Crowdsourcing and microtasks are a relatively new way to issue units of work to a large group of potential workers. This form of outsourcing to a vast on-demand workforce offers the potential to significantly change the way we work. But how can design impact how both the requester and the workforce interact and benefit from these tasks? This dissertation considers four aspects of microtask design: value, engagement, context, and complexity. Through four distinct, but highly related, investigations these four facets are ex- plored, analysed and synthesised into a considered review of microtask design. First we build a picture of the demographic and financial status of these crowdworkers by surveying the US-based crowdworker labour-force on the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. This improved understanding of the value of crowd work, not just to requesters but to workers as well, is crucial to appropriately listing tasks in a commoditised labour market. Second, worker engagement is also a significant factor, not just in quality and cost, but also in uptake and effective completion speed. By introducing a new metric, conversion rate, and contrasting a variety of differing presentational and conceptual features across two demographics, we demonstrate an improved understanding of how tasks engage workers. The increasing use of mobile devices, including among crowdworkers, offers new opportunities to collect additional context about worker behaviour. Enhancing the data gathered by requesters can be used, not only to improve quality, but also to expand the types of tasks which can be effectively crowdsourced. This third contribution highlights enthusiasm by some workers for mobile tasks, and demon- strates how previously small-scale sensor-based data collection can increasingly be carried out by the crowd. Finally, the boundary between microtasks and macrotasks is investigated. Exploring how complex tasks, such as software development, can be successfully crowdsourced offers insight into how task design can influence suitability of these larger tasks on microtask markets.

Lower tolerance limits (LTLs) methods was used to estimate design values of furniture joints. To have higher reliability in joint, LTLs were chosen for higher confidence/proportional level. The logic behind phenomena is that if stress on joint exceeds the given LTLs, failure on joints is most likely observed. Therefore, joint sizes were determined to maintain internal stresses on joint below LTLs value corresponding to external load.

The research presented in this thesis develops an improved design methodology for designing complex systems. While traditional methods have been able to create complex systems, their success is usually overshadowed by long delays and expensive overruns. The method developed within this research is known as Value Seeking System Design (VSSD) and builds upon the foundations of the System Engineering (SE) and Value Driven Design (VDD) approaches. Creation and implementation of the new design environment is provided, including a method on how to create the value model for any complex system. Key conclusions from this work include a need to redefine the process in which stakeholder needs are currently defined and captured as well as a need to create an improved value model. Defining all stakeholders’ needs as requirements constrains the designer to a rigid solution space, which may not include the “best” solution for the stakeholder. Similarly not including the social aspects within a value model causes the designer to make poor value trades. To overcome these problems the VSSD technique incorporates desirements and their associated design desirability functions within the design process to create a non-rigid solution space while the value model has been redeveloped to easily incorporate the performance, economic and social aspects of a design, to allow a more accurate and balanced value trade off analysis to occur. Benchmarking the VSSD approach against the current state of the art methods (SE and VDD) highlighted the advantages of adapting a value approach to complex system design compared to traditional requirement based techniques. Additionally while all three approaches were capable of designing complex systems the VSSD approach was demonstrated to be an improved design methodology as it possessed the benefits inherent within both the SE and VDD approaches without suffering from their limitations.

Understanding Design Impact: A new framework for understanding the potential of design and enhancing future professional practice. Design is widely recognised as an important driver for economic performance. However, the value of design has proved resistant to quantification despite research attention since the early 1980s. Correlation between design investment and impact has been demonstrated, but not causation. There is considerable interest from policy and professional bodies in what is described here as ‘Design Impact’. Impact can be measured, for example, by return on investment, increases in profitability or cost reductions. However this only crudely captures the economic impact of a design ingredient. Increasingly, social and environmental impacts are also of interest. The design profession sees the potential for better articulation of design impact as a means to increase their influence. The context has been explored through a series of descriptive and prescriptive studies including analysis of 45 DBA Design Effectiveness Award case studies, 304 undergraduate design projects from two institutions over a three year period together with interviews and workshops with senior design professionals and design academics. A new Understanding Design Impact framework is the overall outcome and contribution to knowledge from the work. This bridges between theory and practice and is a powerful basis for placing consideration of design impact at the heart of design activity. A design impact ontology has been developed as a robust foundation to the framework which resolves issues with underlying concepts. An initial version of this ontology is published in The Design Journal and is claimed as a supporting contribution to new knowledge. So too are new ontological classifications of factors which have considerable influence on design impact: Design Influences and Authority and Motivation and Path. These provide fresh perspectives and are worthy of further research consideration. A number of routes are identified for the further development and dissemination of the framework.

No description available.

Wertorientierte Unternehmensführung, Wertstromdesign als zentrale Methode des Lean Managements und die Flexibilität von Produktionssystemen haben sich als Managementansätze in der Vergangenheit bewährt. Die Koexistenz dieser Ansätze stellt Führungskräfte vor die tägliche Herausforderung, ihren jeweiligen Beitrag zur wertorientierten Unternehmensführung zu erkennen, operative Entscheidungen zu treffen und auf diese Weise die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit des Unternehmens im Spannungsfeld der Interessen der Anspruchsgruppen sicherzustellen. Unter der leitenden Forschungsfrage, welchen Beitrag das Wertstromdesign als Instrument der wertorientierten Unternehmensführung zum Unternehmenswert unter Beachtung der Flexibilität des Produktionssystems leistet, werden die Einzelkonzepte detailliert betrachtet, wesentliche Einflussgrößen sowie deren durch Reduktion von Komplexität entstehende Wechselwirkungen identifiziert und zur Handlungsorientierung methodisch gestützte Gestaltungsempfehlungen formuliert.:1 Einleitung … 1 1.1 Behandlung des Themas in der Literatur … 4 1.1.1 Wertstromdesign … 4 1.1.2 Flexibilität des Produktionssystems … 6 1.1.3 Wertorientierte Unternehmensführung … 8 1.2 Problemstellung und Zielsetzung … 11 1.3 Struktur der Arbeit und Vorgehensweise … 12 2 Theoretischer Bezugsrahmen … 15 2.1 Systemtheoretischer Ansatz zur Reduktion der Komplexität … 15 2.1.1 Begriffliche Abgrenzung und Arbeitsdefinition … 16 2.1.2 Ansatz der allgemeinen Systemtheorie … 17 2.1.2.1 Das Produktionssystem als Erfahrungsobjekt … 18 2.1.2.2 Der Wertstrom als Erkenntnisobjekt … 19 2.2 Wertstromdesign als Gestaltungsmethode … 20 2.2.1 Definition und Abgrenzung zu anderen Methoden … 20 2.2.1.1 Definition … 21 2.2.1.2 Abgrenzung zu anderen Lean-Methoden … 22 2.2.1.3 Abgrenzung zu anderen Prozessoptimierungsmethoden … 23 2.2.2 Vorgehensweise … 24 2.2.2.1 Festlegung der Produktfamilie … 24 2.2.2.2 Wertstromanalyse … 27 2.2.2.3 Wertstromdesign … 30 2.2.3 Zusammenfassung … 33 2.3 Flexibilität von Produktionssystemen … 34 2.3.1 Definition und begriffliche Abgrenzung … 34 2.3.1.1 Allgemeine Definitionen … 35 2.3.1.2 Abgrenzung von Agilität und Wandlungsfähigkeit … 37 2.3.2 Klassifizierung der Flexibilitätstypen … 39 2.3.2.1 Horizontale Klassifizierung … 39 2.3.2.2 Vertikale Klassifizierung … 41 2.3.2.3 Sonstige Klassifizierungen … 42 2.3.3 Messung der Flexibilität … 44 2.3.3.1 Zeit als Maß für die Flexibilität … 44 2.3.3.2 Kosten als Maß für die Flexibilität … 45 2.3.3.3 Wahrscheinlichkeit als Maß für die Flexibilität … 47 2.3.4 Zusammenfassung … 47 2.4 Wertorientierte Unternehmensführung … 48 2.4.1 Begriffliche Abgrenzung und Definition … 49 2.4.1.1 Shareholder-Value-Ansatz … 49 2.4.1.2 Stakeholder-Ansatz … 50 2.4.1.3 Arbeitsdefinition … 51 2.4.2 Wertorientierte Kennzahlenkonzepte … 52 2.4.2.1 Definition und Verwendung des Cashflows … 53 2.4.2.2 Discounted Cash-Flow (DCF) … 55 2.4.2.3 Shareholder Value Added (SVA) … 58 2.4.2.4 Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI) und Cash Value Added (CVA) … 59 2.4.2.5 Economic Value Added (EVA) … 61 2.4.3 Operationalisierung der wertorientierten Kennzahlenkonzepte … 63 2.4.3.1 Kennzahlensystem … 64 2.4.3.2 Werttreiberhierarchie … 64 2.5 Zusammenfassung … 65 3 Empirische Bestimmung von Wertstromtypen … 68 3.1 Modell zur Schätzung des Wertbeitrags durch das Wertstromdesign … 68 3.1.1 Bestimmung der Einflussgrößen … 69 3.1.1.1 Bestimmung der Erfolgsfaktoren und Kennzahlen … 69 3.1.1.2 Bestimmung der relevanten Flexibilitätstypen … 75 3.1.2 Konzeption des Modells zur Schätzung des Wertbeitrags … 76 3.1.2.1 Aufbau des Modells … 76 3.1.2.2 Ansatz zur Schätzung des Wertbeitrags … 78 3.2 Empirische Analyse zur Bestimmung von Wertstromtypen … 81 3.2.1 Datenbasis und Erhebungsmethodik … 81 3.2.1.1 Inhalt der Unternehmensbefragung … 82 3.2.1.2 Struktur der Grundgesamtheit … 82 3.2.2 Analyse der empirischen Datenbasis … 84 3.2.2.1 Gewichtung und Einfluss der Kennzahlen … 84 3.2.2.2 Faktorenanalyse … 90 3.2.2.3 Clusteranalyse … 94 3.3 Charakterisierung der Wertstromtypen … 97 3.3.1 Klassifizierungsmerkmale von Wertstromtypen … 98 3.3.2 Ableitung der idealisierten Wertstromtypen … 102 3.3.2.1 Cluster 1: Wertstromtyp „Balanced“ … 102 3.3.2.2 Cluster 2: Wertstromtyp „Pending“ … 03 3.3.2.3 Cluster 3: Wertstromtyp „Project“ … 104 3.3.2.4 Cluster 4: Wertstromtyp „Service“ … 105 3.3.3 .bersicht: Wertstromtypen … 106 3.4 Zusammenfassung … 10 4 Gestaltungsfelder des wertorientierten Wertstromdesigns unter Berücksichtigung der Flexibilität des Produktionssystems … 113 4.1 Ableitung der Gestaltungsfelder … 113 4.1.1 Gestaltungsansätze für die Haupteinflussgrößen … 113 4.1.1.1 Ansätze des Qualitätsmanagements … 113 4.1.1.2 Ansätze des Zeitmanagements … 16 4.1.2 Definition der Gestaltungsfelder … 117 4.1.2.1 Vier Gestaltungsfelder des wertorientierten Wertstromdesigns … 118 4.1.2.2 Einfluss der Gestaltungsmethoden auf die Flexibilitätsarten … 120 4.2 Gestaltungsfelder des wertorientierten Wertstromdesigns … 122 4.2.1 Fehlervermeidung … 122 4.2.1.1 Analyse der Fehlerrisiken im Ist-Wertstrom … 122 4.2.1.2 Reduzierung der Risiken im Soll-Wertstrom … 125 4.2.2 Fehlerabsicherung … 127 4.2.2.1 Fehleranalyse im Ist-Wertstrom … 127 4.2.2.2 Statistische Prozesskontrolle im Soll-Wertstrom … 130 4.2.3 Reduzierung der Komplexität … 134 4.2.3.1 Analyse der Produktkomplexität im Wertstrom … 135 4.2.3.2 Gestaltung eines wertstromgerechten Produktdesigns … 137 4.2.3.3 Analyse der Fertigungsorganisation … 139 4.2.3.4 Gestaltung wandlungsfähiger Fertigungssegmente …142 4.2.4 Stabilisierung und Optimierung des Prozesses … 144 4.2.4.1 Analyse des Informationsflusses … 144 4.2.4.2 Leitlinien zur Gestaltung des Material- und Informationsflusses … 146 4.2.4.3 Analyse der personalkritischen Engpässe … 148 4.2.4.4 Ma.nahmen zum Kapazitätsausgleich … 151 4.3 Zusammenfassung … 153 5 Fallstudien und Gestaltungsempfehlungen für das wertorientierte Wertstromdesign … 156 5.1 Auswahl der Fallstudien … 156 5.2 Ausgangssituation … 157 5.2.1 Fallstudie 1: Wertstromtyp „Balanced“ … 157 5.2.2 Fallstudie 2: Wertstromtyp „Pending“ … 62 5.2.3 Fallstudie 3: Wertstromtyp „Project“ … 65 5.2.4 Fallstudie 4: Wertstromtyp „Service“ … 168 5.3 Gestaltungsempfehlungen … 172 5.3.1 Wertstromtyp „Balanced“ … 172 5.3.2 Wertstromtyp „Pending“ … 174 5.3.3 Wertstromtyp „Project“ … 176 5.3.4 Wertstromtyp „Service“ … 177 5.4 Zusammenfassung … 180 6 Zusammenfassung und Ausblick … 183 7 Literaturverzeichnis … 187

Combining products and services into Product-Service Systems (PSS), which are often owned and even operated by the company offering them, is seen as an important element of conducting more sustainable business. The prospective environmental benefits of PSS lie mainly in the improved resource- and operational efficiency. This is achieved by way of a critical shift in incentive structure: If an industrial company assumes responsibility for an offering throughout the lifecycle, the terms on which that company operates are changed substantially in comparison to traditional product sales. Instead of benefiting from a short lifetime through additional sales opportunities or making profit through the sale of spare parts, in highly integrated PSS, each parts exchange, each technicians’ visit and each day the lifetime of the offering is reduced directly affects the bottom line of the provider. Due to that, solely as a result of economic rationality, a provider of these offerings has an incentive to design in such a way that the life of this offering is prolonged, need for spare parts is reduced, service activities are facilitated and simplified, and that the conditions are in place to allow for a second or third life of the offering through remanufacturing. Regardless of this compelling logic, at times, industrial companies fail to establish the preconditions to capturing these benefits as they continue to rely on product and sales-centric design processes even though they provide PSS. This thesis aims to examine this unexploited opportunity from two vantage points. On the one hand, methods conceived in academia to support industry in implementing and executing joint, lifecycle-focused design of products and services, and the use of these methods in practice, are examined. Here, the focus firstly lies on understanding how PSS are designed today, and secondly, on what should change about PSS design methods to improve their implementability and usability in industrial practice, so that they can fulfill their supposed role as facilitators of efficient PSS design and operation. On the other hand, the possible benefits of providing specifically designed and lifecycle-focused PSS as an industrial company are in focus. To this end, the value attained by providers throughout the use phase of PSS is investigated, to then identify possible approaches towards enhancing this value. Eventually, both focus-areas are joined in an effort to examine the interaction between method-supported, lifecycle-oriented PSS design and the value attained by providers of such offerings. As a result of the research, a lacking adaptation of design processes to PSS is identified in the case companies. Further, shortcomings of PSS design methods conceived in academia, e.g. excessive complexity, lacking clarity and rigidity, are found in both literature as well as in a study with an industrial company. To take a first step towards rectifying this issue, six characteristics intended to enhance implementability and usability of PSS design methods, are presented. The value attained by PSS providers has been found to be a complex but important subject. In a case study, value determinants of high relevance to the use phase of the lifecycle have been identified and assessed for their utility as indicators in the evaluation and enhancement of PSS offerings in the design phase. The practitioners involved were supportive of the applicability of the systematic approach presented to capture more value through offering PSS. In joining both the value- and method-oriented approach, the mutual dependency of both aspects is discussed. In order to provide PSS in an economically and environmentally efficient fashion, adapting the existing design processes is imperative. The value attained by the provider can, complementary to existing customer-centric approaches, serve as an important goal for the adaptation of design processes. Ultimately, through understanding the change in incentive structure at the core of PSS, and through implementing a value-driven design process supported by efficient and effective methods aimed at providing both customer value and capturing provider benefits throughout the lifecycle, there is a genuine potential of conducting more sustainable business.