent these technologies, although
some of these realistic constraints will disappear over time. These
constraints apply to any design, and we rarely mention them; we can
consider these as obvious.
What type of constraints can we face? Consider the smart watch
example. Realistically, we face a number of constraints:
• We likely have specified a maximum possible cost to the consumer

based on market research. While we certainly want to design the
watch to be inexpensive, or at least less expensive than those of
our competitors, we would work under the assumption that we
must keep the cost below some monetary amount. Keeping the cost
below a specified amount is a constraint—we cannot violate that
imposed rule and claim a successful design. “We would like to keep
the cost as low as possible” is not a constraint—it is not a choice
between yes and no. We will soon see that this is a criterion rather
than a constraint.
• We must be able to manufacture the watch. This higher-level
constraint may in turn generate other constraints on allowable
materials or, specifically, allowable manufacturing processes.
• The performance of the watch must be accurate and precise (for
our time function) and it must interact with specific appliances via
Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. This may lead to other constraints.
What possible constraints exist?

Constraints and Criteria: A Closer Look • 71
Engineering programs are accredited by ABET under criteria devel-

oped by technical professionals from ABET’s member societies. The
criteria are meant to guide programs toward developing a graduate who
is not only proficient in the technical content necessary to be an engi-
neer but also a capable communicator, team member, and ethical mem-
ber of the profession. ABET’s Engineering Accreditation Commission
lists eight general criteria. Of these, Criterion 3 (Student Outcomes)
has 11 general requirements (in documentation from 2000 to 2019). In
academia, these are sometimes known as “ABET a-k.” Of particular
interest is the following entry:
(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet
desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,
environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability.
It seems clear that this was not intended to be a complete list of
constraints. The phrase “such as” should indicate that these and similar
constraints are to be considered. However, many institutions unfortu-
nately treat this as the definitive list of constraints.
Many engineering programs have implemented a specific list of eight

possible constraints, taken verbatim from ABET Criterion 3:
• Economic: Economic constraints may refer to the cost of develop-

ment, cost of manufacturing, and/or cost to the consumer.
• Environmental: Environmental constraints discuss both the effect
of the product on the environment and, although not often consid-
ered, the effect upon the product of the environment in which it is
to be used.
• Social: Social constraints determine if a potential design will fit into
the society or community for which it is intended. In some countries,
for example, political factions are represented by color. If we design
a product for a customer in one such country and paint the product in
the wrong color, our customers may simply reject our design.
• Political: Beyond social considerations, our design might be
affected by political realities. In the United States, this may mean
adherence to legislated codes and regulations.
• Ethical: Our design process must avoid unethical situations, such
as conflicts of interest when sourcing parts or using test subjects for
product research without obtaining their consent.
• Health and safety: Our design should not diminish the health
of the customer or the public and should not lead to an unsafe
situation.
• Manufacturability: The design must be feasible from a production
standpoint; for example, the ability to mass-produce a product by
using an already established assembly line process.
• Sustainability: Designs avoid the use of materials that might not
be obtainable in sufficient quantities over the expected production
timeframe.
The constraints listed by ABET are certainly applicable to most if

not all designs, but this is hardly an exhaustive list. For example, a design
might need to be accessible to a user with a mobility or visual impairment
(accessibility) or have specific technical constraints (technical, thermal,
electrical, mechanical, etc.).
The authors propose a categorization of constraints called the Con-
straint-Source Model (CSM). This model hypothesizes that all constraints
can be classified as attributes under four stakeholder-derived headings:
Technically-driven constraints, Customer-driven constraints, Business-
driven constraints, and Society-driven constraints. If we classified the
eight constraints listed above using this classification system, we could
classify as shown in Table 5.1. There is certainly some overlap, depending
on the specific constraints under each heading.
Table 5.1. Classifying constraints

Technically- Customer-
driven driven Business-driven Society-driven
Economic Economic
Environmental Environmental
Social
Political
Ethical Ethical
Health and
Safety
Manufacturability Manufacturability
Sustainability
Constraints appear early in the design process. We need an under-

standing of our constraints in the initial planning phase, as these will
inform all aspects of our design.
Consider a design for a bridge. There is certainly an economic con-

straint: while a bridge made from titanium and colored with gold leaf
might be long lasting and aesthetically pleasing, it is probably outside
of the budget. There is a constraint on the minimum load it must sup-
port—this may be classified as a safety constraint, but is more accurately
considered a technical constraint. There is a constraint limiting the mate-
rials to those readily available; while there is overlap here with economic
constraints, the cost of materials and their availability may support two
constraints. There are zoning and regulatory requirements, also serving
as constraints. If we design our bridge and do not adhere to each of these
constraints, our design will not be successful. If we satisfy all of our con-
straints but fail to meet the minimum required load, our bridge cannot be
considered a success.
Do we face constraints in all level of design? Consider our example

of the cardboard robot arm. We have a material constraint: the specific
materials and quantity are given, so we cannot use additional material.
Depending on the in-class activity, there may be a time constraint, where
construction is limited to some number of minutes. However, we probably
do not have a social, political, or ethical constraint at this level. We do face
constraints in any level of design.
5.2 TERMINOLOGY
What about requirements and specifications? Requirements of a design

are also a binary decision: we either meet the requirement or do not meet
the requirement, as is the case with constraints. Constraints are defined by
someone external to the design team, while requirements may be defined
internally or externally. The line between these terms is sometimes diffi-
cult to find, and they are sometimes used interchangeably.
Specifications are more high level. Specifications are also a list of
must-have features, but are not necessarily binary. Specifications may be
requirements or constraints, but they may also be criteria. For e xample,
a constraint on our smart watch that it must not cost above $200 for the
consumer is also a specification. We may also say, “The overall manufac-
turing cost should be minimized.” This is not a constraint—it is not a yes/
no feature. It is a specification and could be considered a requirement.
5.3 CRITERIA
Criteria are used to determine if one

design is better than another. We
may classify the decision on whether
our design met all constraints as a
criterion; however, if the answer is
no, then our design is not a success,
and in that case, it is certainly not the
best design among many.
We use criteria all the time.
Consider buying a car or truck: How
do we decide which to purchase? Cost must play a role, at least, for most of
us. Capacity or purpose also plays a role: a family with six children might
choose a minivan over a two-seat pickup truck. Color, aesthetics, power,
required down payment, and number of cup holders may also play a role.
We can define a list of criteria, but it should be clear that each criterion
may vary in importance when compared to the others. Most people would
consider the cost of a new car a more important criterion than the number
of cup holders it has.
Defining the success of a design, or defining a means to evaluate one
design compared to others, requires listing the specific criteria for assess-
ment and comparison, and then assigning an appropriate weight to each
criterion. In our example of buying a car, we might define our decision as
shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Constraints and criteria for the purchase of a minivan

Constraints/
Criteria Description Car 1 Car 2 Car 3 (etc.)
Constraints Must be minivan
Criteria Cost of car
(40%)
Required down payment
(20%)
Aesthetics
(20%)
Number of cup holders
(15%)
Color
(5%)
This table bears a remarkable resemblance to a Decision Matrix; this

makes sense, since it essentially is a decision matrix. We can enter values
from two or more cars, find a total score, and definitively know which car
is preferred.
What if one of these cars is not a minivan? In our example, “minivan”
is a constraint; therefore, a car that does not meet this constraint is not an
acceptable option and our choice will not be successful.
What if this table indicates we should get Car 1, but we look at Car 2
and like certain qualities such as towing capacity, heated seats, sunroof,
and racing stripes? In this case, the other factors were important to the
decision, and they should be listed as criteria. Criteria are selected from
a wide array of design attributes based upon their relative importance in
evaluating the best out of a set of various designs; if the aesthetics of the
car sporting racing stripes and a sunroof are considered to be sufficiently
important, then they should make the list and be weighted appropriately.
Criteria in engineering design serve the same purpose as in our
example: they determine which design is preferred among multiple possi-
bilities. We included a constraint in our example above simply to illustrate
how a constraint is used to eliminate designs that will not be considered
successful.
Revisiting our example of a bridge can show how we might pick a
design solution.
Constraints: The bridge must support a minimum designated load,
must be below a maximum specified cost, and must have a projected life-
time at or above a specified value. These are not criteria—these are far
more restrictive constraints. What criteria might we use, assuming we
have multiple designs from which to select?
Type of bridge: We may favor one type of bridge over another
depending on what the bridge is to cross. If it is a typical highway bridge
over a drainage ditch, we may not need to specify “type” as a criterion
since the use of a beam bridge is fairly standard in these situations, being
short in its span, having a flat deck, and easily constructed out of steel
beams and reinforced concrete. However, if we have to cross a navigable
river, then a designer would have to consider the merits of an arched beam
bridge versus a suspension bridge versus a drawbridge, and then specify
which is preferred.
Aesthetics: Many municipalities are painting bridges for protection
from the elements and to foster a sense of community. Some bridges in
Blacksburg, Virginia, are painted either orange or maroon, the colors of
Virginia Tech. A newer bridge near campus is covered in Hokie Stone, a
limestone common to campus. As highway bridges go, it is more aesthet-

ically pleasing than a typical bridge.
Cost: While we may have a maximum cost as a constraint, we can also
have a criterion of “lower cost.” If a design exceeds the highest allowable
cost (constraint), it is rejected. Otherwise, the lower the cost, the better.
Consider our example of the robot

arm. We have constraints: the material
allowed is limited, so there is a mate-
rial constraint. We may be limited by
a maximum time allowed to build. But
we need a way to judge the “best robot
arm” at the conclusion of the event.
Which is best for a robot arm—to have
the power to lift a heavy object, be
aesthetically pleasing, or use the few-
est materials? The answer is: these decisions should be made prior to the
competition. If we set up a decision matrix, or at least a list of all criteria
and their weights, we can determine the best robot arm; see Table 5.3.
These criteria are not necessarily the best—we may disagree with
those setting up the competition. The important idea is that the criteria are
set before the competition and that the weights accurately represent their
importance. The robot arm with the highest score would win and be the
best robot arm!
Table 5.3. Decision matrix for a robot arm

Criteria Description Weight Robot 1 Robot 2 Robot 3
Fewest materials 25%
(fewer is better)
Time to build 20%
(less is better)
Weight lifted 20%
(higher is better)
Aesthetics 15%
(higher score is
better)
Fastest lift of load 12%
(quicker is better)
Lightest weight 8%
(lower is better)
5.4 THE “BEST” DESIGN
We have scratched the surface of using criteria to judge the best design,
especially given specific realistic criteria. However, the concept that each
design is required to meet all constraints (or be considered an absolute
failure) is crucial. From there, each design is evaluated based on how well
it met the entire set of criteria.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABET 2006. “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2016–2017.” http://

abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineer-
ing-programs-2016-2017/#outcomes (accessed December 2016).
Estell, J.K., and K.J. Reid. August 2016. “Incorporating Realistic Constraints
into the First-Year Design Experience.” Workshop, First Year Engineering
Experience Conference.
Estell, J.K., and K.J. Reid. June 2016. “Using the Constraint Source Model
to Manage ABET Design Expectations.” Capstone Design Conference,
Columbus, OH.
Hunter, J. December 1977. “Wittgenstein on Inner Process and Outward Criteria.”
Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7, no. 4, pp. 805–17.
Mayer, M.A. 2006. Creativity Loves Constraints. Bloomberg, February 13.
CHAPTER 6
What Is Good Design?
Good design has to tell a story. It has to stop people, and it has to
make them wonder. Good design is a conversation.
—Zahid Sardar, design editor and author
Good design is a lot like clear thinking made visual.

—Edward Tufte, statistician and author
Good designers must always be avant-gardists, always one step

ahead of the times. They should—and must—question everything
generally thought to be obvious. They must have intuition for
people’s changing attitudes. For the reality in which they live, for
their dreams, their desires, their worries, their needs, their living
habits. They must also be able to assess realistically the opportu-
nities and bounds of technology.
—Dieter Rams, German industrial designer
6.1 WHAT MAKES A DESIGN A “GOOD DESIGN”?
We have seen a design process and can describe a design process that was
followed properly. We can also document whether a design effectively
meets all constraints and evaluate it using our criteria for success. Our
product may be a huge commercial success, have a long life, and have no
adverse effect on the environment at the end of its life. Perhaps the combi-
nation of all of these traits would define a good design.
How do we assess a design and determine whether it is good or not?
Georgia O’Keeffe, an American artist, once described art in a letter to
her biographer: “I don’t know what Art is but I know some things it isn’t
when I see them.” Similarly, while we can sometimes easily find examples
of bad design, recognizing good design can be challenging. The fact that
there is no universally accepted definition of good design further compli-
cates the matter.
If there is no formal definition for good design, how can we evaluate
designs in general?
6.1.1 HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN
Successful design considers the end user. Human-Centered Design rep-

resents a framework in which a design is focused on the end user, some-
times to the extent that designers will limit progress while exploring the
wants and needs of the user to ensure they do not design a product that is
not precisely what the user expects.
6.1.2 NORMAN’S SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

OF DESIGN
Don Norman, author of The Design of Everyday Things, presents a frame-

work intended to focus on the needs of the end user, called the Seven
Stages of Action. Each stage is shown below with a guiding question:
1. Form the Goal

• What do I want to accomplish?
2. Plan the action
• What are alternative action sequences?
3. Specify the action sequence
• What action can I do now?
4. Perform the action sequence
• How do I do it?
5. Perceive the state of the world
• What happened?
6. Interpret the perception
• What does it mean?
7. Compare the outcome with the goal
• Is this OK? Have I accomplished my goal?
The end user of a design follows this sequence as they solve a prob-
lem, and focusing on this sequence can help us with the design. Ideally,
we would like our user to be able to answer each question as they use our
product.
What Is Good Design? • 81
This implies that if a device

does not operate as expected or
fails to meet the needs of a cus-
tomer, the designer can be blamed,
especially if one or more of these
stages are either neglected or
skipped. For example, upon pur-
chasing and moving into a home,
one of the authors found that one
of the showers was without a shower diverter (the knob that is lifted to
divert water from a faucet to a shower). After a few minutes of investiga-
tion, the shower mode was successfully selected by pulling down on the
end of the faucet. This design may be considered innovative, but the oper-
ation of the design was not intuitive. The progress of the user was stalled
as he tried to “perform the action sequence” (or activate the shower). Is
this the fault of the user or the design team? The author is fine blaming the
design team.
Appreciating the seven stages of action led Norman to develop seven
fundamental principles of design: Discoverability, Feedback, Conceptual
Model, Affordances, Signifiers, Mappings, and Constraints.
6.1.3 DISCOVERABILITY
The principle of discoverability implies that the user should be able to dis-
cover the function of the device and determine what actions are possible
with it. Operation of the device should be intuitive.
6.1.4 FEEDBACK
There should be complete feedback to the user on the results of an action.

If the user tries something to or with the device, the new state should be
easily determined. For example, dishwashers with digital control panels
will indicate which cleaning stage the dishwasher is currently in. This
information is not necessarily important for most dishwasher users, but
it can give feedback to the user on how long the process has taken and
how much longer remains. The end of the cycle is usually indicated by
a light or a beep, letting the user know that it is OK to interact with the
appliance.
6.1.5 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The conceptual model is presented to help the user understand a device,

even if the model is not entirely accurate or realistic. Representing groups
of files as contained in folders in a computer is a conceptual model—we
can understand how things are grouped by relating files and folders to
physical files and folders, even if the data inside of the computer is not
stored in this way. If we move a folder to a new hanging file in a filing cab-
inet, we physically pick it up and refile it. If we move a file to a new folder
in a computer, we change the attribute of the file to indicate the directory
in which it is stored. In a way, we are saying: do not worry about how the
file is stored—just picture it like folders in a file.
6.1.6 AFFORDANCES
An affordance describes a relationship between a physical object and a

user: it relates the properties of an object and the capabilities of the user,
who determines how that object may possibly be used. Affordances deter-
mine what actions are possible. Suppose you enter a building for the first
time and take the elevator to a floor. You get off the elevator and go into an
office. When you enter the elevator, you are faced with a panel of buttons.
The buttons afford pushing: you (the user) can see the physical property of
the button; it looks like it can be depressed into the panel. Your experience
is of one who has pushed a button in the past; you know that these buttons
may be used by pressing. Instead of pressing, perhaps you tried to pull the
button, rub it, or taste it? No—the button affords pushing. When entering
the office, if you see a flat plate on the front of the door, the properties
indicate that this can be pushed. Your experience as one who has pushed
a door or two in the past, allows you to determine that this door might be
pushed. The door affords pushing.
But, how do we know which button to push? How do we know to
push on the flat plate on the door as opposed to just anywhere?
6.1.7 SIGNIFIERS
While affordances tell us which actions are possible, signifiers indicate

where the action should take place. In our elevator example, the buttons
are labeled. Your experience and the look of a button as something that
can be pushed do not tell you specifically what to do, whereas the floor
numbers on the buttons specifically indicate the end result of the operation
when one of these buttons is pushed. The flat plate on front of a door is
an indicator on where we should push to cause the door to open. If you
walk up to a door with no handle or flat plate, would you push or pull? We
know that the thing is a door, and a door affords opening, but without a
signifier, we may struggle with opening the door. Note the importance of
the signifiers on the doors shown below.
6.1.8 MAPPINGS
Mappings work with our conceptual models; the use or operation of a

device should give us a desired effect. Mapping describes the relationship
between controls and their desired effect. For example, the steering wheel
of a car is turned to the right, and the car turns to the right. Based on our
experience, we consider “turning to the right” to mean the top of the wheel
is moved to the right. If we were to design a steering wheel where we
represented “right” as “the direction the bottom of the wheel indicates,”
we would probably turn left. Steering wheels are mapped such that the top
indicates which direction we expect the car to turn.
6.1.9 CONSTRAINTS
In this context, constraints refer to the device and the user. Constraints
limit the set of possible actions. Norman discusses four types of
constraints:
Physical constraints
Physical constraints limit actions that can be taken by making
them physically difficult or impossible. For example, if we need
to change batteries in a remote using AA batteries but only have
nine-volt batteries available, they will not fit; we cannot use them
for this purpose. Different parts of almost anything take different
hardware to assemble—as much as one might think the size of a
screw does not matter, many predrilled holes will prevent a user
from trying to use the wrong part.
Cultural constraints
Properly operating or using a device may be different from one
culture to the next, and the culture in which we use a device may
determine constraints on its use. Culturally, in the United States,
if we are approaching a doorway and see an oncoming group also
approaching the doorway, we instinctively move to the right. If
the oncoming group also moves to their right, then we each pass
through the doorway safely. Culturally, we expect this. In design,
we can see doorways with a set of doors featuring a push plate
only on the right-side doors to account for this cultural expecta-
tion. There is nothing preventing us from using the doors on the
left, but we have developed a cultural expectation.
Semantic constraints
Semantic constraints are those for which we understand features
based on the context or meaning of a situation. When we drive a
car, we sit forward. Could a driver sit facing the rear if a projection
system were used? Technically, we could drive a car this way; yet
the context of a person driving a car dictates that the driver face
forward.
Logical constraints
Logical constraints use reasoning to determine actions. Common
sense tells us the consequences of actions. Graying out invalid
options in a web interface is an example of logical constraints—
obviously, since this choice is grayed out, it is not available or
applicable.
6.2 DIETER RAMS’S 10 PRINCIPLES OF

“GOOD DESIGN”
Dieter Rams, chief design officer for the German company Braun from
1961 to 1995, developed 10 principles for good design, one of the most
widely cited lists in the study of design.
• Good design is innovative

• Good design makes a product useful
• Good design is aesthetic
• Good design makes a product understandable
• Good design is unobtrusive
• Good design is honest
• Good design is long lasting

• Good design is thorough down to the last detail
• Good design is environmentally friendly
• Good design is as little design as possible
6.3 GOOD DESIGN IS INNOVATIVE
Innovation is perhaps a cornerstone of design; without innovation, we do

not have a noteworthy design at all. Our design should generate something
new and unique in some way, or at a minimum, an improvement on tech-
nology already invented. Consider any device: the first time the device or
the technology was designed, the idea was an innovative one.
Designs allowing a user to listen to music serve as an excellent
example in innovation. Edison’s invention of the phonograph in 1877
allowed a user to capture and replay sound. Subsequent iterations on Edi-
son’s design abandoned the original tinfoil sheet in favor of a wax cylin-
der, improving both the quality and the durability of the recording. The
gramophone introduced the disc format, which eventually superseded
cylinders by the mid-1920s; around that same time the recording speed,
which previously ranged anywhere from 60 to 130 revolutions per min-
ute (rpm), standardized at 78 rpm. While this format proved successful
for popular music, the limit of approximately six minutes of play per
side for a 12-inch 78-rpm disc limited its appeal for works or sets of
longer length. For example, a recording of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony
by Arturo Toscanini and the NBC Symphony Orchestra required four
12-inch 78-rpm disks, with each movement requiring at least two sides of
a shellac disk. The necessary pause to flip the disk to its other side in the
midst of playing a movement was probably not what Beethoven intended
in the performance of his music. To help address the storage problem,
the LP (for long playing) record album, which rotated 33⅓ times a min-
ute, featured a vinyl medium containing a single, fine groove that greatly
extended playing time to 23 minutes per side. Introduced in 1948, the
LP quickly became a major platform for anyone to listen to prerecorded
music at their leisure. The 45, also introduced in 1948 and focused on the
single song, was popular from the 1950s through the 1970s. The smaller
vinyl record had one song on each side; the A-side typically had a pop-
ular song, while the B-side had a different song selected by the artist or
record label. Finally, mass-produced stereophonic disks made their first
appearance in 1958.
But what if you wanted to take your music with you? The eight-track
tape gave the listener the chance to listen to music on a portable player or
in the car. The music was recorded onto a continuous magnetic tape and,
as long as your eight-track player didn’t “eat” the tape, the music could
continue, repeating an entire album. The term “album” evolved from the
term for a physical vinyl disk to mean a collection of songs. However,
while there were plenty of eight-track players, there were few eight-track
recorders available to the general public. The cassette tape easily replaced
the eight-track, as the storage medium was smaller and many cassette
players were recorders as well, allowing users to custom “mix” their own
music. In 1979, the Sony Walkman took portability a step further with a
design that was small enough to be placed in a pocket or hung on the lis-
tener’s belt, bringing the concept of personal music into the mainstream.
With the introduction of compact disks or CDs, tapes and LPs quickly
fell out of favor with consumers. CDs were far more durable and offered
a platform that could hold more music. CDs store music digitally, based
on the recording process sampling analog music thousands of times per
second, and utilize simple error-correction encodings that help to avoid
the “pops” associated with scratches on a poorly cared-for LP disk. CDs
were easily played in the car and portable CD players were in every store.
Table 6.1. Music purchases by format

Album Cassette CD download
1983 44.6% 47.8% 0.5%
1988 8.5% 54.1% 33.4%
1993 29% 64.8%
1998 10% 83.3%
2003 1.7% 93.3%
2008 62.3% 30%
2013 30.4% 60%
Record albums remained popular with a crowd of music purists since

albums store data in an analog format, allowing music to be reproduced
exactly as played; however, tapes have pretty much disappeared from the
scene.
Each iteration in the technology used to listen to music was a tech-
nical innovation—a brand-new technology that had the capability to
change the way millions of people listened to music. Of course, while
these technologies remain, music is typically played through digital music
players such as the Apple iPod or through smartphones. Phones can hold
thousands of songs that users can listen to through headphones, through
speakers, or in cars.
Table 6.1 shows the progression of music through time in the context
of innovation through the years.
6.3.1 LACK OF INNOVATION?
In the 1980s, the Digital Audio Tape (DAT) was introduced. The cassette-
like tape offered the user the ability to record a digital copy of a song
(from a CD, for example) onto a tape, making an exact copy. However,
the product was never really accepted and did not make a dent in the way
consumers listened to music. It was introduced over the same time period
as CDs, but had the disadvantages of cassette tapes: CDs could jump from
one song to the next instantly while tapes had to spin forward or in reverse
to find the beginning of a song. CDs could shuffle songs and computers
(and a few CD recorders) offered consumers the chance to mix their music
and record their own CDs—no DAT needed. With no apparent advantage
to the everyday consumer and all of the disadvantages of soon-to-be obso-
lete cassettes, they were not innovative enough to capture market share.
6.4 GOOD DESIGN MAKES A PRODUCT USEFUL
A characteristic that may seem to be somewhat obvious, good design

should make something more useful rather than less useful. A product is
designed to be used: design should improve an existing product, or bring
a brand-new product into existence, and that product in turn should be
useful.
We can expand on the discussion of music to look at effective design
focusing on the “useful” dimension. Cell phones started out as large
phones connected to a battery pack. Their size decreased and, as phones
could fit into a pocket, we found the evolvement of flip phones and slider
phones. These phones were quite effective at making phone calls and
sending text messages.
As phones became more powerful, consumers wanted to use the
screen for more—to access the Internet, to read and send e-mail, to take
pictures and videos, and to store photos and music. New models of cell
phones are more rarely used for phone calls; instead, they come with more
powerful cameras, multicore processors, and faster network access. With
memory capacities that range from a “measly” 16 GB to high-end models
featuring 256 GB, phones can easily store hours upon hours of videos and
music. As phones continue to evolve, the advancements come more and
more in incorporating other features and making the device more useful.
6.5 GOOD DESIGN IS AESTHETIC
The aesthetic qualities of a design play an important role. There are cer-
tainly examples where aesthetic considerations are of minimal importance,
for example, if we are designing a component internal to another system.
However, most devices intended for consumer use strive to be aesthetically
pleasing to at least some extent. When visiting a store or considering a pur-

chase of a new device, stop to think of the role aesthetics play in the decision.
Cell phones, again, serve as an excellent illustration. When Samsung
introduced its Galaxy S8 model, a popular consumer rating website posted
a summary of its review: “The best-looking phone around crushes it in
performance…” Reviews for each new phone comment early on the look
and feel of the device, typically before any discussion of the functionality
of the phone.
Aesthetics can also play a role in the failure of a design. The Pontiac
Aztek is considered to be a failure in design. According to Edmunds, a
popular car review and assessment website, the 2001 Pontiac Aztek was
by consensus the worst car of all time. The car was considered to have a
strange look and shape. The rear window was large and angled such that it
needed (but didn’t have) a rear wiper. The appearance was “boxy” and like
a minivan from the 1990s, neither sleek nor sexy. Sales were well below
expectations as reviews mounted discussing the poor aesthetic design. As
with any automobile model, the Aztek has advocates; for example, the back
of the SUV can transform into a tent and can be used by outdoor enthusi-
asts, a feature that is definitely unique. Those who appreciate this feature
and other fans of the Aztek may argue that the Aztek is a beautiful design.
The relevant definition of “aesthetics” is “a particular individual’s set
of ideas about style and taste, along with its expression.” Aesthetics are
generally subjective by nature—designs that are presented as sleek, mod-
ern, or even sexy may look bland, odd, or even unattractive to another
user. Using aesthetics as a characteristic of good design illustrates the dif-
ficulty in establishing a nonsubjective definition for “good design.”
6.6 GOOD DESIGN MAKES A PRODUCT

UNDERSTANDABLE
Improving the ability to understand a device generally means an improve-

ment to the design. In many cases, this means the design should consider
the user’s intuition. The product should “make sense.”
The Nest automated thermostat

is an example. Programmable home
thermostats have been in homes for
decades. The Nest thermostat is a “smart
thermostat” that records user input and
“learns” to program itself based on a
user’s adjustments through the day and
the week. The display turns blue if the
house is being cooled and red if it is
being warmed. It also promotes energy
savings by displaying a small leaf sym-
bol. The user interface is a simple display of the desired temperature and
the occasional leaf. The device is considered to be successful based on ease
of use and understandable interface. The design seemingly paid off well
for the designers as Google purchased the company in 2014 for $3 billion.
Designs that are not understandable abound; from any device with a
huge instruction manual to devices with icons and labels that do not make
sense to the user, devices that are not understandable can suffer in lack of
sales or popularity. An example is the little-known Nokia N-Gage device,
which debuted in 2003. While the N-Gage could be touted as ahead of its
time as it attempted to merge the functionality of the phone and gaming
system, the interface ended up with a face covered with buttons that users
found confusing. While arguably innovative, it was difficult to understand,
and never caught on with users. Reviewers cited the confusing symbols on
many of the keys and a difficult learning curve.
6.7 GOOD DESIGN IS UNOBTRUSIVE
In many cases, products fulfill a purpose and deliver on performance while

not distracting the user. Designs do not necessarily need to be a work of
art. While they can be aesthetically pleasing, aesthetics should not detract
from their intended purpose.
An example of an aesthetically pleasing yet unobtrusive
design is the bladeless fan, such as those marketed by Dyson.
These fan models boast improved air flow over regu-
lar fans with visible blades, and once users move beyond the
curious reaction (wondering “where are the blades?”), the fan
exists, creates air flow, and doesn’t distract. These fans are
good examples of design that is both unobtrusive and aesthetic.
An example of a design that was somewhat obtrusive is
the green packaging used in SunChips, considered in gen-
eral to be innovative. Frito-Lay introduced the new polylac-
tic acid–based packaging as a green packaging alternative
since it was said to dissolve in an ordinary landfill in around
three months. However, the new bag was exceptionally loud
and was often mocked by the general public—the intended user. The bag
produced 95 decibels of sound as it opened; according to the National
Institutes of Health, long or repeated exposure to 85 decibels can cause
hearing loss. Fortunately, most users didn’t experience “long or repeated
exposure,” but repeated complaints from consumers led to Frito-Lay drop-
ping the eco-friendly packaging and bringing back the original packaging
while they work to develop an eco-friendly bag that is not quite so loud.
6.8 GOOD DESIGN IS HONEST
Good design should not result in claims that are deceptive to the con-
sumer. The design should be an honest representation of exactly what
it is supposed to be. While advertising and marketing may play a role,
an honest design is more than a product that is not misrepresented. Fea-
tures of the product should do what the user believes they should do. If
the product is an audio player and a slider or knob is on the front panel,
especially if labeled by an image of a musical note, the user can assume
that this will adjust the volume—and it should. Sometimes the claims are
entirely visual. The following photo is from the graphic equalizer interface
of a compact stereo system manufactured in the early 1990s, owned by
one of the authors. Seeing a pair of sliders for each frequency, one would
assume that the balance for the right and left channels can be adjusted to
either boost or cut each channel separately. In this case, it would be a false
assumption, as the design visually misleads the consumer, including the
author, into believing that the controls are separate when in fact it is imple-
mented with a single slider having dual parallel protrusions.
One more example that clearly demonstrates dishonesty in design is

the Volkswagen diesel automobile. These cars were certainly marketed
as high efficiency and eco-friendly; however, dishonest marketing alone
does not necessarily mean a lack of honestly in the design. As we noted
previously, these cars were intentionally designed to run differently if sen-
sors indicated that the motor was in an inspection. If the vehicle was being
inspected, the car would run and emit exhaust within the specified pollu-
tion range. When the cars were being driven, the engine would emit more
exhaust to boost performance, and operate well outside of an acceptable
level. The design itself was not honest.
The Volkswagen example is clear; however, an
honest design implies more than a lack of blatant
dishonesty. A device that is claimed to be able to
or implies that it can perform a function should be
able to perform that function. Many of our previ-
ous examples show honesty in design: when a user
turns up the Nest thermostat, the temperature goes
up as expected. The bladeless fan can be adjusted
for variations in air speed; when it is turned up, the
speed increases—as expected.
Finally, consider pedometers. When these
devices were introduced, they had an electromechanical design where a
mechanical action would be jarring enough to register a step. The counts
were somewhat accurate, although it was possible to fool the device into
thinking you were walking. As sensors evolved and specific higher-tech
pedometers from manufacturers such as Fitbit were introduced, the impli-
cation was that the device would count steps—and these devices delivered.
6.9 GOOD DESIGN IS LONG LASTING
In the world of engineering, this characteristic seems obvious: our device

should last a long time. This implies a level of durability, a level of
solid construction. There is more to the claim of long-lasting, however,
d epending on what we are designing. Consider graphic design and interior

design. In these cases, the bright, flashy colors and wild animations in a
graphic design or the beautiful pink shag carpeting and wood paneling
that were “in” a short while ago (well, maybe not such a short while for
that shag carpet) could mean that, although our program, app, or living
space designs are fully functional, they are no longer in style and therefore
perhaps not as long lasting as we intended. The design should not merely
address a current fad; it is more valuable if it can be considered timeless.
We can see many examples of long-lasting design—bridges that per-
haps have exceeded their planned life, buildings that have been intact for
decades, yet still are fully functional and aesthetically pleasing.
The design of the internal combustion engine is one that is certainly
long lasting; although it has been tweaked and modified through the years,
the basic concept continues to be used.
In some cases, we may not be able to predict the lifespan of a design.
Consider our smart watch: if we design the ultimate watch and market
it with fanfare, yet our competitor designs a better, thinner, faster, and
more powerful watch, our best intentions will not be enough and our
design may not live a long, healthy life. We can intentionally strive for
a long-lasting design by incorporating internal components designed
for a long life, by anticipating a need for expansion in the future, or by
making our device such that it can be modified in the future. Desktop
computers with multiple expansion slots would be designed to anticipate
the needs of users in the future in an attempt to be more long lasting than
a competitor’s design.
6.9.1 INTERNET-BASED DESIGN
The Internet is an interesting platform for which we can consider effective

design and a terrific example that “long-lasting” depends on the design
itself. From the Internet’s earliest days, webpages were designed using
HTML (hypertext markup language); you might recognize this extension
at the end of most web addresses or URLs (uniform resource locator).
Pages still feature HTML code, but as webpages become more interac-
tive and the platform on which pages are viewed changes, the character-
istics of a long-lasting web design are changing as well. Websites such as
Facebook have traditionally adapted their interfaces to remain long lasting
and relatively unobtrusive: the interface itself becomes less noticeable,
allowing the content to capture the attention of the customer. Pages that
were designed just five years ago can look very outdated: a website with a
form to submit information to a place of business now must have security
encryption, may not be able to auto-complete some information, may not
look attractive and usable on a mobile device, and may have dead links
(links that lead to pages that are missing). Internet users would see this site
as antiquated, even though it is just a few years old.
6.10 GOOD DESIGN IS THOROUGH DOWN TO

THE LAST DETAIL
A product that reaches the customer who finds a crucial detail lacking is
probably doomed to failure. A good design team gives full attention and
appreciation not only to each stage in the design process, but also to the
phases in the product life cycle. If we consider our Conceptualization and
Definition phases, we see that our team must completely define our cri-
teria and have a full appreciation for our constraints. Further, we have an
opportunity to revisit each of our criteria in our Definition stage to ensure
that we have covered all loose ends and anticipated anything that our users
may need or expect.
Consideration of your design
down to the last detail can be seen
in designs of higher-end backpacks
intended for hiking or camping.
Certainly, backpacks are plentiful
and prices can vary widely. What
makes a backpack design excellent?
A thorough consideration of needs
of a hiker or camper might mean a desire for multiple pockets, perhaps

separations for wet clothing versus food. Many backpacks come with a
water bladder to store drinking water around other gear. A strap specifi-
cally to secure hiking poles is appreciated by one of the authors. Overall,
when a hiker purchases a backpack, the hope is that the designer antici-
pated each need: if many purchasers find themselves saying mid-hike that
“I sure wish this backpack had a ___,” it means that the design could have
been better.
An example of a product that did not
reach its full potential is the Microsoft Zune
MP3 player. It was launched to derail the line
of Apple iPod MP3 players, yet it never saw
more than a single-digit market share. The
Zune was at least equal in performance to the
iPods at the time, but as a number of reviewers
noted, “It isn’t better than an iPod.” One inter-
esting aspect in the design was intentional,
yet worked against Microsoft. Apple products
required users to download and use iTunes, a
then-new, Apple-only interface, while the Zune
did not. This was thought to be an advantage,
yet the market domination of the iPod meant
that the public had accepted iTunes as unobtru-
sive, not as a barrier. Furthermore, as products
using iTunes continued to dominate the market, app developers developed
popular apps that were only available through the iTunes interface. Part of
the failure of the Zune can be attributed to the failure of anticipating the
needs of the consumer down to the last detail.
6.11 GOOD DESIGN IS ENVIRONMENTALLY

FRIENDLY
Good design should ideally leave the environment in a better condition

than before it was designed; however, at the very least, it should not con-
tribute toward damaging the environment. Ideally, good design would
benefit the environment in some way. We explored this concept as we
went through the Decline and Discontinuance phases of the product life
cycle. Good design considers the end of the product’s life. When consid-
ering the effect on the environment, we should also consider the manufac-
turing processes and their effect on the environment.
There are many examples of innovation in design to protect the envi-

ronment, such as replacing Styrofoam packing peanuts with peanuts made
from corn starch. Styrofoam peanuts can survive in landfills or in the
ocean for decades, while cornstarch-based peanuts will dissolve in water.
They are also slightly heavier, so there is a trade-off in the weight and in
shipping costs.
Cotton or fiber shopping bags are a successful alternative to plastic
bags, although they require a shopper to carry them to the store. Recharge-
able batteries are an eco-friendly alternative to disposable batteries.
Home lighting has seen a
transformation over the past
decade. The incandescent bulb, a
staple in homes for decades, has
started to be phased out. The U.S.
Congress passed a law banning the
manufacture of most incandescent
bulbs in 2007. The bulbs were not
themselves banned, but it would be
much more difficult to buy and use them. The compact fluorescent light
bulb (CFL) quickly appeared on store shelves. A 60-watt incandescent
light bulb could be replaced with a CFL bulb that used only a fraction of
its energy, 14 watts. The economic choice is clear; however, some con-
troversy over the mercury used in CFL bulbs has meant that their use
has diminished in favor of light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The increased
demand for nonincandescent bulbs has meant price drops to the point
where all three technologies are comparable, especially if the lifespan of
the bulb is taken into consideration. An LED bulb uses only 10 watts (com-
pared to the 60-watt incandescent and 14-watt CFL) and has a suggested
lifespan of 8 to 20 years. The technology is fundamentally different; CFL
bulbs do not perform well in cold weather conditions, so external lighting
can be tricky. LED bulbs see a drastic drop in their expected lifespan if
used internally with little to no air circulation.
Certainly, many design teams do not take the environmental aspect
of their products into account as much as they could. Electronic circuit
board manufacturing, for example, creates chemical waste in many steps
of the process. Almost every electronic device contains one or more circuit
boards; a typical circuit board begins as a sheet of epoxy mixed with fiber-
glass (a glass-epoxy board) covered with a thin layer of copper. A process
that is similar to developing film is used to deposit a protective sheet on
the copper to remain on the board, and the unwanted copper is chemically
removed from the board. Later in the process, solder mask (the material
on a circuit board that typically makes it green) is applied over the whole
board and the unwanted material is etched away chemically. The process
creates quite a bit of toxic waste that must be processed. What if an addi-
tive process was used—where we added copper and solder masks only
where we wanted them? This is possible, but the process is significantly
slower and more expensive. Further, although the production does create
waste, it is a process that may be viewed not as much environmentally
unfriendly, but as a typical process.
6.12 GOOD DESIGN IS AS LITTLE DESIGN AS

POSSIBLE
A successful design should focus on the essential aspects of the design;

nonessentials of the design can detract from the design effort. Features
that are added to a design should serve an explicit function. This principle
does not say that devices should be bland and overly simplistic; it says that
the features should serve a purpose; they should not be added simply to
make a design more complex.
Apple products, as well as the Microsoft Zune, are excellent exam-
ples. The Zune and the iPod play music, and newer iPods and iPhones play
videos. The interface is simple: a single button or scroll wheel and touch-
screen controls. Modern flat-panel televisions are also a great example.
Designers strive to keep the screen in a small, sleek case, maximizing the
desired function: watching the screen. Controls are on the remote as well
as hidden on the side or bottom of the screen.
Website design also serves as an illustration. In the earliest days of
social media, MySpace was a popular medium: it allowed the user to show
their personality. MySpace was founded in 2003 and by 2008, the site saw
over 75 million unique visits per month, surpassing Google. However,
in April 2008 Facebook surpassed MySpace for the first time. By 2015,
MySpace saw about 50 million users per month compared to Facebook’s
1.44 billion users. Although MySpace was the platform that introduced
people to social media, their interface design became overly complex.
Users first had to set up a pseudonym, perhaps to protect their real iden-
tity, or perhaps just because it was a “cool” idea. Users posted pictures
and “favorites.” The site added the ability to find other people, arguably
the real purpose of Facebook today. MySpace allowed users to customize
the look and feel of their site, but users really needed to either find or write
HTML code in order to do so. They launched a “top eight friends” fea-
ture—which meant that friends could see where they “ranked” with other
friends, perhaps not in their top eight. MySpace also added marketing,
music, and games, but they insisted on developing their own applications
rather than allowing third-party developers to add content.
The interface for Facebook started simplistically: add basic infor-
mation about yourself, allow old friends to find you, and post statuses
on your new job or what you had for dinner. The flow of information
was sometimes trivial, but it was easy to scroll through. In the early days
of Facebook, developers could create games like Farmville and Candy
Crush, which became overnight sensations. The simplicity of Facebook’s
interface is still important: attempts by Facebook to “add value,” like fil-
tering stories and identifying your “top stories,” are met with an outcry
from users who say, “Don’t fix it if it’s not broken!”
Twitter emerged on the scene in 2006; in 2008, over 100 million
tweets were sent. By 2009, it was the third-most used social media site.
By 2013, over 400 million tweets were sent per day, and most were sent
from a mobile device. The simplicity of the interface and brief messages
limited to 140 characters made the site easy to use. The site is also consid-
ered mobile friendly as more customers go to mobile devices.
The Nokia N-Gage is an excellent example of a device that suf-
fered from what could be termed overdesign. Functions were added that
obstructed the intended purpose and created a confusing interface.
6.13 AN EXAMPLE: THE WII U GAME CONSOLE
Let’s examine a design that had some measure of success, but in the end
did not perform to the expectations of the developers. In 2011, Nintendo
announced a new video game console system that would have a screen built
into the controller. The Wii U emerged in the video game console world
in 2012. The Wii system was successful: the system was different, with
easy-to-understand controllers and a suite of games for novice to advanced
gamers. The Wii U shared the name of its predecessor, but was quite a dif-
ferent system. Let’s apply Rams’s principles of good design to this system:
• Good Design Is Innovative
The Wii U was considered an innovative design with a significant

addition of screens on each controller. This promised gameplay on the
controller itself as well as on the television. The system did support HD
graphics but not 3D television sets. The games introduced at the time of
the hardware introduction did not impress the gaming community: while
there was a Super Mario game introduced, the number of titles was fewer
than typical game system launches.
• Good Design Makes a Product Useful
“Usefulness” is a term still somewhat undefined in video game con-

soles in the late 2000s/early 2010s. Designers included new features with
each release that were certainly innovative, but not quite understood at the
time of their release. The Wii U had some features that made it useful: the
controllers allowed multiple interfaces into the game being played, but
suffered with battery life of about 3.5 hours (not long enough for some
serious gamers). The system was backward compatible; in other words, it
would play games designed for many older Nintendo systems.
• Good Design Is Aesthetic
The aesthetics of any game system is debatable in the gaming com-

munity, with many users making impassioned arguments for the aesthetics
or lack thereof. The Wii U was considered in most reviews to be a sleek
and attractive system.
• Good Design Makes A Product Understandable

The Wii U had an interface that was decidedly different from that
of other consoles. The Wii had a controller unlike any other system; it
was motion sensitive and had one main button. The simplistic design was
easily understandable. The Wii U also had a brand-new controller design;
however, it was far less intuitively obvious. There were two different
controller styles: the Wii Pro (no screen) and the Wii Gamepad control-
ler. Two very different controller styles did not help the system be more
understandable.
• Good Design Is Unobtrusive
Ideally, the system itself blends into the background and the gameplay
takes the attention of the users. The attention to the Gamepad controller
versus the main screen was sometimes seen as a distraction, and brought
the focus of the gamer back to the system itself. While the controllers
were innovative, there was debate on their usefulness in gameplay. One
review said, “Wii U may have shared a name with its predecessor, but in
many respects it was the anti-Wii; whereas the universal appeal of Wii was
easily explained the moment you saw someone whack a tennis ball, Wii U
was the most complicated game pitch ever.”
• Good Design Is Honest
Honesty in the gaming console industry is crucial. Product feature

leaks prior to the introduction of a new system drive the consumer desire.
Rumors (sometimes carefully leaked by the developers) can build a
demand that will exceed supply upon the product launch. In the case of the
Wii U, the launch came with fewer titles than anticipated. The hardware
was previewed in 2011; after the preview, Nintendo stock dropped. The
launch saw lower sales than projected; Nintendo sold about 425,000 units
in the United States in the first month of release compared to 1.25 million
units of the Wii U.
Initial reviews cited the system as lacking focus and a system that,
while technologically strong, featured a number of missteps. In gaming
systems, “honesty” can be defined as advanced and innovative in hard-
ware with a suite of games designed specifically to take advantage of the
new features; the Wii U arguably failed to meet these criteria.
• Good Design Is Long Lasting
Long-lasting is another term that may not quite be defined for the
game console market. Systems are replaced by a next generation every
few years. The next-generation systems are typically vastly superior to the
prior systems (at least, they are marketed as such). The Wii U was phased
out in early 2017, a short life for any major system.
• Good Design Is Thorough Down to the Last Detail
In the gaming console world, sufficient game availability is crucial.

When the Wii U was introduced, the library was smaller than anticipated
and game developers were slow to embrace the new technology. Games
that were available sometimes did not fully embrace the dual-screen capa-
bility; this means that, just as consumers accepted the use of the screen on
the controller, a game would be released that simply didn’t need the other
screen. The detail—an available suite of new, innovative games—was
overlooked to an extent.
• Good Design Is Environmentally Friendly
In this category, the Wii U is fairly standard among consoles. All are
electronic components in a metal and plastic case. All can eventually be
recycled (although there is controversy on whether this recycling is more
damaging to the environment).
• Good Design Is as Little Design as Possible
This may be the most clearly violated design rule: the design was
complex and the designers appear to have tried to design for a variety
of audiences rather than targeting a user. In his 2016 “farewell” article,
Chris Kohler wrote that “In trying to please too many groups, the Wii U
ended up as a machine for nobody, and that’s who it sold to: at less than
14 million units, Wii U is the company’s lowest-selling game console, and
it’s not even a close race.” The Wii was seen as a revolutionary straight-
forward design; the Wii U was quite the opposite.
Does this mean the Wii U was an unpresented failure? Not necessar-
ily. Fourteen million units were sold, and many customers would consider
the Wii U their favorite system. However, the reception surely would have
been more positive by following guides to better design.
6.14 SUMMARY
Perhaps we can revisit Georgia O’Keeffe’s quote from the beginning of

the chapter, but reconsider it framed by “design”:
“I don’t know what design is but I know some things it isn’t when
I see them.”
We have examined a number of designs considered to be successful,

and others considered to be failures—in some cases, abject, spectacular
failures. However, even in those designs considered to be failures, we can
find good qualities. It is difficult to imagine a perfect design, and equally
difficult to imagine a design that fails in every aspect. There are fans of
the Wii U and the Pontiac Aztek, and there are people who find the latest
version of the iPhone undesirable.
We have explored design constraints and criteria by which to judge
successful designs. By definition, a good design is one that meets all
defined constraints and best meets the criteria used to define a success-
ful design. Thanks to notable designers such as Don Norman and Dieter
Rams, we have characteristics that may help us define why we consider
some designs to be more artistic, innovative, or creative than others.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carlsen, J. 2017. “Nest Learning Thermostat 3rd Generation Review.” Top10

Reviews, http://toptenreviews.com/home/smart-home/best-programmable-
thermostats/nest-review/ (accessed April 2017).
“Digital Audio Tapes 2017.” Museum of Obsolete Media, http://obsoletemedia.
org/digital-audio-tape/ (accessed March 2017).
Discogs 2017. “Ludwig Van Beethoven—Toscanini—Fifth Symphony.”
https://discogs.com/Ludwig-Van-Beethoven-Toscanini-Fifth-Symphony/
release/2819557 (accessed May 2017).
Domingo, M.G. 2017. “Dieter Rams: 10 Timeless Commandments for Good
Design.” Interaction Design Foundation, https://interaction-design.org/
literature/article/dieter-rams-10-timeless-commandments-for-good-design
(accessed May 2017).
Dredge, S. 2015. “MySpace—What Went Wrong: ‘The Site was a Massive
Spaghetti-ball Mess.’” The Guardian, March 6.
“Dyson Bladeless Fans 2017” Dyson, http://dyson.com/air-treatment/cooling-fans.
aspx (accessed April 2017)
Estes, A.C. 2017. “10 Iconic Dieter Rams Designs From a Store that Sells His
Classics,” Gizmondo, http://gizmodo.com/10-iconic-dieter-rams-designs-
from-a-store-that-sells-h-1045228746 (accessed April 2017).
“Iomega Zip 2017” Museum of Obsolete Media, http://obsoletemedia.org/iome-
ga-zip/ (accessed March 2017).
Jary, S. 2017. “The Best Fitbit for 2017.” TechAdvisor, April 26.
Keane, J. 2017. “Before Mobile Gaming Exploded, There Was the Nokia N-Gage.”
Paste, https://pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/12/before-the-mobile-gam-
ing-explosion-there-was-the-n.html (accessed March 2017).
Kim, J. 2017. “Zune Review.” CNet, https://cnet.com/products/zune/review/
(accessed April 2017).
Kohler, C. 2016. “A Farewell to Wii U, the Game System for Nobody.” WIRED,
December 22.
Lutz, B. 2014. “How Bad Cars Happen: The Pontiac Aztek Debacle.” Road and
Track, October 10.
Manjoo, F. 2012. “The Flop that Saved Microsoft.” Slate, October 26.
Mui, C. 2011. “Why Facebook Beat MySpace, and Why MySpace’s Revised
Strategy will Probably Fail.” Forbes, January 12.
Norman, D. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition.
New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
O’Reilly, L. 2011. “Four Reasons Why MySpace Failed to Retain the Social
Network Crown.” Marketing Week, January 12.
“Pontiac Aztek gets Top Honors as the Worst Vehicle Ever Sold 2012.” Los
Angeles Times, February 19.
“Pontiac Aztek Review 2017.” Edmunds, https://edmunds.com/pontiac/aztek/
(accessed March 2017).
Popova, M. 2017. “Georgia O’Keeffe on Art, Life, and Setting Priorities.” Brain-
Pickings, https://brainpickings.org/2014/09/17/georgia-o-keeffe-letters-anita-
pollitzer/ (accessed March 2017).
RockNYC 2017. “Posts Categorized: Music Business.” http://rocknycliveandre-
corded.com/category/music-business (accessed January 2017).
Rosenfield, K. 2012. “Dieter Rams 10 Principles of ‘Good Design.’” Arch-
Daily, January 9, http://archdaily.com/198583/dieter-rams-10-principles-of-
%25e2%2580%259cgood-design%25e2%2580%259d
Russo, K. 2010. “Frito Lay to Scrap Loud SunChips Bag.” ABC News, October 5.
Sarrel, M.D. 2003. “Nokia N-Gage.” PC Magazine, October 8.
Scott, D. 2017. “The 50 Worst Fails in Tech History.” Complex, http://complex.
com/pop-culture/2011/04/the-50-worst-fails-in-tech-history/nokia-n-gage
(accessed March 2017).
Stuart, K. 2017. “RIP Wii U: Nintendo’s Glorious, Quirky Failure.” The Guardian,
February 3.
“SunChips Bag: Louder than a NYC Subway 2010.” CBS News, October 5.
Wollerton, M. 2017. “Nest Learning Thermostat (2015) Review.” CNet, https://
cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/ (accessed
March 2017).
Index
A Complex Adaptive Systems of

Aesthetics, 88–89 Systems (CASoS) engineering
Affordances, 82 process, 31
Conceptual model, 82
B Constraints, 43, 45
Brainstorming technique, 37 ABET Criterion 3, 71–72
Bridge design best design, 78
communicating results, 42–43 bridge design
constraints, 73 aesthetics, 76–77
aesthetics, 76–77 cost, 77
cost, 77 criteria, 76
criteria, 76 economic constraints, 73
economic constraints, 73 type of bridge, 76
type of bridge, 76 zoning and regulatory
zoning and regulatory requirements, 73
requirements, 73 cardboard robot arm, 74
evaluation metrics, 45 decision matrix, 77
functionality, 39–40 material constraint, 74, 77
guidelines, 45 car purchase criteria, 75
product life cycle Constraint-Source Model, 72
definition, 58 minivan purchase criteria, 75
design conceptualization, 57 particle-transporter system, 70
feasibility, 57–58 realistic constraints, 69
product value, 57 requirements and specifications,
requirements, 39, 45 74
specifications, 39, 46 smart watch example, 70
test and evaluate phase, 41 Constraint-Source Model (CSM),
Business-driven constraints, 72 72
Criteria, 45
C bridge design, 76
Compact fluorescent light bulb car purchase criteria, 75, 76
(CFL), 96 minivan purchase criteria, 76
108 • Index
robot arm, 77 cars, 14–15

Cultural constraints, 84 concept generation, 23
Cultural norms concept selection, 23
conditioned behaviors, 9 engineering analysis, 23
disastrous consequences, 7 impact analysis, 23
folkway, 7, 8 iPhone 6, 13
laws and taboos, 7–9 new and innovative materials, 15
mores, 7 problem definition and
QWERTY layout, 9 clarification, 23
Customer-driven constraints, 72 recommendations, 23
and Scientific Method
D criteria and constraints, 17–18
Decision matrix multiple acceptable solutions,
criterion, 47 16
design possibilities, 47 PlayPump design, 18–22
smart watch product life cycle, 16–17
aesthetics, 47 project management
best design, 50 framework, 17
equations, 48–49 Engineering design process
points for price, 49 brainstorming technique, 37
potential smart watch designs, bridge design
48 communicating results, 42–43
price, 47 evaluation metrics, 45
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth range, 47 functionality, 39–40
Design guidelines, 45
bathing tub design, 2 problem-definition stage, 34
bed design, 2 requirements, 45
clothing, 2–3 specifications, 39, 46
cultural norms, 6–9 supplier needs, 28
definition, 1, 10 CASoS engineering process, 31,
dinner, 3 44
engineer’s definition, 3–4 classroom activities, 27–28
human needs, 4 elements, 32–33
lamp, 3 high-stakes engineering design,
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, 28
4–6 Ohio Northern University
toilet design, 2 projects, 31, 44
transportation, 3 problem-definition stage, 29, 34
Dieter Rams’s principles, 84–85 robot arm and paper tower
Discoverability, 81 communicating results, 43
functionality, 39–40
E problem-definition stage, 34
Economic constraints, 71 specifications and
Engineering design requirements, 39
billboard implemention, 24–25 test and evaluate phase, 41
Index • 109
salient characteristics, 29 Facebook, 98

and Scientific Method, 46–47 feedback, 81
smart watch design honesty, 91–92
alternative designs, 38 human-centered design, 80
assumptions, 35 innovation, 85–87
“best” design, 38–39 internet-based design, 94
brainstorming, 38 long lasting design, 92–93
communicating, 42 mappings, 83
constraints, 35 MySpace, 97–98
decision matrix, 47–50 Nokia N-Gage, 98
evaluation metrics/criteria, Norman’s seven fundamental
35–36 principles, 80–81
functionality, 39–40 obtrusive design, 90–91
question defining, 34 signifiers, 82–83
research, 36–37 Twitter, 98
specifications and understandable product, 89–90
requirements, 39 useful product, 88
test and evaluate phase, Wii U game, 98–101
40–41 Guidelines, 45
VEX Robotics documentation,
29–30, 44 H
Virginia Tech University Health and safety constraints, 72
projects, 31–32, 44 High-stakes engineering design, 28
Environmental constraints, 71 Human-centered design, 80
Environmentally friendly design,
95–97 I
Esteem, 5 Internet-based design, 94
Ethical constraints, 71
Evaluation metrics, 45 L
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs), 96
F Logical constraints, 84
Facebook, 98 Long lasting design, 92–93
G M
Gasoline-powered car, 15 Manufacturability constraints, 72
Good design Manufacturing process for
aesthetics, 88–89 electronics
affordances, 82 circuit board, 59–60
Apple products, 97 customer specifications, 60
conceptual model, 82 surface-mount resistor, 59
constraints, 83–84 through-hole resistor, 59
crucial detail lacking, 94–95 Mappings, 83
Dieter Rams’s principles, 84–85 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
discoverability, 81 esteem, 5
environmentally friendly, 95–97 physiological needs, 4–5
110 • Index
safety-related needs, 5 lifetime guarantee, 63–64

self-actualization, 5–6 price adjustments, 63
Minivan purchase criteria, 75 repair and maintenance, 63
MySpace, 97–98 introduction stage, 62
management, 55
N maturity phase, 65
National Society of Professional product marketing, 62
Engineers (NSPE), 64 product value, 56–57
Nest automated thermostat, 90 Six Sigma manufacturing, 60–61
Nokia N-Gage, 98 videocassette recorder, 54
Norman’s seven fundamental
principles, 80–81 Q
QWERTY layout, 9
O
Ohio Northern University projects, R
31, 44 Requirements, 45, 74
Robot arm design
P communicating results, 43
Physical constraints, 83 decision matrix, 77
Physiological needs, 4–5 functionality, 39–40
PlayPump design material constraint, 74, 77
customer needs, 21 specifications and requirements, 39
funding, 19 test and evaluate phase, 41
groundwater supply, 20
principles, 21–22 S
remote villages, 20–21 Safety-related needs, 5
tank, 19 Scientific Method
wind-mill-driven water pump, 18 engineering design, 16–22
Political constraints, 71 process of discovery, 46
Product life cycle Self-actualization needs, 5–6
decline phase, 66–67 Semantic constraints, 84
design conceptualization Signifiers, 82–83
definition, 58 6-3-5 method, 37
feasibility, 57–58 Six Sigma manufacturing, 60–61
implementation, 58–60 Smart watch design
market needs, 57 alternative designs, 38
product marketing, 62 assumptions, 35
Six Sigma manufacturing, “best” design, 38–39
60–61 brainstorming, 38
eventual discontinuance, 66–67 communicating, 42
examples, 54–55 constraints, 35, 70
growth period decision matrix
clean air requirements, 64–65 aesthetics, 47
ethical standards, 64 best design, 50
Index • 111
equations, 48–49 Specifications, 45, 74

points for price, 49 Styrofoam peanuts, 96
potential smart watch designs, Sustainability constraints, 72
48
price, 47 T
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth range, 47 Technically-driven constraints, 72
evaluation metrics/criteria,
35–36 V
functionality, 39–40 Virginia Tech University projects,
product life cycle 31–32, 44
definition, 58
design conceptualization, 57 W
feasibility, 57–58 Wii U game
manufacturing process, aesthetics, 99
59–60 controller, 99
product value, 57 environmentally friendly, 101
question defining, 34 honesty, 100
research, 36–37 innovative design, 98
specifications and requirements, next-generation systems, 100
39 sufficient game availability,
test and evaluate phase, 40–41 100–101
Social constraints, 71 unobtrusive design, 100
Society-driven constraints, 72 usefulness, 99
About the Authors
Kenneth J. Reid is the Assistant Department Head for Undergraduate

Programs in Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. He was the seventh
in the nation to earn a PhD in Engineering Education (2009). He previ-
ously earned his MS in Electrical Engineering from Rose-Hulman Insti-
tute of Technology and BS in Computer and Electrical Engineering from
Purdue. He and his coauthors were awarded the William Elgin Wickenden
award for 2014, recognizing the best paper in the Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, and the best paper award for the Educational Research
and Methods (ERM) Division of ASEE in 2014. He was awarded an
IEEE-USA Professional Achievement Award in 2013 for designing the
nation’s first BS degree in Engineering Education and was named NETI
Faculty Fellow for 2013–2014. The Tsunami Model Eliciting Activity, co-
designed by Reid and implemented in an Indianapolis area middle school,
was named the Middle School Curriculum of the Year for 2009 by the
Engineering Education Service Center. He has received multiple teaching
awards, including the Outstanding Teaching Award for the IL/IN section
of ASEE. He is active in engineering within K-12, serving on the Technol-
ogy Student Association (TSA) Board of Directors. His research interests
include success in first-year engineering, engineering in K-12, entrepre-
neurship within engineering, and international service and engineering.
He has written texts in Engineering, Digital Electronics, and Mathemat-
ics and has taken multiple teams of students to the Dominican Republic
through Solid Rock International.
John K. Estell is Professor of Computer Engineering and Computer Sci-

ence at Ohio Northern University, providing instruction primarily in the
areas of introductory computer programming and first-year engineering.
He has been on the faculty of the Electrical & Computer Engineering and
Computer Science Department since 2001, and served as department chair
from 2001 to 2010. He received his BS in Computer S cience and Engineer-
ing degree from The University of Toledo and the MS and PhD degrees in
Computer Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Dr. Estell is a Fellow of ASEE, a Senior Member of IEEE, and a member of
ACM, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Phi Kappa Phi, and Upsilon Pi Epsilon.
106 • About the Authors
Dr. Estell is active in the assessment community with his work in

streamlining and standardizing the outcomes assessment process, and has
been an invited presenter at the ABET Symposium. He is also active within
the engineering education community, having served ASEE as an officer
in the Computers in Education and First-Year Programs Divisions; he and
his coauthors have received six Best Paper Awards from the Computers in
Education, Design in Engineering, and First-Year Programs Divisions of
ASEE. His current research includes examining the nature of constraints
in engineering design and providing service learning opportunities for
first-year programming students through various K-12 educational activ-
ities. Dr. Estell is a Member-at-Large of the Executive Committee for the
Computing Accreditation Commission of ABET, and also serves as a pro-
gram evaluator for the Engineering Accreditation Commission. He is also
a founding member and serves as Vice President of The Pledge of the
Computing Professional, an organization dedicated to the promotion of
ethics in the computing professions through a standardized rite-of-passage
ceremony.
OTHER TITLES IN OUR GENERAL ENGINEERING AND
K-12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION COLLECTION
John K. Estell, Ohio Northern University and Kenneth J. Reid, Virginia Tech, Editor
Lean Engineering Education: Driving Content and Competency Mastery

by Shannon Flumerfelt, Franz-Josef Kahlen, Anabela Alves,
and Anna Bella Siriban-Manalang
Sustainable Engineering
by Kaufui Vincent Wong
Introductory Engineering Mathematics

by David Reeping and Kenneth Reid
Cracking the Code: How to Get Women and Minorities into

STEM Disciplines and Why We Must
by Lisa M. MacLean
Momentum Press is one of the leading book publishers in the field of engineering,
mathematics, health, and applied sciences. Momentum Press offers over 30 collections,
including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil, Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical,
and many others.
Momentum Press is actively seeking collection editors as well as authors. For more
information about becoming an MP author or collection editor, please visit
http://www.momentumpress.net/contact
Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering top-
ics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers, faculty,
and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content in sensors
and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and materials science.
Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:
• perpetual access for a one-time fee

• no subscriptions or access fees required
• unlimited concurrent usage permitted
• downloadable PDFs provided
• free MARC records included
• free trials
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future years.
For more information, please visit www.momentumpress.net/library or to set up a trial in the US,
please contact mpsales@globalepress.com.
EBOOKS Engineering Design and the Product
REID • ESTELL
FOR THE Life Cycle GENERAL ENGINEERING AND K-12
ENGINEERING Relating Customer Needs, Societal ENGINEERING EDUCATION COLLECTION
LIBRARY Values, Business Acumen, and Technical John K. Estell and Kenneth J. Reid, Editors
Create your own Fundamentals
Customized Content
Kenneth J. Reid • John K. Estell
Bundle—the more
books you buy, Design, within the context of engineering, is a term that is sometimes
the greater your
discount!
difficult to define. Design can be innovative, impressive, and earth
shattering, but it can also be observed in the building of simple devices
using everyday materials in a classroom environment. This text e
xamines
Engineering Design
and the Product
the concept of design, where success means that the designers fulfilled
THE CONTENT the established requirements, stayed within the specified constraints,
• Manufacturing and met the evaluation criteria as optimally as possible.
Life Cycle
Engineering Design and the Product Life Cycle

Engineering
Along the way, the reader will walk through an example design
• Mechanical
process (no, there is not a single, universally accepted design process)
& Chemical that presents relevant terminology and will examine design in a broader
Engineering
Relating Customer Needs,
context through means of the product life cycle, where a product is
• Materials Science followed from its initial definition to the end of its life. Finally, the text
& Engineering attempts to answer the question of what is good design by exploring
• Civil &
Environmental
some of the fundamental principles associated with design.
Societal Values, Business
Acumen, and Technical
Engineering Kenneth J. Reid is assistant department head for undergraduate
• Advanced Energy programs, engineering education, Virginia Tech. He earned his PhD
in engineering education in 2009. Among other awards, he and his
Technologies
THE TERMS
coauthors were awarded the Wickenden award (2014), best paper

award for the E
ducational Research and Methods Division of ASEE
Fundamentals
(2014) and IEEE-USA Professional Achievement Award (2013) for
• Perpetual access for designing the n
ation’s first BS degree in engineering education. He is
a one time fee active in engineering within K-12, including the Technology Student
• No subscriptions or Association (TSA) Board of Directors.
access fees
• Unlimited John K. Estell is professor of computer engineering and computer
concurrent usage science at Ohio Northern University. He is well known for his work in
streamlining and standardizing outcomes assessment processes. His
• Downloadable PDFs
research includes examining the nature of constraints in design and
• Free MARC records
improving student-client collaborations. Dr. Estell was recognized for
For further information,

the breadth, richness, and quality of his service to, and scholarship
for, the betterment of engineering education by being named a Fellow
Kenneth J. Reid
a free trial, or to order,
contact:
sales@momentumpress.net
of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) in 2016.
John K. Estell
ISBN: 978-1-60650-562-5

Engineering Design and The Product Life Cycle

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Engineering Design and The Product Life Cycle

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EBOOKS Engineering Design and the Product

Engineering Design and the Product Life Cycle

For further information,

KENNETH J. REID AND JOHN K. ESTELL

MOMENTUM PRESS, LLC, NEW YORK

Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

First published by Momentum Press®, LLC

ISBN-13: 978-1-60650-562-5 (print)

Momentum Press General Engineering and K-12 Engineering Education

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Printed in the United States of America

Engineering can be defined as the field that uses principles of mathematics

constraints, criteria, design, engineering design process, engineering,

Table 2.1. Strength of carbon fiber, steel, and aluminum 14

We would like to extend special thanks to our reviewers, David Reeping

To Jenny—thank you for putting up with hearing “time to work on the

To my wife, Melinda—thank you for being very understanding when I

You cannot understand design if you do not understand people;

Design is the practice of intentional creation to enhance the world.

Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it

1.1 DESIGN: MEETING NEEDS

What constitutes design varies according to the perspective of the person

involves form, whereas an engineer’s definition will usually incorporate

At the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy are the physiological needs

for example, the development of food preservation through such means

The final need in the hierarchy is that of self-actualization, which

1.2 CULTURAL NORMS

Cultural norms, which are guidelines or expectations for proper behav-

(­pronounced ‘mo-rays’), laws, and taboos. A folkway is a norm for every-

find at their basis the application of character recognition technology for

1.3 WHY DO WE DESIGN?

“Dieter Rams On Good Design As A Key Business Advantage.” http://fastcode-

We cannot make a living as an engineer unless we know the truths

Engineering is the art of organizing and directing men and con-

In October 2014, Apple introduced the iPhone 6. According to Forbes,

due to preorders. This illustrates that, to a great extent, consumers were

Cars represent a complex engineering system, which presents mul-

Table 2.1. Strength of carbon fiber, steel, and aluminum

4130 Steel 30 125

1. The travel range of a gasoline-powered car, assuming a mileage of

2.1 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND THE

Engineering design is distinctly different from the Scientific Method, a

created a “buzz” as consumers anticipated the newest technology. Upon

Engineers necessarily follow a design process, often formally defined

c­ riteria in a design is to minimize cost, we may not want to implement

• An understanding of all aspects of the technical fundamentals of

An example that can serve to illustrate the interaction of all of the

included a 2,500-liter (660-gallon) tank, with the intent to supply water to

When the PlayPump was introduced, it quickly gained worldwide

The technology for the PlayPump was considered proven; therefore,

quickly produce PlayPumps, but without an organizational structure to

• An understanding of all aspects of the technical fundamentals of

inspected to ensure that the solution (the PlayPump) would work

Overall, the PlayPump could be considered a successful engineering

an ­engineering design process rather than the engineering design process,

Problem Definition and Clarification—This step involves gather-

2.2 AN EXAMPLE OF A SUCCESSFUL DESIGN

“Apple’s iPhone: A Definitive History in Pictures 2017.” The Telegraph—Tech-

“How to Prevent iPhone 4 Reception Problems 2016.” http://deadzones.

The Engineering Design

Questions about whether design is necessary or affordable are

Imagine a classroom: the teacher has assigned the students to build a

Table 2.1. Strength of carbon fiber, steel, and aluminum 14

(pronounced ‘mo-rays’), laws, and taboos. A folkway is a norm for every-

2.1 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND THE

c riteria in a design is to minimize cost, we may not want to implement

an engineering design process rather than the engineering design process,

3.1 DESIGN IS A SALIENT CHARACTERISTIC OF

3.3 PLANNING: DEFINE THE PROBLEM, SCOPE

3.3.1 RESEARCH THE PROBLEM, ESTABLISH

3.4 AT THIS POINT, CONSIDER: WHAT ABOUT

3.4.1 EXPLORE AND DEVELOP POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS/

3.7 THE “ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS”

3.8 DECIDING THE “BEST” DESIGN: USING A