Sylph Ergonomic Seating D&D Process.01.30.12

M i c h a e l D e i m e n mdeimen@yahoo.com 812-630-2165CP/482-7704H
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 - Life
Vecta - Lucy
The Competition
Steelcase - Leap
Herman 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 Task
Seating
1. Simple - not intimidating/easy to understand
Communicated through simple forms, fewer controls & levers, easy to
understand, use, and adjust. Simplicity is important because it keeps a
product from being intimidating
2. Clean - uncluttered, spare, simple, quiet
You can hear the story being told, not a lot of stuff going on;
communicated through simple, tailored lines, and a strong, clean, simple
profile.
3. Elegant - refined, lyrical, ingenious, poetically simple, restrained
beauty, a quality of timelessness
The material is intrinsic to the design and the design takes advantage of
the intrinsic properties of the material. The materials and the design are
married. You can’t take away one without compromising the other, and
you can’t take away any one part of the design without compromising the
whole (Also applies to “simple” and “sexy”) Discrete controls help.
4. Comfortable - feels good, prevents injury, promotes confidence
Feels good, inviting, comfortable, friendly; when you sit in the chair it
hugs you, you feel at home.
5. Light - slim, thin, sexy, lean, not bulbous or bulky
Scaled down, not covered in anything; translucent materials. Not a big
round ball; not bulbous; hiding controls helps keep it sexy, graceful, and
streamlined.
6. Flexible - useful to a broad range of people in a range of functions
and/or applications
Can work in contemporary and non-contemporary environments, with a
broad range of people (sizes, shapes, status, etc.); don’t want to have to
spec several chairs in a space; like a little black dress, (versatile); seat
depth and back height adjustability; family (task, side, and conference
models), multiple back heights; important because it broadens the range
of applications in which the product can be used.
7. Craftsmanship - fit and finish, quiet, tight, sturdy
The way things are put together. Materials come together almost
seamlessly. 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 there
No extraneous elements, (you can’t take away any one part of the design
without compromising the whole). All elements have a function, no
decoration
9. Quiet - blends in easily, not loud, unassuming
Strong sense of self, doesn’t need to shout, quiet simplicity, simple
without being boring
10. Cool
Exciting, contemporary, now
11. Honest
Not tricky, trendy, gimmicky, or overly stylized, no “gadgets”
12. Tailorable
Ability 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 5
th
percentile female to 95
th
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 Ride
Mechanism
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

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (6)

Semelhante a Sylph Ergonomic Seating D&D Process.01.30.12

Semelhante a Sylph Ergonomic Seating D&D Process.01.30.12 (20)

Sylph Ergonomic Seating D&D Process.01.30.12