Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T22:09:31.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovative Design in Factory - New Methods to Go from Closed to Expandable Prescriptions at the Shop Floor Level

Part of: Design Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Honorine Harlé ,
Pascal Le Masson ,
Benoit Weil ,
Sophie Hooge ,
Kevin Levillain ,
Guillaume Bulin  and
Thierry Menard
Honorine Harlé*
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech;
Pascal Le Masson
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech;
Benoit Weil
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech;
Sophie Hooge
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech;
Kevin Levillain
Affiliation:
MINES ParisTech;
Guillaume Bulin
Affiliation:
Airbus, Saint-Nazaire
Thierry Menard
Affiliation:
Airbus, Saint-Nazaire
*
Contact: Harlé, Honorine, MINES ParisTech, Centre de Gestion Scientifique, France, honorine.harle@mines-paristech.fr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper explores the question of the design activity at the shop floor level. The design activity has been confined for a large part in the design and the methods office. However, a certain form of design adapted to the factory remains. It is necessary to solve the problems which appear during the manufacturing process and to improve the productivity. However another form of design can emerge; it has a stronger impact on the factory, since the rules of the manufacturing system are modified under its effect. The paper studies 21 cases of design in the Airbus factory at Saint-Nazaire. It shows that the design activity does exist at the shop floor level. It characterizes this activity distinguishing two types of design which can co-exist in a factory. It shows that the type of results reached is not the same according to the type of design implemented.

Keywords

Industry 4.0Design managementDesign practiceRobust design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1165 - 1174
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Adamczyk, S., Bullinger, A.C. and Möslein, K.M. (2012), “Innovation contests: A review, classification and outlook”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12003Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2006), “Design problems and design paradoxes”, Design issues, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2006.22.3.4Google Scholar
Błażewicz, J., Domschke, W. and Pesch, E. (1996), “The job shop scheduling problem: Conventional and new solution techniques”, European journal of operational research, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00362-2Google Scholar
Duymedjian, R. and Rüling, C.C. (2010), “Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory”, Organization Studies, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609347051Google Scholar
Fairbank, J.F. and Williams, S.D. (2001), “Motivating creativity and enhancing innovation through employee suggestion system technology”, Creativity and innovation management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00204Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. (2001), “Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of herbert simon”, Journal of management and governance, Vol. 5 No. 3–4, pp. 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014044305704Google Scholar
Ikävalko, H. and Lempiälä, T. (2019), “Innovation contests, routine dynamics and innovation management”, Creativity and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12299Google Scholar
Lu, S.C. and Conger, A. (2007), “Supporting participative joint decisions in integrated design and manufacturing teams”, In Advances in Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 3–22. Springer, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6761-7_1Google Scholar
Cunha, M.P.E. and da Cunha, J.V. (2018), “Bricolage in organizations: concept and forms. In Current topics in management (pp. 59–78). Routledge.Google Scholar
Rittel, H.W. (1977), On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the” first and Second Generations.”. Institut für Grundlagen der Planung IA, Universität StuttgartGoogle Scholar
Scott-Young, C. and Samson, D. (2008), “Project Success and Project Team Management: Evidence from Capital Projects in the Process Industries”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 749–766. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.10.006Google Scholar
Shin, N., Jonassen, D.H. and McGee, S. (2003), “Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation”. Journal of research in science teaching, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 6–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10058Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1987), “Jossey-Bass higher education series”. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, US.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J.B., Sarangee, K.R. and Montoya, M.M. (2009), “Exploring new product development project review practices”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00678.xGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, J. and Hertzum, M. (2010), “Iterative participatory design”, Design Research: Synergies from Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 1 edn, Vol. 1, Routledge, London, pp. 16–32.Google Scholar
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013), “Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation”, Journal of management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 684–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394187Google Scholar
Vanharanta, O. (2018), “Whose responsibility is it anyway? Competing narratives of suggestion system change”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 244–254. http://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12286Google Scholar
Voss, J. F. and Post, T. A. (1988), “On the solving of ill-structured problems”. In Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Farr, M.J. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, US.Google Scholar
West, M. A. and Farr, J. L. (1989), “Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives”, Social Behaviour, Vol. 4, pp. 15–30Google Scholar