A Systematic Analysis Framework for Toy Modularity

Hengjie Li

doi:10.54097/e6ejhq93

Authors

Hengjie Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/e6ejhq93

Keywords:

Modularity, toy design, analysis framework.

Abstract

There are multiple approaches to achieving modularity in toys, each with its unique set of advantages and tradeoffs. In light of such variety, designers might find it increasingly strenuous to be constantly mindful of each set in teams that need to agilely develop new products to fulfill the swiftly changing market. Another challenge is that during the ideation phase in design exploration, the designer might find themselves limited in their understanding of modular toy design and miss certain possibilities that could be a result of random combinations of the different aspects of modularity. This paper aims to aid designers in both selecting concept direction before ideation and exploring random possibilities during ideation. By introducing a systematic analysis framework for toy modularity visualized in a graph with two axes, the graph can focus designers on the appropriate route while providing a vast map that they can readily explore. In addition, two examples are provided to ground the graph in real design projects and demonstrate how it can be utilized.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Leavy, Brian. Erich Joachimsthaler: The principle of shared value drives the success of the “interaction field” business model. Strategy and Leadership, 2020.

LEGO: Road to Success. (2022, September 01). Edubirdie. Retrieved August 22, 2023.

Page, T., and Thorsteinsson, G. Designing toys to support children’s development. I-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 2017, 11(2): 1-10.

Folkestad, James and Johnson, Russell. Resolving the conflict between design and manufacturing: Integrated Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling (IRPRT). J. Ind. Technol. 17, 2001.

Efatmaneshnik M., Shoval S. and Qiao L., A Standard Description of the Terms Module and Modularity for Systems Engineering,” in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2020, 67(02): 365-375.

Borjesson F., Approaches to Modularity in Product Architecture, Licentiate dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2012.

Artemis Yagou, The Other Side of Play: Fear and Frustration in the Design, Consumption and Use of Construction Sets, Journal of Design History, 2020, 33(03): 193–208.

Brianna E. Kaplan, Jaya Rachwani, Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, Karen E. Adolph. The process of learning the designed actions of toys, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2022, 221:105442.

Yazgin Eda. Toys and Creativity. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 2021, 9: 215-222.

Sianturi, Gabriel and Fuad, Lutfhi. Conceptual design of children’s portable bicycle frame and handlebar. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.2018, 407: 012084.

Souza I., Andrade W., Sampaio L. and Araujo A., A Systematic Review on the use of LEGO Robotics in Education,” 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, 2018: 1-9.

Yoon, S.H., Verma, A., Peppler, K.A., and Ramani, K. HandiMate: exploring a modular robotics kit for animating crafted toys. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2015.

Hand squeeze powered rotary tool. Retrieved September 12, 2023.