SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tasarım + Kuram / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 46

A Practice-Based Autoethnographic Investigation of An Industrial Designer’s Workflow Transformation

Endüstriyel Tasarımcının İş Akışı Dönüşümünün, Uygulama Temelli Otoetnografik İncelenmesi

Hüseyin Özkal Özsoy(MİMAR SİNAN GÜZEL SANATLAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5531-3539
Pages
125–141
Publication Date
2026-10-05
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article concludes by discussing the tension between creative freedom and manufacturability and proposing implications for design education aimed at cultivating integrative, hands-on competencies for agile practice.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates how Additive Manufacturing (AM) functions as a catalyst for workflow transformation in industrial design practice, reframing AM not as a disruptive technology but as a driver of structural and epistemic change.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Two physical case projects -a tugboat model and a mechanical gearbox redesign for electric conversion- serve as the empirical basis, together with the hybrid CAD-to-game-engine workflow integrated into both projects' additive manufacturing pipelines.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article concludes by discussing the tension between creative freedom and manufacturability and proposing implications for design education aimed at cultivating integrative, hands-on competencies for agile practice.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:eklemeli üretim · Endüstriyel Tasarım · Otoetnografi

Abstract

This study investigates how Additive Manufacturing (AM) functions as a catalyst for workflow transformation in industrial design practice, reframing AM not as a disruptive technology but as a driver of structural and epistemic change. Using a practice-based autoethnographic methodology, the study draws on twenty years of professional and pedagogical experience, supported by a thematic synthesis of over fifty academic and professional sources and validated through member checking with academic peers. Two physical case projects -a tugboat model and a mechanical gearbox redesign for electric conversion- serve as the empirical basis, together with the hybrid CAD-to-game-engine workflow integrated into both projects' additive manufacturing pipelines. The findings identify three interrelated dynamics: the decentralization of design authority, enabling direct designer oversight of fabrication parameters; the reconfiguration of linear workflows into recursive, integrated loops, associated with a self-reported, substantial reduction in development time; and the emergence of a hybrid "designer-maker-engineer" role combining creative intuition, computational modeling, and material-process literacy. The study situates these shifts within the technical constraints of hybrid fabrication, including process optimization and surface-quality considerations in secondary manufacturing operations. The article concludes by discussing the tension between creative freedom and manufacturability and proposing implications for design education aimed at cultivating integrative, hands-on competencies for agile practice.

Özet

Bu çalışma, eklemeli üretimin endüstriyel tasarım pratiğinde iş akışı dönüşümünü nasıl hızlandırdığını incelemekte; eklemeli üretimi yıkıcı bir teknoloji olarak değil, yapısal ve epistemik değişimin bir katalizörü olarak yeniden konumlandırmaktadır. Uygulama temelli otoetnografik bir metodoloji benimseyen çalışma, elliden fazla akademik ve mesleki kaynağın tematik sentezi ile desteklenen ve akademik akranlarla gerçekleştirilen üye denetimi aracılığıyla doğrulanan yirmi yıllık mesleki ve pedagojik deneyime dayanmaktadır. Analizin ampirik temelini iki fiziksel vaka çalışması oluşturmaktadır: Arktik sınıfı bir römorkör modeli ve elektrikli dönüşüm için tasarlanmış mekanik bir dişli kutusu; bunlara ek olarak, her iki projenin eklemeli üretim iş akışına da entegre edilmiş hibrit bir CAD-oyun motoru iş akışı incelenmektedir. Bulgular, birbirleriyle ilişkili üç dinamiği ortaya koymaktadır: üretim parametreleri üzerinde doğrudan tasarımcı denetimini mümkün kılan tasarım otoritesinin ademi merkezileşmesi; doğrusal tasarım iş akışlarının özyinelemeli, bütünleşik döngülere dönüştürülmesi ve belgelenen projelerde geliştirme süresinde kendi bildirimine dayalı, niteliksel olarak belirgin bir azalmayla ilişkilendirilmesi; ve yaratıcı sezgiyi, hesaplamalı modellemeyi ile malzeme-süreç okuryazarlığını bir arada barındıran hibrit bir "tasarımcı-yapımcı-mühendis" rolünün ortaya çıkması. Çalışma ayrıca bu dönüşümleri, ikincil üretim operasyonlarında süreç optimizasyonu ve yüzey kalitesine ilişkin hususlar da dahil olmak üzere hibrit üretimin teknik kısıtlamaları çerçevesinde ele almaktadır. Makale, yaratıcı özgürlük ile üretilebilirlik arasındaki gerilimi tartışarak ve çevik tasarım pratiği için bütünleşik, uygulamalı yetkinlikler geliştirmeye yönelik tasarım eğitimi açısından çıkarımlar sunarak sonuçlandırılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özsoy, H. Ö. (2026). A Practice-Based Autoethnographic Investigation of An Industrial Designer’s Workflow Transformation. Tasarım + Kuram, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 46, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.67911/tasarimkuram.1987471

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449
  2. Ary S., J. (2024). Industrial Design. Distributed via Smashwords.
  3. Basar, G., & Der, O. (2025). Multi-objective optimization of process parameters for laser cutting polyethylene using fuzzy AHP-based MCDM methods. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, 239(4), 2295–2309. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544089251319202
  4. Basar, G., Der, O., & Guvenc, M. A. (2025). AI-powered hybrid metaheuristic optimization for predicting surface roughness and kerf width in CO2 laser cutting of 3D-printed PLA-CF composites. Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 38(7), 2688–2717. https://doi.org/10.1177/08927057251344183
  5. Bogers, M., Hadar, R., & Bilberg, A. (2015). Business Models for Additive Manufacturing: Exploring Digital Technologies, Consumer Roles, and Supply Chains (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2638054). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2638054
  6. Cordeiro‐Nilsson, C. M., & Hawamdeh, S. (2011). Leveraging socio‐culturally situated tacit knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108710
  7. Couch, A., & Lu, Y. (2024, February 12). Expanding MAM Readiness: Towards A Holistic Model for Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. 14th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.46254/AN14.20240170
  8. de Vere, I. (2013). Industrial design 2.0: A renaissance. DS 76: Proceedings of E&PDE 2013, the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Dublin, Ireland, 05-06.09.2013, 824–829.
  9. Diegel, O., Nordin, A., & Motte, D. (2019). A Practical Guide to Design for Additive Manufacturing. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8281-9
  10. Egon, A., Bell, C., & Shad, R. (2024). Additive Manufacturing for Complex Geometries. Chemistry and Materials Science. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.2602.v1
  11. Forsey, J. (2013). The Aesthetics of Design. OUP USA.
  12. Friesike, S., Flath, C. M., Wirth, M., & Thiesse, F. (2019). Creativity and productivity in product design for additive manufacturing: Mechanisms and platform outcomes of remixing. Journal of Operations Management, 65(8), 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.10.004
  13. Gibson, I., Rosen, D., & Stucker, B. (2015). Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2113-3
  14. Gulay, E., & Lucero, A. (2019). Integrated Workflows: Generating Feedback Between Digital and Physical Realms. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300290
  15. Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4), e12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735
  16. Kechagias, J. D., Fountas, N. A., Ninikas, K., Petousis, M., Vidakis, N., & Vaxevanidis, N. (2022). Surface characteristics investigation of 3D-printed PET-G plates during CO2 laser cutting. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 37(11), 1347–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2021.1981933
  17. Kim, D. B., Witherell, P., Lipman, R., & Feng, S. C. (2015). Streamlining the additive manufacturing digital spectrum: A systems approach. Additive Manufacturing, 5, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2014.10.004
  18. Koch, C. H. W. (2022). The future of industrial design and its role in Industry 4.0 [Doctoral]. Swinburne University of Technology.
  19. Liu, A., Lu, S., Tao, F., & Anwer, N. (2024). Integration of data science with product design towards data-driven design. CIRP Annals, 73(2), 509–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2024.06.003
  20. Lodato, T., & DiSalvo, C. (2018). Institutional constraints: The forms and limits of participatory design in the public realm. Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210595
  21. Mandolini, M., Pradel, P., & Cicconi, P. (2022). Design for Additive Manufacturing: Methods and Tools. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 6548. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136548
  22. Motulsky, S. L. (2021). Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research? Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215
  23. Negendahl, K. (2015). Building performance simulation in the early design stage: An introduction to integrated dynamic models. Automation in Construction, 54, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.002
  24. Okuda, K. (2001). Hierarchical structure in manufacturing systems: A literature survey. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 3(3), 210. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2001.001406
  25. Özsoy, H. Ö. (2012). Industrial Design Education Inside Out: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 13.
  26. Özsoy, H. Ö. (2019). Evaluation of Industrial Designs by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Parallel Prototyping. Tasarim + Kuram, 15(27). https://doi.org/10.14744/tasarimkuram.2019.02411
  27. Özsoy, H. Ö. (2025). Enhancing Industrial Product Aesthetics, Ergonomics, and Usability with Artificial Intelligence-Driven Generative Design. Journal of Intelligent Systems: Theory and Applications, 8(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.38016/jista.1677535
  28. Ree, R. (2011). 3D Printing: Convergences, Frictions, Fluidity [Master thesis, University of Toronto]. https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/items/68bb72c8-1a7c-4615-b1d5-30e58223ee5c
  29. Savvides, L. (2021). 3D Printing Enmeshing in Ideology, Cultural Imaginaries, and Political Narratives. In L. Savvides, 3D Printing Cultures, Politics and Hackerspaces (pp. 53–108). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-665-020211007
  30. Sealy, M. P., Madireddy, G., Williams, R. E., Rao, P., & Toursangsaraki, M. (2018). Hybrid Processes in Additive Manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 140(6), 060801. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4038644
  31. Self, J. A. (2012). The Use of Design Tools in Industrial Design Practice [PhD. Thesis, Kingston University]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289674998_The_Use_of_Design_Tools_in_Industrial_Design_Practice
  32. Sossou, G., Demoly, F., Montavon, G., & Gomes, S. (2018). An additive manufacturing oriented design approach to mechanical assemblies. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 5(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2017.11.005
  33. Steenhuis, H.-J., & Pretorius, L. (2017). The additive manufacturing innovation: A range of implications. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 28(1), 122–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2016-0081
  34. Stefanescu, D. A. (2020). Alternate Means of Digital Design Communication [Doctoral, UCL (University College London)]. In Doctoral thesis, UCL (University College London). UCL (University College London). https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10110102/
  35. Tao, F., Sui, F., Liu, A., Qi, Q., Zhang, M., Song, B., Guo, Z., Lu, S. C.-Y., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2019). Digital twin-driven product design framework. International Journal of Production Research, 57(12), 3935–3953. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1443229 Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  36. Tofail, S. A. M., Koumoulos, E. P., Bandyopadhyay, A., Bose, S., O’Donoghue, L., & Charitidis, C. (2018). Additive manufacturing: Scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and opportunities. Materials Today, 21(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.001
  37. Venkatesh, A. (2021). Facilitation of design students’ tacit knowledge construction: An interpretive research in interior design studios [PhD. Thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University]. https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/11538