sylph ergonomic seating d&d process.01.30.12

M i c h a e l D e i m e n md e ime n@yah oo . com 81 2-6 30- 21 65CP/ 48 2-7 70 4H

Sylph

Marketing Objective

The goal of this project was to

develop a product capable of

establishing the customer as a

credible competitor in the high-

quality ergonomic office seating

market.

The Customer

The customer was Kimball Office,

a mid-size office furniture

manufacturer specializing in wood

case goods, systems furniture, and

mid-priced task and conference

room seating.

While research is a component of

the product development process at

Kimball, the revelations gleaned

prior to this project have been

limited, owing to a lack of

sophistication and penetrating

insight in the development of the

interview guides and a bias towards

focus groups over in-depth, one-on-

one interviews as the principal

source of data and observations.

Competitive Research

The market segment identified by

the customer was mid-to-high price

($800 to $1100 list) task seating.

Key competitive products were:

- Steelcase - “Leap”

- Herman Miller – “Aeron”

- Haworth – “X-99”

- HumanScale – “Freedom”

- Knoll – “Life”

- Allsteel – “#19”

- Vecta – “Lucy”

Knoll - LifeVecta - Lucy

The Competition

Steelcase - LeapHerman Miller - Aeron

Haworth - X99 HumanScale - Freedom


Competitive research revealed that

each of these products:

- Shares an equivalent and

known set of functions

- Approaches the mechanics of

providing ergonomic support

with a unique and proprietary

solution protected by domestic

and international patents

- Has a highly contemporary

aesthetic employing cutting

edge material technologies

Functional attributes shared include:

- Synchrotilt ride mechanism (the

recline of the chair

synchronizes the angle of the

backrest with the angle of the

seat in a 2:1 ratio.)

- Pneumatic Seat-Height

Adjustment (A gas cylinder

raises and lowers the chair.)

- Height, width, depth, and angle

adjustment of armrests

- Height adjustability of either

lumbar support or backrest

height

- Depth adjustment of the seat

One functional attribute that varies

from chair to chair is the synchrotilt

ride mechanism. In lieu of a

conventional synchrotilt mechanism

some seating lines employ a

counterbalancing ride mechanism

that offsets the weight of the upper

torso and arms with the weight of

the lower torso and legs. This

approach is used to simplify the

chair by eliminating the need for

“recline tension” adjustment making

it more intuitive and approachable to

the user.

Metrics of Desire – Qualities Impacting Market Desire in TaskSeating

1. Simple - not intimidating/easy to understandCommunicated through simple forms, fewer controls & levers, easy tounderstand, use, and adjust. Simplicity is important because it keeps aproduct from being intimidating

2. Clean - uncluttered, spare, simple, quietYou can hear the story being told, not a lot of stuff going on;communicated through simple, tailored lines, and a strong, clean, simpleprofile.

3. Elegant - refined, lyrical, ingenious, poetically simple, restrainedbeauty, a quality of timelessnessThe material is intrinsic to the design and the design takes advantage ofthe intrinsic properties of the material. The materials and the design aremarried. You can’t take away one without compromising the other, andyou can’t take away any one part of the design without compromising thewhole (Also applies to “simple” and “sexy”) Discrete controls help.

4. Comfortable - feels good, prevents injury, promotes confidenceFeels good, inviting, comfortable, friendly; when you sit in the chair ithugs you, you feel at home.

5. Light - slim, thin, sexy, lean, not bulbous or bulkyScaled down, not covered in anything; translucent materials. Not a biground ball; not bulbous; hiding controls helps keep it sexy, graceful, andstreamlined.

6. Flexible - useful to a broad range of people in a range of functionsand/or applicationsCan work in contemporary and non-contemporary environments, with abroad range of people (sizes, shapes, status, etc.); don’t want to have tospec several chairs in a space; like a little black dress, (versatile); seatdepth and back height adjustability; family (task, side, and conferencemodels), multiple back heights; important because it broadens the rangeof applications in which the product can be used.

7. Craftsmanship - fit and finish, quiet, tight, sturdyThe way things are put together. Materials come together almostseamlessly. Enough body to feel stable but doesn’t look heavy and rigid.Armrests and back should not wobble.

8. Essential - each element has to be thereNo extraneous elements, (you can’t take away any one part of the designwithout compromising the whole). All elements have a function, nodecoration

9. Quiet - blends in easily, not loud, unassumingStrong sense of self, doesn’t need to shout, quiet simplicity, simplewithout being boring

10. CoolExciting, contemporary, now

11. HonestNot tricky, trendy, gimmicky, or overly stylized, no “gadgets”

12. TailorableAbility to tailor the appearance of the chair to the space; mixable fabrics(different material on seat than back) and a broad range of fabric choices


Opportunity Research

To research “market opportunity,”

the team surveyed end-users,

facilities managers, and the A&D

community with an array of

questions tailored to each audience.

These included:

- A survey of basic functionality

available from competitive

products, the relative level of

market satisfaction, and user

suggested “new feature sets”

- A discussion of post-purchase

problems, implications, and

customer proposed solutions

- An open-ended discussion

(see Metrics of Desire, previous

page) regarding intangible

qualities that drive customers to

“lust after” products and what

product attributes, (across an

array of categories covering

music, automobiles, movies),

house-wares, and clothing,

communicate those qualities.

This research revealed rich veins of

market opportunity via function,

material and finish options, quality of

execution, adaptability, and overall

aesthetic qualities.

Concurrent to the “market

opportunity research” the team

surveyed the most current thinking

regarding the ergonomics of seating.

This research included review of

white papers, articles from

ergonomic journals, and several

highly regarded texts.

The team also retained the services

of highly regarded ergonomist and

author Rani Lueder, President of

Humanics Ergosystems in Encino,

California, for review of initial


product ideas and subsequent

iterations prior to manufacturing

development.

The ergonomic research yielded two

key insights that heavily influenced

project direction. The first has to do

with how best to maintain a healthy

posture. When most people sit in a

traditional chair in a conventional

posture their lumbar curve tends to

flatten out or even begin to curve

outward into a kyphotic (slumped or

slouching) posture, frequently

associated with lower back pain,

fatigue, spinal injury, and workers

compensation claims.

When the thigh is rotated into a

more-or-less horizontal position, the

last 30 to 45 degrees of the thigh’s

rotation accounts for a lumbar

curvature loss of about 40 percent.

This results from the way certain

muscle and tendon groups in the leg

are anchored to the base of the

pelvis and their tendency to rotate

the pelvis rearward when the thigh is

rotated into conventional seated

postures.

Further, most of the flattening of the

lumbar curve happens in the last 30

degrees of thigh rotation into a 90

degree included angle between the

thigh and trunk. This is the point at

which damage to the discs of the

spine begin to occur as the load

presented by the head and upper

torso stretch one side of the disc

and compress the other for

extended periods of time.

Ultimately research indicated that

the most appropriate solution is to

prevent the lumbar loss in the first

place by opening up the included

angle between the torso and the

thigh and allowing the lumbar curve


to establish itself naturally. As the

images at right indicate, opening up

the angle between 45 degrees

approximates the human body’s

“neutral posture” and reestablishes

a healthy lumbar curve.

The second insight gleaned from the

research was that even when the

lumbar curve is allowed to establish

itself naturally in a healthy posture,

maintaining one’s torso in an upright

posture without aid of back support

still involves a variety of muscle

groups that become fatigued over

time. Consequently, in addition to its

traditional role as one of two primary

supports in fully reclined postures,

the backrest is also important as a

more or less passive and, under

ideal circumstances self-adjusting,

supplemental support to the torso

and lumbar region for more upright

postures. This insight was important

to the generation of the ideas that

formed the ultimate solution.

Summary

The research process yielded rich

results covering the following areas:

- The business needs of the

customer (Kimball Office)

- The functional, material, and

ergonomic profile of competitive

products

- The decision making criteria

employed by the customer’s

customers (end users, facilities

managers, and the A&D

community), and the issues that

affect their own bottom line

- The physiological issues that

drive spinal comfort and

ergonomics in task seating


Anthropometric Studies

As this page shows, we examined

the use of suggested postures at

standard fixed-height work surfaces

over a population ranging from 5th

percentile female to 95th

percentile

male. The result was a realization

that to make best use of these

postures, a variable height work

surface capable of adapting to a

range of postures from sitting to

standing would be required. This

was identified as a parallel project.

By this point we had also discovered

prior work documented in a book

titled “Homo Sedens” by A.C.

Mandal that suggested that the

posture assumed when riding in a

saddle allowed the legs to drop and

was thus ideal for allowing a healthy

lumbar curve to establish itself

naturally.

The saddle form also prevented the

feeling of slipping out of the chair

experienced with most standard task

seating forward-tilt mechanisms.

Preventing this feeling was felt to be

key to getting users to employ this

feature and obtain the full benefit of

the opening up the included angle

between the trunk and thighs.

Anthropometric Sketches


Flexible Seat

Subsequent to the anthropometric

analyses the team began to explore

concepts for a flexible seat design

that would facilitate the desired

range of postures.

As the images at right begin to

illustrate, the team had already

taken to heart several ideas

revealed in the “Metrics of Desire”

data. These included:

1. A light, thin “sexy” profile

2. Innovative merging of traditional

and contemporary material

technologies in ways that are

honest and intrinsic to the

design

3. Advanced theories concerning

optimizing the ergonomics of

seating through more open

postures

We were particularly interested in

solutions that combined flexible

resins with rigid chassis in ways that

would allow the seat to deflect and

the angle between the thighs and

the torso to open up (the saddle

shape). The prototypes allowed us

to assess comfort and the seat’s

ability to accommodate a range of

postures. By combining traditional

materials such as wood with more

contemporary molded resins we felt

the company could leverage its

reputation for well-made wood

products while communicating to the

market that it possessed expertise in

cutting edge technologies, materials,

and manufacturing processes. This

combined with sophisticated

ergonomics would position Kimball

as a credible manufacturer of high-

end ergonomic task seating.

Seat Development Sketches


Flexible Backrest

Concurrent to seating explorations,

the backrest was also explored with

comparable ideas related to the

application of material technologies.

Early concepts focused on the idea

of applying the softer, more flexible

polymers to more sensitive

anatomical regions such as the

lumbar curve of the backrest and the

“ischial” region (the area at the base

of the pelvis where the most

pressure is applied when seated), in

the seat. This material was further

applied in areas that needed to flex

in unique ways to promote healthy

postures. The idea was to apply

each material’s unique assets where

they would bring the most value and

allow them to perform in synergy.

Thus, wood brought structure and

rigidity with a certain amount of

cantilevered spring or potential

energy (as found in a bow), while

polymers brought cushion, elasticity,

and flexibility. As ideas were

explored materials became

integrated to a greater degree.

The images at right begin to reveal

the evolution in the team’s thinking

as regards material application in

both the seat and backrest. As time

went on the concepts increasingly

applied the more flexible resins in

the most visible areas, which not

coincidentally, were also the areas

most likely to come in contact with

human anatomy. Meanwhile it was

found that much less structure than

was initially thought, would be

required. Accordingly the wood

components were being scaled

down becoming less visible.



Counter Balanced RideMechanism

Subsequent to the exploration of a

four-bar format the team began

examining existing competitive

counterbalancing mechanisms.

Brain-storming and prototyping

efforts led the team to identify and

develop an entirely new form of

counterbalancing mechanism that

offsets the weight of the upper torso,

upper arms and head against the

weight of the lower torso and legs.

This mechanism had the added

advantage of being entirely

proprietary to Kimball and thus

offered the opportunity for additional

product differentiation.

About this time a key supplier made

it known that they had been

developing a counterbalancing

mechanism of their own that slid the

seat and associated weight of a user

forward and up a ramp as opposed

to lifting it straight up. They offered it

to us for consideration. The images

at right describe the evaluation of

the various concepts. Mechanism

Concept 3 was the supplier’s

mechanism. Prototypes were built to

evaluate all concepts but

photographs of the Concept 3

prototype were unavailable for this

document.

Physiological Study of Counterbalancing Mechanism#2

Physiological Study of Counterbalancing Mechanism#3


Aesthetics

With the selection of a mechanical

premise and the associated

completion of the Product Ideation

Phase, the team began the Product

Development Phase. There was a

great deal of work yet to be done to

complete the mechanical premise

and engineering wasted no time

getting started. But while they were

wrestling the mechanical issues to

the ground, on the design side we

began to get more focused on

potential aesthetics. The material

exploration we had begun during the

Exploration phase gave us a lot to

work with. The sketches at right and

on the following page are but a

sampling of our conceptual output.

I believe that purely functional

criteria are only the beginning of

well-informed design choices. The

aesthetics of a product have the

power to communicate an array of

qualities. Our “Metrics of Desire”

research went a long way toward

telling us the qualities that drive

passion in the creation of a loyal

user base and how best to

communicate them.

Aesthetic Sketches


Aesthetic Sketches


Exploration of Energy Sources

While the ride mechanics of the

prototype were deemed acceptable,

they did not yet lend themselves to

elegant packaging. Accordingly the

team continued to refine their

concepts for an energy source and

associated linkages that would fit in

a more stream lined package. The

images at right and on the pages

that follow begin to document these

efforts.

Energy Source/Tensioning


Armrest Refinement

As the armrest evolved it became

necessary to integrate the

mechanics, the form factor, and the

user interface. The images at right

begin to illustrate this progression.

Armrest Development Sketches


Multi-mode Flexing Seat

As development progressed it was

determined that there were at least

two reasons a person might not

want to employ the saddle form. The

first is that not every task

undertaken in a task chair would

necessarily benefit from it, most

especially those employing a

reclined posture. The second is that

not everyone would be comfortable

with this sort of form for sociological

reasons. Women in skirts were a

key area of concern.

There would also be a percentage of

the applications that had no need for

the saddle mode at all. Customers

with these applications would be

reticent to pay the additional cost

associated with the mechanics that

supported it. Accordingly, it would

be necessary to develop a lower

cost version of the chair with a seat

that did not deflect.

The first approach (shown at right)

was to develop two separate seats

as specifiable options, an expansion

of the statement of line. These seats

would be made of the same

materials, but one would be more

rigid over all as it did not have to

deflect.

In the end this approach was

deemed to be less likely to optimize

economies of scale on the

manufacturing side.

For this reason, and because a task

chair is a collection of interrelated

systems, the solution was to

modularize the components. Both

the ride mechanism and the seat

would need to allow for the addition

or subtraction of components (and

associated cost) depending on what

was specified in the order.



Fully Functional Prototype

In the course of development the

team went through several rounds of

prototyping and market research.

Ultimately this research suggested

that the “ride” of this mechanism

was so balanced that the user was

often unaware of what it was doing.

This might sound like a good thing

and to many developers of task

seating it is, but to some, it is not.

This speaks to something of a

schism in product development

philosophy that sometimes arises

between Marketing and Industrial

Design. One school of thought holds

that a well-designed chair should

draw no attention to itself as you use

it. The opposing school holds that a

successful product will make you

aware of what it is doing so you

realize you’re “getting what you paid

for”.

Research suggested that a more

dramatic and noticeable ride would

be more appreciated by the user

population. Accordingly the pivot

point for the mechanism was moved

slightly forward to allow the user to

feel more forward motion in the seat.

This required that a minimal energy

source be included in the

mechanism and a tensioning

adjustment be added back into the

interface mix. The tensioning

adjustment would need to be

minimal and not unduly complicate

use of the chair.

The prototype shown at left and in

the following page incorporates a

particular energy source and

tensioning mechanism. Both of

these would evolve considerably

before the design was finalized.

Prototyping


Back Depth Adjustment and

User Interface

One of the more interesting

functional adjustments developed

had to do with adjusting the distance

from the front edge of the seat to the

forward most point on the backrest.

As this is typically accomplished by

moving the seat forwards or

backwards relative to the backrest.

The team had already explored the

alternative of moving the front edge

of the seat itself forwards or

backwards independent of

supporting architecture. In the end

that approach proved unworkable

because of the geometries involved

in the creation of the saddle form.

As a result, the team considered

other options and arrived at the

“Back Depth Adjustment.”

Accessibility of the activation

mechanism for this adjustment was

quite convenient, being placed

immediately behind the armrest on

either side of the chair. The images

at right detail this portion of the

prototype as well as the other user

interface points mounted to the seat.

Prototyping


Final Solution


Patent Application

sylph ergonomic seating d&d process.01.30.12

Documents