3.1. Background

This study presents the co-design approach within a small manufacturing company, supported by a technology partner, as part of a research consortium funded by the European Commission (EU), that aims to analyse the human-machine relations, defining future pathways needed to succeed in this space. The study was conducted over a period of one year, between 2023-2024, during which several meetings, co-design activities and testing sessions occurred. The company’s production and business model have developed over the years from a craft tradition including fine mechanics, blacksmithing and lock manufacturing. The workforce today consists of twelve people in addition to administrative staff, where five senior operators have more than thirty years of experience in the lock industry. With a “low volume – high mix” business model, an important issue is the need to maintain skills and competences that are relevant to the manufacture and assembly of products, but also professional knowledge of how old locks are produced and assembled. Their aim is to improve the inadequate, and for some products non-existent, instructions on how to effectively assemble mechanical lock components.

The management expected that an MR-based methodology would support the flexibility requirements of the business model, increasing rotation of assemblers between different product series and workstations, and the attractiveness of their industrial craft skills and motivate younger potential employees. The technology partner proposed a pilot test for implementing the MR technology as an alternative to their current lock assembly instructions (Reference Köping OlssonKöping Olsson, 2024). During the initial training session, one senior operator, with over thirty years of experience, tested the Microsoft HoloLens 2 tool at the technology partner’s headquarters. He first assembled a test product following ready-made instructions, and then experimented with designing his own assembly instructions for one of their locks. After this session, the company lost interest in the MR application, motivated as being inopportune for their company’s organisational and work practices. Thus, we decided to explore how a co-design approach will enable people’s engagement in reflecting on their assembly practices in relation to new technologies, and be an active part in designing the MR assembly instruction.

3.2. Methods

This paper focuses on two co-design workshops that provide valuable insights on the early participants’ engagement in exploring the potential implementation of new technologies, with focus on MR application. The workshops were organised on two distinct days, took place in a traditional conference room at the company factory and lasted for approximately two hours each. Both workshops followed the same structure, starting with a sensitising session, using the photo elicitation method and continuing with a generative session, applying the tangible method, for reflecting, visualising and defining different aspects of the assembly processes. The distinctive aims of the methods (Figure 1) are presented below under the respective subsection.

Figure 1. Workshops structure, task description and people engaged

The people participating in the workshops have also been part of the entire study, and consist of three representatives from the manufacturing company, having different roles: the senior operator, the site manager and the CEO. The organising team includes four people: the PhD student in Innovation and Design (designing and facilitating the workshops), the case study coordinator, the MR engineer and the senior ethnographic researcher (the last three observing and interacting in some parts during the process). Their presence during the workshops varies to some extent (Figure 1). The participants are seen as experts in their area, a view that has long been used in participatory design practices, with Reference Sanders and StappersSanders and Stappers (2012) recognising the people as the “experts of their experience”, having an active part throughout the design process, in developing knowledge, generating ideas and making design concepts.

The workshops’ data has been collected through audio recordings, photos, short videos, field notes and tangible artefacts.

3.3. Sensitising sessions

The photo elicitation method is used during the first part of each workshop, as a sensitising session to immerse the participants in making observations and reflecting on their assembly processes, opportunities, challenges, that will be addressed later in the journey (Reference Sanders and StappersSanders & Stappers, 2012). This method has its roots in ethnographic research and as the participants take their own photos within their workspaces, it enables the possibility of communicating about their work practices through both verbal and pictorial, unfolding multimodal and multi-layered stories and lived experiences (Reference Schaefer and CarlssonSchaeffer & Carlsson, 2014).

During the workshops, the sensitising sessions follow the same structure. The participants are asked to take four photos in the factory, describe them using a template, and share their thoughts in an unstructured group interview. Designed and printed beforehand, the template contains two A4 pages of instructions: a short description of the task, two questions (“What did you take a photo of?”, “Why did you choose this photo?”) and a space for writing five keywords related to the photo (Figure 2, left). The session starts by introducing the task and the participants leave the room for approximately 20 minutes in search for the scenes, spaces or objects that would reflect their ideas, taking the photos using their own smartphones. Returning to the room, the participants write their reflections on the template for about 10 minutes, and share their photos with the PhD student via email (Figure 2, right). For the next 20 minutes the participants show their photos projected on the conference room screen, and express their thoughts in an unstructured group interview, encouraging open dialogue, comments and reflections.

Figure 2. The photo elicitation template (left). Sharing moment during the session (right)

The first workshop centres around reflecting on the current practices of their product assembly processes, the participants being asked to think about the parts and moments of the assembly process that, from their perspective, worked well, and the ones that needed improvement. The second workshop narrows the assembly process toward their training practices, taking four photos related to the most important aspects a new employee should learn during the training process.

3.4. Generative sessions

During the second part of each workshop, tangible methods were used to support the participants’ engagement in exploring and generating alternatives in their everyday work processes through making. Tangible methods enhance the participants in communicating their ideas and visualising their thoughts that otherwise would be difficult to articulate verbally, creating also a shared language between the participants and the team (Reference Sanders and StappersSanders and Stappers, 2012). Interacting with the materials and creating tangible artefacts also provides support for constructing meaning and new ways of understanding (Reference TverskyTversky, 2011), as well as collecting and preserving information (Mäkelä, 2005) in relation to the participants’ assembly practices, craft skills and detailed procedures. To facilitate the engagement, two toolkits are made prior to the workshops. This method starts by introducing the task to the group, inviting the participants to use the toolkit arranged on the table (Figure 3, left), to visualise their ideas, processes and visions. The making part takes around one hour, supporting shared discussions, reflections and questions within the group, regarding the topic (Figure 3, right). The method ends with a 10-minute group reflection and agreement for the next activity.

Figure 3. The toolkit from the workshop 2 (left). Using the toolkit during the session (right)

The first workshop relies on understanding their current assembly process in relation to one specific situation. The participants are asked to imagine the scenario in which one of the operators is missing for a few days, and someone else has to produce the orders. To visualise this process, the toolkit contains multiple elements used as triggers that allow room for a variety of interpretations, including simple and symbolical shapes (wooden blocks and sticks, wooden figures, face figures, coloured round stickers), writing tools (coloured markers and pens), paper tools (post-its, paper tape) and one long white paper for the base. When the complete process is visualised, the participants are invited to reflect and mark on the paper, the parts that would benefit from the implementation of new technologies in general, and then MR technology in particular.

For the second workshop, the participants engage in visualising the assembly instructions of one lock, marking all the steps and particularities that someone unfamiliar with the process would need to complete the task. To make the instructions, the toolkit includes specific and symbolic shapes, designed in Adobe Photoshop and Keynote, printed on paper and individually cut (lock components from the original instructions; symbolic shapes of photo and video cameras, headphones, microphones, speakers, magnifying glasses, arrows, check marks, stops, hearts, stars; plain rectangles and circles). Other elements complete the paper shapes, such as foam face figures, paper tools (post-its, paper tape and scissors), writing tools (coloured markers and pens) and one long white paper for the base. These materials are selected to both resemble the physical lock (paper lock components), but also relate to the future digital experience (interaction and emotional symbols), in order to visualise each assembly step on paper, providing further reference when designing the Microsoft HoloLens 2 instructions. The toolkit also contains the original lock components and tools to be assembled in parallel to prototyping the steps on the paper.

3.5. Analysis

For the analysis, the audio recordings of both workshops have been transcribed using Amberscript, manually corrected and translated from Swedish to English. Along with the transcripts (a total of 95 pages), we also looked at the visual material generated during the workshops, such as the photos taken by the participants during the sensitising sessions (a total of 20 photos), the fill-in templates (a total of 10 pages), the artefacts produced during the generative sessions (one for each workshop), and the photos and short videos taken by the PhD student. With various data, we present the findings following an inductive approach, describing the participants’ engagement in the early phases of co-designing the MR assembly instruction. We look at the ideas regarding their current practices and training practices they engaged with during each workshop.

In the discussion session, we reflect on how the co-design approach provided support for the participants’ early engagement in relation to both the consortium and the company aims, using tangible and digital materials for reflecting, visualising and defining their ideas and practices.

4.1. Engaging in current practices

During the first workshop, the sensitising session uncovers several aspects of the participants’ current work practices within the lock company. Despite the task being narrowed towards the assembly processes, both participants choose to expand the reflections on the production level. For example, when reflecting on what needs improvement, the senior operator lifts his struggle regarding their constant process of improving the assembly technical details, which is dependent on an external provider who owns the components. Another example is brought up by the site manager, in relation to a recently implemented production support system. He thinks this new production support system “has isolated” them, as the information displayed (on a computer screen) is too narrow, being difficult for the operators to make the right decisions when choosing an order and requiring more experience in navigating the system. When reflecting on the aspects that work well, the participants mention the good collaboration among the employees, their professionalism and willingness to continuously develop their competences and skills, as well as their working spaces that support their qualitative work.

The generative session also provides insights on their current process, which oriented the design of the MR assembly instructions, along with uncovering another technological need. The participants used the toolkit to reflect on the occasions the senior operator might need assembly instructions, visualising a specific moment when one of their colleagues was sick and he had to cover his orders and assemble products that he was not familiar with. As during the sensitising session, instead of only focusing on the assembly processes, the participants use the materials to show the entire process of completing this order, from choosing it to making it ready for the delivery, by moving the physical elements, enacting the wooden figurines and writing down their routines on the large paper (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Current production process and technologies aspects visualised by the participants

Throughout the session, the participants explain each of the steps the senior operator makes in order to assemble the order, such as looking for the instructions if they are available (the site manager explains that today, only 40% of their products have assembly instructions or standards), checking the ready assembled product used as a reference for that specific lock, consulting colleagues who are more familiar with these specific components, and based on all this information, applying his own assembly procedures. The participants bring up their engagement in improving their instructions by constantly checking all the parts to find more effective processes. This is both an individual and a collective activity, challenging the employees in developing their skills and innovative processes.

To better understand their needs, the participants are asked to reflect and mark on the paper the areas where a possible new technology might support their current production processes. They highlight the need of a customised production support system that would be interactive, provide clear information and support the operators in understanding the planning and making active decisions. When asked about the possibility of MR instructions, the senior operator acknowledges that for him written instructions are more useful, instead of using the Microsoft HoloLens 2 tool, which the site manager suggests might provide support for younger trainees, with no previous experience, in their apprenticeship processes. They also discuss the possibility of a paper or a video format more relevant for the senior operator, with key features such as being available without asking someone else, easy to navigate or skip the steps, and including fine details important to remember. We conclude by highlighting that they need two distinctive types of instructions, one for the trainee (with possible MR application) and one for the experienced operators (to quickly remember the process).

4.2. Engaging in training practices

The second workshop starts with the team presenting a summary of the insights gathered in the previous workshop, as the company CEO joins the group. We show the two production areas with potential for new technology implementation: the production support system and the instructions, with their two distinctive applications for trainee and experienced operators. We discuss extending the current collaborative study towards the production support system, and the participants share their interests and initial ideas regarding this possible technological implementation. Following that, we mutually agreed on continuing the exploration of co-designing the MR assembly instructions, with focus on training.

The sensitising session brings insights on the main aspects in training a new employee, the participants reflecting on their organisational values, training practices and production routines. For example, all participants highlight the need for a new employee to join the group and become a team member. The CEO considers the social criteria as a crucial aspect for getting employed. They also value the willingness to learn, support and respect each other in their dynamic team. Learning the correct instructions and procedures is highlighted from different views. The site manager describes their training as a “side by side” process with the experienced trainer, while the senior operator mentions the importance of individual discoveries in learning how to navigate the space. Other aspects such as safety and qualitative requirements and protocols are also important. These insights provide the framework for the following prototyping session.

The generative session engages the participants in prototyping the assembly instructions of one of their locks, by observing, reflecting and mapping all the necessary steps. (Figure 5). The toolkit is intended to be used by the participants, but after introducing the task, none of them is willing to pick up the paper components and make the instructions collage. Therefore, the participants and the team members start a collective prototyping process: the senior operator shows his assembly process on the original lock, the PhD student maps the process using the toolkit, and everyone gets involved in sharing knowledge, asking questions and reflecting on the process, directly linked to their own expertise.

Figure 5. Assembly instructions: paper prototype

Thus, our prototyping process includes the following actions: we observe the apparent and subtle movements of assembling the original lock and reflect on them; we tape the paper components on the long paper, following the same order as in the original lock assembly; we ask clarifying questions, as the original lock assembly movements might seem obvious or routinised for the experienced ones; we agree on including all the small details that might appear during the process, and decide what to keep and what to leave out later, when making the Microsoft HoloLens 2 instructions; we number the steps and constantly reflect on their length and details that should be included in each one; we identify the moments when particular problems or exceptions might occur, and mark the procedures to overcome them, as complementary information in the instruction process; we video record the original lock assembly movements, and mark the action on paper, under the respective step; we create a pattern on how to use the paper symbols, depending on the details that need to be represented; we reflect and negotiate how to connect the paper prototype process with the digital functions of the Microsoft HoloLens 2 tool, through different communication modalities (text, audio, video, 3D animation); we clarify the words and terminologies used by different people in the assembly process, and write the appropriate terms on the paper; we look for patterns and particularities in mapping out the steps; in the end, we review all the steps, micro procedures and complementary information, to ensure its correctness.

We finish the generating session by displaying the three-metre-long paper prototype outside the conference room, in the factory space and have a short reflection moment with all the participants and team members on the process, planning the next activities and checking the additional information that might be needed in creating the Microsoft HoloLens 2 instructions. We also took a complete video of the senior operator assembling the lock, at his regular workstation.