Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Usability Evaluation of a Production System Development Framework: A Meta-Study Performed on the Use of a Production System Development Framework in the Development of a New Production System at Xylem
Jönköping University, School of Engineering.
Jönköping University, School of Engineering.
2012 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Today’s competitive global market has placed companies under great pressure and the focus on production systems has been more prominent. Although there are several claimed benefits with using frameworks in the development of production systems, companies are reluctant to use these. Consequently, a relevant question formulation is: Are frameworks in the development of production systems usable?

The purpose with this thesis work was therefore to evaluate the usability of production system development frameworks (PSDFs) in practice. In order to achieve this purpose, two research questions were established:

RQ1.  How can usability of frameworks be evaluated?

RQ2.  How does the use of a framework contribute to the development of a new production system?

In order to answer the posed research questions, Bellgran and Säfsten’s PSDF was used in the production system development (PSD) process of a new production system at Xylem. Based on the PSD process, a meta-study was performed to evaluate the practical usability of the PSDF. Usability was defined and evaluated based on the five usability terms learnability, memorability, efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction.

The result showed that all the five usability terms contribute to the usability evaluation of PSDFs. However, memorability was considered difficult to use on only one study since the user has to think a step further and make a qualified guess to answer if it is possible to memorize a framework. Therefore, it was considered memorability is only appropriate to use in a multiple study.

The results also showed that Bellgran and Säfsten’s PSDF contributed most in the beginning of the PSD process by putting emphasis on the planning phase and providing a structure to follow. Due to the nature of a framework (i.e., to serve as a guide for structures to follow), this was not unexpected. However, the contributions from a structure or plan are hard to exactly distinguish. Since companies most often want tangible and accurate evidences, frameworks’ vague contributions are considered to be a major reason to why companies do not use frameworks more frequently. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. , 63 p.
Keyword [en]
Production system development, Framework, Usability, Evaluation, Meta-Study
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-19202OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-19202DiVA: diva2:545381
Subject / course
JTH, Production Systems
Uppsok
Technology
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2012-08-30 Created: 2012-08-20 Last updated: 2012-08-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1578 kB)443 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 1578 kBChecksum SHA-512
4534ba67dbc4daae9f280d80411e61a27e3809c713b58ec01267a1053565cd720cf402076699a07506fedd2f396f18ea3d9c626525e13a543131d5b391bcb636
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
School of Engineering
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 443 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 186 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf