Högskolan i Skövde

Recently, the concept of Industry 5.0 has been introduced to complement, among other things, Industry 4.0’s focus on efficiency and productivity with a focus on humans in digital design and production processes. The inclusion of human interaction with digital realities, extended reality (XR) technologies, such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), can play an essential role in Industry 5.0. While rapid advances in XR technologies are solidifying and finding their place in the product and production development process, terminology and classification scheme remain under-determined. As a result, there have been numerous classifications of XR technologies from different perspectives, but little widespread agreement. They have been classified by their level of immersion or how well they meet a specific purpose (such as training). In addition to that, the classifications are usually made for one particular field (e.g. marketing, healthcare, engineering, architecture, among others). Therefore, to set the basis for future research, it is essential to identify and outline the dimensions that intervene in product and production design in regards to XR facilitated collaboration. With the ideas proposed in this paper, we want to identify basic concepts that classify a collaborative XR system by analyzing how users interact with the environment and other users. Our motivation is that collaborative design involves not only the physical dimension but also a social dimension. Defining when an XR system contributes to increasing social and/or physical presence could clarify and simplify its categorization.

Often new digital tools are introduced alongside existing tools and workflows to augment and fill gaps in current processes. Virtual and augmented reality (XR) tools are currently being deployed in this way within design processes, allowing for interactive visualization in virtual environments including the use of DHM tools. Currently, the focus is on how to implement XR as a stand-alone tool for single-user scenarios. However, in collaborative design contexts, screen-based and XR tools can be used together to leverage the benefits of each technology maximizing the potential of multi-user design processes. XR allows for an immersive exploration of designed objects in 3D space, while screen-based tools allow for easier notetaking and integration of additional non-3D software and meeting tools. Ensuring that these technologies are integrated in a mutually beneficial manner requires a framework for determining the best combination of technologies and interfaces for diverse design teams. This paper presents a framework for performing collaborative design reviews in a digital environment that can be accessed using both XR and 2D screen devices simultaneously. It enables asymmetric collaboration to provide each design team member with the technology that best fits their workflow and requirements.

Aims: Recent world events have resulted in companies using remote meeting tools more often in design processes. The shift to remote meeting tools has had a notable impact on collaborative design activities, such as design reviews (DRs). When DRs depend on computer-aided design (CAD) software, the lack of direct support for CAD functionalities in videoconferencing applications introduces novel communication challenges, i.e. friction. This study investigates friction encountered in real world remote DRs when using a combination of standard CAD and videoconferencing applications. The objective was to understand the main sources of friction when carrying out DRs using a combination of CAD and videoconferencing applications.

Methods: At a single Swedish automobile manufacturer, 15 DRs of a fixture component were passively observed. These observations were subjected to a qualitative thematic analysis to identify categories and sources of friction during these DRs. The DRs were carried out using a combination of CATIA CAD software and Microsoft Teams for videoconferencing.

Results: The analysis of the 15 remote DRs identified four recurring friction categories: requesting specific viewpoints, indicating specific elements, expressing design change ideas, and evaluating ergonomics. Each category highlights specific challenges that were observed during the DRs and emerged due to constraints imposed by existing methods and technologies for remote meetings.

Conclusion: This study provides a framework for understanding the current sources of friction in remote DRs using videoconferencing tools. These insights can support the future development of DR software tools, guiding the integration of features that address these friction points. Additionally, the results serve as a guideline for organizations to implement methods that reduce friction in remote DRs and improve DR quality and efficacy.

This study examines how specific collaborative features for independent viewpoint control, collaborative pointing, sketching, and manikin representations support design reviews in a virtual environment. Participants conducted design reviews using the collaborative design tool Gravity Sketch while engaging with these features. Results show that friction situations were minimal, with viewpoint control eliminating the need for perspective adjustments. Collaborative pointing and sketching effectively clarified design modifications, while manikin representations aided discussions on ergonomics. The findings highlight how the evaluated features facilitate communication in remote design reviews.