A study in defining problem packages and developing solutions

(1)

Karlstads universitet 651 88 Karlstad Fakulteten för teknik- och naturvetenskap

A study in defining problem packages and developing solutions

Melinda From

Datum/Termin:

ht 2009

Handledare: Monica Jakobsson

Examinator: Lennart Wihk

Examination for 22, 5 ECTS/HP at

Innovation and design engineering program

(2)

In this final thesis focus has been on finding a package that doesn’t work so well

regarding the opening, closing, emptying, recycling and re-closing functions. Then find a solution to the problem/problems. With help from an user-study and interviews, it was decided to focus on detergent packages made out of carton, since this is a package

people seems to be having most problems with. The problems in particular seemed to be dosage and re-close functions on the packages. During the creativity process focused was on finding solutions to these problems. The ideas were, by using the IPU-process narrowed down to one, which was developed and presented in the end. This report is written to explain the product development process for this special case, packaging for detergent. The process is described from task to concept evaluation.

(3)

I detta examensarbete har syftet varit att hitta en förpackning som inte fungerar bra rörande funktionerna öppna, återförsluta, stänga, tömma och återförsluta. Med hjälp av en användarstudie och intervjuer blev det bestämt att fokusera på

tvättmedelsförpackningar gjorda av kartong, eftersom det var denna typ av förpackning människor har mest problem med. De största problemen med förpackningarna visade sig vara dosering och återförslutning. Under idégenereringen låg därför fokus på att hitta lösningar på dessa problem. Med hjälp av IPU-processen, blev tillslut en idé vald och utvecklades vidare. Denna rapport är skriven för att förklara

produktutvecklingsprocessen för detta speciella problem, tvättmedelsförpackningar.

Denna process är beskriven från uppgift till konceptval.

(4)

Index

ABSTRACT

SAMMANFATTNING

1. ... 5

... 6

... 13

... 27

... 28

... 29

... 30

(5)

1.

A study in defining problem packages and developing solutions is a final thesis made by Melinda From at the Innovation- and design engineering program (Iod) at Karlstad University (Kau) the autumn 2009 for Stora Enso Packaging. The thesis cover 22,5 HP/ECTS. Supervisor from Kau was Monica Jacobsson and examiner Lennart Wihk. The supervisors from Stora Enso were Kristina Gullander and Ola Knutz.

At the end of the studies at the Iod-program at Kau a final thesis is made. Usually it contains a report and a presentation of the process, where a problem is solved with the IPU-process, (Concurrent engineering)¹. This commission is often engendered from a company. During the autumn semester of 2009, I have implemented this degree project in corporation with Stora Enso Packaging at the Karlstad research center

(RCK).Together a project were composed concerning the opening, closing and dosage system of packages, which often can be a problem for certain users. Today the package of a product is almost as important as the product itself for the consumers. A package leaking or being hard to open often makes the customer not willing to buy that product again². To constantly be looking for better solutions a producer can be far ahead from their contesters. At Stora Enso packaging in Karlstad, they always work for better solutions in packaging design.

When a problem-package is defined, is it possible to find a solution that makes the package easier to handle regarding to opening, closing, emptying, dosing and recycling by using the IPU-process?

By using the IPU-process³, develop new solutions for a carton-package (non-liquid substance) concerning the areas: opening, closing, and dosage of substance, emptying the package and recycling the waste. By letting the student practice the process, Stora Enso hopes to find new solutions for their customers.

Defining one product with the potential to be better and present a better solution for it concerning opening, closing, re-close, recycle and dosage and deliver the result in form of a written report, an oral report and a 3d-model presented on an exhibition.

Due to the time limits of this project, it will not contain calculation of manufacturing expenses and there will not be taken in consideration to fit existing machine parks.

1 Johannesson, Persson & Pettersson 2004:55

2 Löfgren 2006:28

(6)

The IPU-process is a method that systematically develops new solutions for a product or a process. The method focuses on integrate all parts of a team at an early stage in the

developing process.⁴

The documents used for planning are:⁵

A Brief is a first document between the project holder (Stora Enso) and project leader (student), with a common agreement concerning aim, purpose, presentation etc. This document clarifies that both parts have the same view of the project.⁶

Program Evaluation and Review Technique, which works with two big headlines:

activities and course of events. The PERT-schedule describes the order for when the tasks in the project shall be done. It also gives an indication on what tasks that can be done at the same time and when the next task shall be done. ⁷

The Gantt chart is named after its creator Henry Gantt. Gantt is a bar chart where the different activities are represented with a bar. The length of the bar is equivalent with a timeframe. The activities, hence the bars, are shown where they begin and end, and how they occur over time. The chart is built in the x-axis direction. The x-axis represents the timeline. ⁸

Every project has risks, as if they occur, will affect the whole project. To make a risk analyze is then useful, so if the problems occur, they will not have a big influence on the out-coming result. Because the project leader knows of their existents and what to do if they show up, the problems will not take as big proportions as it would otherwise.

Possible risks are listed and a ranking of how big damage it will be on the project and how likely it is that they occur. From this information the project-leader is more prepared.⁹

It is important to get as much knowledge of the field of packaging as possible, to be able to present a good result in the end. Therefore it’s necessary to set aside a lot of time to the research-phase. This knowledge will be a great asset during the creativity process

5 Eriksson & Lillesköld 2005:23

6 Österlin 2007:28

(7)

and the research-process is an ongoing process so it will also continue during the creativity process.

To decide which packages to develop, a feasibility-study is needed. A feasibility-study can be made in different ways but focus is to clarify where focus should be. The feasibility-study is the first phase in the research and makes the first sort-out in the process.¹⁰

To make interviews to randomly picked people you can create a solid ground for your decisions in what direction the project is headed. The more people you interview – the better result you can get from the study. The good thing with using interviews as a tool is that you can find out more than you can from for example a questionnaire. Because you’re facing people and can give them follow-up questions about their answers, and by this get information you’d never had otherwise. You can also interview professionals in the field to get even more information about were the problems in this field lies.¹¹

By picking out a small group of people and make them create a diary of the product you’re investigating; you can dig deeper in what kind of problems people really have. It’s important to not steer them in any directions but to get out as much information as possible. ¹²

A lot of knowledge about packaging and its possibilities is easy to find in the literature, on the internet, and in magazines. A first search in these Medias will be compulsory before moving on to further research.¹³

To learn more about the industry and to get new ideas and inspiration from different areas, fieldtrips are a good source for information. It is a help in the project to engender god insight in the field and overlook delimits and possibilities.

To visit relevant exhibitions is a way to meet people within the field and see what’s new and upcoming. It’s a source for new ideas and for finding new angles of the

problem/problems.

In this kind of project photos make a solid ground of information and inspiration. To take the camera out in shops, supermarkets etc, to document different packages and solutions of today, a wide information base in presented.

10 Johannesson, Pettersson & Persson 2004:88

(8)

To get knowledge and inspiration about trends, environment, innovation, product development and packaging design, it’s possible to go to open lectures at the university and other open lectures in the nearby society.

When decided what kind of product/package to develop, a deeper research will have to take place. It’s easier to focus on the right things when you’ve decided product. This is a very important period in the project and a deep research will improve the result in the end.

When decided which product to develop the next step is to make a Product specification form, (Figure 1) were you list all the functions that need to be fulfilled for this product.

The Product specification helps to identify the needs in a particular product and how to engage this the best way. Instead of looking at the construction and what the product is, you can through the product specification see what the product do and give to the user.

This makes it easier to find a solution that will be more suitable for the user/users and fulfill their needs. The functions are divided into Head function HF, Required functions R and Desired functions D. Then it will be decided if it’s a functional (F) or a Limited (L) function. This presents a form that is useful in the decision of choosing an idea in the evaluating process. ¹⁴

Product specification form

Criteria nr Criteria

Functions Head= HF, Demand: D, Required: R

Functional= F Limited=L

1 Low weight D L

2 Easy to carry R F

3 Built according to standard XXX D L

4 Waterproof R L

5 etc 6 7

Figure 1: Example of Product Specification Form

Generating new ideas and new solutions for a particular problem is done with help from different creativity techniques. By bringing together people with different backgrounds, ages and lifestyles, and making them cooperate, new better solutions turn up. To make this happen there are a lot of organized techniques available to use.

(9)

In this project, two different kinds of creativity processes will occur. One method where the student do some exercises alone and also practice the “try-n-error” method and one larger creativity exercise, with invited participants.

In the later case the most important is that everyone has the knowledge and agreed about the most important rules concerning the creativity process, which are¹⁵:

- It’s not allowed to criticize other ideas during the creativity process. (This will happen in the evaluation-process.)

- The participants should think outside the box

- The participants should not be afraid to come up with crazy ideas.¹⁶

Slip writing is creativity methods where you can be creative on your own. It’s a good method to start with since it gives the participants the opportunity to empty their head of the first upcoming ideas, and then they can move on to dig deeper after more outside- the-box ideas. In the next step the ideas are combined to bring out new fantastic

solutions.¹⁷

This method starts when the idea-manager¹⁸ gives the participants a photo. Everyone get different ones of a celebrity person. It can be everything from cartoons and fantasy figures to politicians and dead professors.

In groups they discuss their photos and what kind of personal qualities they have. Then they sit one by one and think of how would the creative idol solve this? This makes the participants think wider and outside the box, change perspective and see the problem from different views. When they have emptied their heads of ideas they rejoin in their groups and combine their ideas with each other. ¹⁹

By just using “trial-n-error” and sit down and sketch your ideas, new solutions can turn up and you can also see if it’s possible in real life.²⁰

Turn around is a method where you start with creating certain known facts about a problem. For example: You need to find new ways for people to do their exercise. You create some sentences about this:

People are lazy and prefer to do the exercise at home It’s a long walking distance to the gym

People like to take a shower after exercising.

15 Johansson 2004:96

17 Michanek & Breiler 2004

(10)

By using these sentences and turn them around you can find new solutions to the problem.

The sentence People are lazy can be turned around into:

People are lazy and prefer to do their exercise with a private coach.

People are often active and prefer to exercise on their way home from work.

Etc.

By turning a known fact you can find new ways to look at a problem.

When several concepts are developed it’s time to move on to the evaluation process. The concept evaluation can be done by an Elimination matrix. In this project it’s decided to use the elimination matrix by Pahl and Beitz, which makes it possible to eliminate the bad ideas in an early stage.²¹

Figure 2: Example of an elimination matrix.²²

In advance criterions are decided for this solution. Every idea is then checked against every criterion in this matrix. If it gets a plus (+) it means it should move on in the process. A minus (-) means it’s “dead” and will not be further investigated. A question mark (?) means that more info is required to make a decision and a (!) means check against the product specification.

The ideas who got only plus (+) in the elimination matrix now move on to the relative decision matrix by Pugh²³. The criterion in this matrix is based on the product

specifications desired criterion and the ideas are compared with each other. A plus (+) means that it fulfils the criteria better than the other solutions, (0) means not better or worse than the other ideas and (-) means that it doesn’t fulfil the criteria as well as the other ideas.

(11)

In the end the ideas are summed up and placed in order and the best ideas move on to the next state.

Figure 3: Example of relative decision matrix²⁴

After choosing one or more ideas it’s time for further developments. This is when the final adjustments are made and it’s still possible to change the ideas. This is an

important part of the process for testing and visualizing the ideas.

The result will be tested out and in the end presented as a 3D model/Prototype. This shows how the product works and makes it easier for people outside the project to understand its functions. In this case it is also demand from the job initiator. ²⁵

When to write a report it’s important to consider to whom you are writing the paper for.

In this case it is a process-report, written in an academic perspective, to enlighten the IPU-process.²⁶

An oral report is compulsory, both from Kau and from Stora Enso.²⁷

26 Hemlin 199:220

27 Hemlin 20

(12)

To be able to present this for future clients to Stora Enso, a prospectus of the final result is needed. It’s meant to be a presentation for clients and be used by Stora Enso sales personnel.

(13)

In the beginning of the project a detailed planning was made and this was the ground- foundation during the process.

The Brief clarified the important parts of the agreement with Stora Enso. It was returned to during the process because it kept the work in the right direction.

Appendix 1

The planning in the pert was followed during the whole process. It helped to make sure that important guidelines were followed. Over all the Pert was followed quite accurate.

Appendix 2

The Gantt timetable was a complement to the Pert and actually made sure that scheduled things happened when they were supposed to.

Appendix 3

In the risk-analyze it occurred that the biggest threat to the project was sickness or that the planning cracks. This was avoided during the process.

Appendix 4

The user study was given to 6 different people with different ages and backgrounds.

They filled out a packaging-diary where they picked out two or three packages, free of their choice that they have had problems with. The diary concerned all the aspects of this project (Opening, closing, dosage etc…). The participant got the assignment to grade the functions on the package and comment on why they answered as they did.

Appendix 5

The result from these questions showed that all the participants have had problems with detergent packages. It was a lot of different brands mentioned, but the same problems occurred. Such as non existing dosage system, and there was almost no re-close function.

The result shows that it’s a wide spread in the answers, except for the detergent package. No other product got more than one remark. The participants graded the different functions as shown in Figure 4. 1 (one) is very bad and 5 (five) is very good, and the bits marked in red show the two worst parts, re-close function and dosage system. A full summary of the answers is in the appendix.

Appendix 6

(14)

Detergent: Opening Emptying Re-close Dose Recycle

Via 1 1 1 - 3

ALL brands 3 3 1 - 5

ICA 3 2 2 - -

Grumme 3 3 1 - 5

Skona 4 3 2 - 5

Average: 2.8 2.4 1.4 0 3.6

Figure 4: The answers about detergent packages in the user study. 1(one) equals very bad and 5(five) equals very good. 6 persons answered the study.

The reason to why dosage got 0 points is that it none exists and comments about this are for example (in Swedish):

• ”Om man på något sätt kunde dosera utan skopa vore det prima”

• ”Det finns ingen (dosering) och jag chansar… ganska oekonomiskt, eller ekonomiskt vad vet jag, ingen aning om jag tar för mycket eller för lite, och leta upp en sak att mäta med är överkurs! …”

• Öppningshålet är inte bra gjort så det är svårt att dosera utan att spilla på sig själv”

On the re-close functions the comments were (in Swedish):

• Det går inte att återförsluta. Ibland kan det vara jobbigt när man tar ner den från hyllan för då spiller man på sig själv därför att det ofta finns tvättmedelsrester utanför förpackningen

• Det har jag i stort sett aldrig varit med om att det finns (återförslutning), man måste alltid se till att tvättmedelsförpackningen ”står upp” Vilket är dumt om man bara vill slänga ner den i tvättkorgen.

The interviews with random people were made at two occasions, at two different shopping malls in Karlstad (Bergvik köpcenter and Mitticity). 80 people answered the questions. The persons interviewed were given a short introduction on the purpose of the study: That a paper was made about packaging and the purpose now was to find out what packages people have problems with considering opening, closing, recycle,

emptying and dosage. In the first stage the interviewer did not mention that it was mainly cartons the work concerned, to be sure not to steer them in any direction. When they had come up with some packaging which they have problems with, the following up question was: What the problem with this package was and if they had any solutions to the problem. After a while the interviewer explained that it was mainly cartons the study concerned and if they knew any packages made out of carton they have problems with. What the interviewer noticed was that the answers mostly regarded cartons with liquid and then she asked if there were any cartons containing non liquid substance that the participant has problems with. A full summary of the answers are to find in appendix 7.

(15)

In figure 5 you can see the answers of packages, non liquid that was mentioned during the interviews.

Figure 5: Result from interviews with randomly picked people, concerning problems with packages. Shown are only the answers about carton packages, non-liquid. 80 persons answered the study.

The detergent packages once again turned out to be the least functional. And comments about the answers were:

- I miss a lip - Hard to open

- Spills a lot of detergent - The opening is bad - Hard to open

- Small text makes it hard to understand how to open

- Difficult to recycle, a lot of detergent in the folding of the carton

- The ones where you push your thumb in. Hard to open and it’s impossible to use later on as the carton get stuck in the way for the detergent and also makes it spill

- The ones with an opening strip. It’s stuck. Hard to open, doesn’t work What the interviewer noticed was that regarding to that most of the interviews were made before lunch and most part of the questions were pointed to elder people whom often have weak hand and problems with openings may have affected the result, and that is why the opening problem is mentioned so often. What also could have had effect on the answers was that the participants often tend to bring up articles they often use, such as milk and coffee. The consumers often mentioned problems with opening the package, and the other aspects such as emptying; re-close and dosage was hardly mentioned at all. This may be because the persons interviewed often think that the opening is the biggest problem with a package and the rest is not that important. But the

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Detergent, all brands Nestle, porrige Semper Gruel Semper Porrige Kakao Wasa bread Oatmeal & sugar Packages with ribbon Macaroni Cereal Fishfingers Icingsugar Pearlsugar Glutenfree pasta, semper

Series1

(16)

environment was mentioned several times and the consumers feel that it’s important that you can recycle the package. Therefore a lot of persons interviewed also thought that carton is much better option than plastic and metal. As a matter of fact it was hard to get examples of carton with non-liquid substance, because the biggest problems for people today lay in the plastic wrapping, both hard plastic and plastic film.

Martin Löfgren – Service research center (CTF), at Kau

Martin Löfgren is involved in a row of project at CTF concerning packaging and its problems. Löfgren is not a specialist in packaging; he’s a marketer and he focus on what the consumer wants. The most important tip that came from Martin is that the biggest issue of packaging today is that they don’t keep their promises. If a carton promises that it has a new great opening and the consumer notices this not to be true, it’s a huge setback for the producer because the costumer will not buy the product again.

Another thing that came out from the interview was that he said that the best way to find out answers are to do interviews and use a small focus group on where you test your product both before and after the changes has been done. Martin has written an article²⁸ together with Helén Williams and Fredrik Wikström (whom also work at Kau).

The article A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of consumers focused packaging development is an article based on a study in how to increase customer’s satisfaction and reducing environmental impact from food-packaging systems. In this study a very interesting table is presented that shows what attribute the consumers think is the most important.

28 Löfgren, Williams & Wikström 2007:855

(17)

Figure 6: A diagram over quality attributes for packages²⁹.

The study is made with the KANO theory³⁰. The Kano theory is a type of marketing investigation that looks at more than one dimension issues. For example, it can be mentioned that if a carton leaks you will be very dissatisfied, but if it’s not leaking, you will not automatically become very satisfied, because you’ll take it for granted that it doesn’t leak. In the diagram in the article different attributes are mentioned:

- “Must be (M) quality attribute are taken for granted when fulfilled but result in dissatisfaction when not fulfilled.

- One-dimensional quality attributes (O) provide satisfaction when fulfilled and dissatisfaction when not fulfilled.

- Attractive quality attribute (A) provide satisfaction when fulfilled and no dissatisfaction when not satisfied.

- Indifferent attributes (I) are perceived as neither good nor bad and therefore do not result in customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction, i. e., these are quality attribute that customers do not care about.

- Reverse quality attributes (R) result in dissatisfaction when fulfilled and satisfaction when not fulfilled. For example, when you want basic model of a product you will be increasingly dissatisfied the more functions it has. “

The full interview can be read in the appendix.

Appendix 8

29 Löfgren, Williams &Wikström 2007:855

30 Löfgren 2006:IV6-IV9

(18)

During the research session visits where made to several companies and exhibitions for inspiration. Further information about these visits is to be read in the appendix.

Appendix 9

Since it now was decided to focus on detergent packages, a deeper research was made concerning these packages and how they are used today.

One thing that had come to my knowledge and that became clearer and clearer during the process was that it was a big difference between people living in a house or an apartment with a washer in it and people who have to go to a laundry-room to do their laundry. The laundry-room people have much more problems with detergent packages leaking out on their laundry and spilling everywhere. They also often forgot to bring something to dose with. To find out more I went out and bought some examples.

ICA: s brand has a package where you simply push a lip in and pull it up to open a hole. This hole is then were you’re pouring the

detergent from. The problem with this package is that it’s hard to push in the lid, and it often gets stuck in front of the hole and making it hard to pour from. There is no dosage system and the bigger packages are quite heavy to hold when they’re full. No re- close.

Picture 1: Example of ICA.s detergent package.

Skona has two different openings, so you can choose how you would like to open it, which is a plus. You can take off almost the whole lid, which is good if you for example live in a house and can keep the detergent nearby the washer-machine, and just dose the

detergent with a cup. The other hole is a small opening on the side. You pull off the top layer of carton and underneath it there is a hole, from where you can pour the substance. The hole is placed in the middle of the carton-side and this makes it a bit hard

Picture 2: Example of Skona package. to pour from when it’s almost empty.

(19)

Hemköps brand has a special patented dosage system.

An extra layer of carton makes an open space that works as a dosage system. The doses are a bit different in sizes but it doesn’t spill as much as the other

detergents so that’s a plus.

Picture 4: Hemköps user instructions

Neutral has a big opening in the package and it’s opened by pulling in a big tear strip. This tear strip is a bit hard to rip off. When you’ve opened the package it can’t be re-closed.

This is a common package on the marked and is used in various sizes.

Picture 5: Neutral detergent.

Picture 6-7: Eldorado packages.

This is also a very common package on the market and it’s used by Via and Ariel etc.

These packages are opened by simply pulling the lid up and lose the perforation. It can’t be re-closed and you need your own cup to dose with.

Picture 3: Hemköps detergent-packages.

(20)

Every brand has their way of describing how we should dose the detergent.

Picture 8-9: Dosage instructions on Eldorado (left) and Hemköp (right).

Most common is that you need to find out three things about your laundry before you can start your washing session:

1. How hard or soft your water is. This you can find out by calling your local

community. 80 % of the Swedish households have soft water. Hard water is most common on Öland and Gotland and some parts of Skåne.

2. How much laundry do you have? Often the instructions are for 3-5 kg or 5-8 kg.

3. If your laundry is very dirty or normal dirty. Some brands³¹ recommend that you use spot stain remover before you wash, to prevent overuse.

31 www.via.se

(21)

Regarding to VAV-nytt³², the professional paper for the water and drain industry in Sweden we overuse 12 500 ton detergent every year, which is 25% of the yearly use of detergent. To make a comparison, a light-weight truck weighs (maximum) 3, 5 ton³³. So the Swedes flush down 3 571 trucks down the drain every year. To find any information on the effects that detergents have on the environment seems to be very difficult. But on the official site for the detergent-producer VIA, they have information about their

different products environmental effects in a life-cycle-perspective, LCP. What we can see here is that the wrapping has very little effect on the environment regarding to the other environmental effects the detergent has.

Figure 7: An example of a life-cycle-perspective from VIAs detergent “Via White”³⁴.

To create a user friendly package there are some factors that needs to be checked. At Innventia³⁵ they have a checklist³⁶ that can be ordered³⁷ and used when developing packages. The checklist take consideration in Information design, Handling of packages- Gripping, Handling of packages- opening, Handling of packages – Emptying and dosing, Handling of packages – Re-closing, Handling of packages – Recovering. When developing packages this needs to be taken in consideration:

32 www.forvaltaren.se/forvaltaren/en/Hem/Nyheter/Nya-tvattstugor-skonar-miljon/

33 www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/20010559.htm

34 http://via.se/pages/page109.php

35 www.innventia.se

36 “Is your package user friendly? Checklist to be used when developing consumer packages.”

37 Order the checklist from: birgitta.nilsson@innventia.com

(22)

- The grip width should be less than 80 mm.

- The package weight is less than 2kg.

- The package can be opened conveniently - The package can be opened as instructed - The package can be opened without an aid

- The package can be opened without any risk of the user being injured.

- The package can be opened without having any effect on the contents, the re-closing device, important information, storability.

- Emptying and closing can be done without spilling the contents.

- It’s possible for the user to take out the exact required quantity of contents.

- It’s possible to completely empty the package.

- The package has stability, i. e. It maintains its shape from being opened until the contents are emptied.

-The package has re-closing device if it is to be used more than once.

- The re-closed package is properly re-sealed.

- The re-closing device lasts during the entire consumption period of contents.

- The information on the package clearly shows what material it’s made of, how to be separated and how to be compressed.

(23)

Head function for Detergent packages: To protect and enclose detergent.

Criteria

nr Criteria

Requirement=R

Desire=D Function=F Limitation=L

1 Reclose able R F

2 Enable dosage R F

3 Prevent leakage R L

4 Easy to open R F

5 Easy to empty completely R F

6 Fit in storage places D L

7 Ergonomic D F

9 Contain the exakt quantity D L

10 Made out of recyclable materials R L

11 Child safe D L

12 Innovative D F

13 Transport friendly form D L

Figure 8: The Product specification form

When starting with the product specification form, we took a starting point in the diagram in figure 6 and sorted out the attributes that seemed most relevant for detergents.

The first ideas were created by me the weeks before the group session. The methods used were Brain-sketching and Turn around. In total 19 ideas.

The toilet paper roll is a solution were the detergent Isn’t in powder form, but formed as thin paper-bits, which can be ripped off in suitable pieces.

(24)

By pulling the front up, a new dose will be visible and possible to pore out. Inside the box, the detergent is placed in layers that become visible when you pull the front up.

By putting a water wheel in the bottom of the container you can just by scrolling the wheel get a new dose.

With a cork screw formed paper in the middle of the container you can twist the screw and by this get a dose of detergent. A hole in the bottom makes it easier to be precise.

(25)

In the large group session the participants were first given some backgrounds about the project and what had led me to develop detergent packages, and then they had a group idea generating process, where the methods Slip writing and My creative idol were used.

They were divided in to 5 groups and every group presented 2-3 of their best ideas, in total 13 new ideas.

This was some ideas that came up during this session:

By adding a bandoleer to the carton it will be easier to carry with you to the laundry room, and by making a very nice appearance the users will use it as a bag when it’s empty.

This is a laundry bag, with a zip close up on top. The detergent is already dosed in to small cubes. The bag is so nice looking that the customers would want to use it to other things when emptied.

This salt container inspirited idea has a dosage rotor that portion out the detergent from the bottom of the container.

(26)

At this stage there were 20 ideas sorted out from the creativity process to move on to the evaluation process. The criteria for the matrixes were decided together with Stora Enso, based on the product specification. In the first stage, the elimination matrix 11 ideas disappeared and the following 9 were narrowed down to only 4 ideas in the relative decision matrix.

Appendix 10 Appendix 11

The remaining 4 possible solutions were developed in carton to see what problems and opportunities the solutions had in real life.

These four were created in Kasemake and the drawings were handed over to the job initiator.

The four concepts were then presented for a test group that graded the solutions from 1- 4, were 1 is best and 4 is last. This presented a clear picture of which concept to develop further. Picture of these can be seen in the appendix.

The questioning round presented a winner.

Appendix 12

The final idea were tested and developed at the final stage of the process. The 3D model was also given a graphic design which can be seen in the appendix.

Appendix 13

Two different papers were written on this final thesis. One report was written for Stora Enso and has all the information about the final product and one report was published at Kau. This report has more focus on the process.

Since there is some information that is not public, there are held two different

presentations. One at Stora Enso were focus is one the result and the upcoming ideas.

The other presentation are held for student that are starting their work with the final thesis, and in that presentation there will be only focus on how the process has been.

In the prospectus focus has been on making an easy-to-understand folder with as little text as possible and a lot of pictures showing the functions and possibilities. The format was decided to A5.

Appendix 20

Figur 41

Studentlägenheten

Figur 43

Fjällstugan

(27)

The entire work with finding out what package to develop is really interesting and it could, in fact be a whole study by itself, since there are so many cartons on the market not working. Often it’s because money talks, sometimes it’s about making a package fancy, and by this hard to handle. Sometimes it’s too simple and sometimes it’s not.

In this case I’ve had a limitation, not to look at the manufacturing of the carton in real life. I think this is a good way to not limit the creativity and this can absolutely now, when idea is on the table, be further developed and optimized to fit in production.

One interesting thing that has come up during this thesis is the discussion of the

detergent-companies dosage instructions on the packages. It’s often laughed at because it’s often too much work to even follow them. You have to call the community, and ask about the softness of your water, have the possibility to weigh your clothes and consider if they’re very dirty or just dirty. Well this seems to be a bit too much for the consumers.

It is so accurate, for example 42 ml for 3-5 kg of laundry. It’s quite a difference between 3 kg of laundry or 5 kg of laundry. Hemköps new carton with a build in dosage system aren’t that accurate and that seems to be working out just fine. Maybe you overdose a bit with this construction, maybe not. But I think not, because you have to tip it back and forth, back and forth to many times and it will be an active choice to overdose if you use this carton. The same is for my solution that both solve the dosage problem and the re- close problem in once. To recycle the package wasn’t a problem due to the research, and it will not be a problem with the new solution ether. The discussion with my supervisors supported the idea to move on with the panpipe-solution since it answers well to the purpose in the beginning of the project. The idea with portion-packs solves the problem with dosage and re-closing, all in one. It’s easy to empty without spilling and it’s easy to recycle.

(28)

It’s hard to find a package suitable for everyone; we are different and shall so be. But by trying to do our best and constantly working for optimizing our packages we can create packages suitable for most people. This solution may not be liked by everyone but will at least be something new on the marked and completely change how we dose our

detergent. The solution can also be used in other fields, not only for detergent.

Concerning the purpose with this final thesis: “…develop new solutions for packages concerning the areas: opening, closing and dosage of substance, emptying the package and recycle the waste.” A good solution was developed with help from the IPU-process. The chosen solution fulfills all requirements mentioned above. When the research phase was done, it was clear that focus should be on the dosage system and the re-close function.

The opening, recycle and emptying were only secondary functions in this thesis, but the solution works well in these features as well. It also works great in transport as there will be no air transported as well as it will be a safer alternative for children because it will be harder for children to get to the substance. During the whole process I’ve tried to focus on the users and what would be the best solution for them. This presented an idea that is innovative and not similar to anything else on the market. So by focusing on the consumers, a better result could be presented for Stora Enso.

During the evaluation-process, I made an active choice not to do a function analyze. This is because the product specification form is, in this case, enough and a function analyze would just be another form in the report.

Doing the final thesis by myself is a very good way of really learning all the steps in the process. I will not recommend it though because it will demand more from your

supervisors to be able to discuss minor things, because you’ll really need someone to talk to. And the report needs to be as big as if you were two, which means more time on writing, less time on being creative. Sometimes it’s very lonely and sometimes it’s great to be able to decide everything on your own.

(29)

I would like to thank all the people who has been helping me during this process and making it possible. I would like to thank my supervisors at Stora Enso: Kristina Gullander and Ola Knutz and my supervisor at Kau: Monica Jakobsson.

I also would like to thank Martin Löfgren at CTF, Helen Williams at Kau, Maria Sandberg at Kau, Broby grafiska, Stena Metall and The packaging arena for letting me be enlightened in their field.

I also want to thank all the people that helped me with the creativity session:

Elina Svensson Student, IoD & User Innovation Emmelie Johansson Student, IoD & User Innovation Johan Skarius Student, IoD

Annika Bäckström Student, User innovation Lena Boman Student, User innovation Gustav Sternå Student, User innovation Emma Franzen Stora Enso

Vesna Rakic Fredlund Stora Enso Carl-Henrik Ljungqvist Stora Enso

Maria Sköld ia Konst och Design Annika Karlsson Stora Enso

Mats Näsman Stora Enso

Mari Ann Norborg Stora Enso Anna Nicander Stora Enso Niklas Elvin Stora Enso Raija Badenlid Stora Enso Ann-Kristin Wallentinsson Stora Enso

And especially I would like to thank my family for their support during this time.

THANK YOU

(30)

Johannesson, H, Persson, J-G., Pettersson, D, Produktutveckling Liber AB, Stockholm 2004

Österlin, K, Design i fokus Liber AB, Malmö 2007

Eriksson, M, Lilliesköld, J. Handbok för mindre projekt Liber AB, Stockholm 2004 Löfgren, M, Leader of the pack Universitetstryckeriet, Karlstad 2006

Johansson, F, Medicieffekten BookHouse Publishing AB, Stockholm 2005

Michanek, J, Breiler, A, Idéagenten: En handbok i idea management BookHouse Editions AB 2007

Hemlin, B Sammanfattningsvis skulle jag vilja säga… Media Print AB, Uddevalla 1999

Löfgren, M, Williams, H, and Wikström, F A lifecycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. www.sciencedirect.com

Innventia AB, Is your package user friendly? Checklist to be used when developing consumer packages, Birgitta Nilsson

www.via.se www.innventia.se

www.forvaltaren.se/forvaltaren/en/Hem/Nya-tvattstugor-skonar-miljon/

www.via.se/pages/page109.php

www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/20010559.htm (Swedish law 2001:559)

(31)

Appendix 1

Brief

Introduction

At the end of their studies at the Innovation- and design engineer (IoD) program at Karlstad University (Kau), the students make a final exam. Usually it contains a report and a

presentation of the process, where the student has solved a problem with the IPU-process, (Integrated Product Development) which they have learned during their studies. They often engender this as a commission from a company. Melinda From will during the autumn semester of 2009 implement this degree project in corporation with Stora Enso at the Innocenter.

The work contains 22, 5 HP (600 h)

Supervisor from Stora Enso: Kristina Gullander and Ola Knutz Supervisor from Kau: Monica Jakobsson

Examiner from Kau: Lennart Wihk.

Background

STORA ENSO PACKAGING works with developing packages in paper. There are today problems on the market with packages that are difficult to handle considering opening, closing, dose the substance, empty the package and recycle the waste.

Purpose

Research the market for examples, make a user-study and present a solution using the IPU- process.

Aim

To define three (3) packages and present solutions to them in a report, a presentation, a small hand out folder and an exhibition including prototypes.

Delimits

Due to the time limits of this project, it will not contain calculation of manufacturing expenses and there will not be taken in consideration to fit existing machine parks. The project is

classified as secret.

Resources

The work contains 600 hours and the student will have access to the facilities on the Kau, a computer and workplace at Innocenter

(32)

Appendix 2 (1 of 3)

(33)

Appendix 2 (2 of 3)

(34)

Appendix 2 (3 of 3)

(35)

Appendix 3

GANTT

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 1 2 3 4

S.E Meeting KAU meeting Breakfast meeting Planning Research Specify area Generate new ideas Evaluation Develop- process Visualisation Presentation Write Report Final

Presentation

(36)

Appendix 4

Risk analyze Occurrence

Probability (0-100%)

Consequence (1- 10)

Result (PxC)

Measure/

Probability

Measure/

Consequence

1 Student get sick 80 5 4

Wash hands, stay out of public areas, eat c-vitamins

Rest, work at home, use the extra hours in planning.

2 Supervisor get sick 80 2 1,6

Talk to Other contacts at Kau and Innocenter.

3

The planning

cracks 80 8 6,4

Work ahead if possible, ask for help at an early stage

Use the extra hours in planning and reconsider the planning

4

The deadline

cracks 3 10 0,3

Work ahead if possible, ask for help at an early stage

Use the extra hours in planning and reconsider the planning

5 Can't find solution 50 10 5

Plan for extra idea meeting

Ask for help and guidance from supervisors

6

Influenza spreads

uninhibited 70 8 5,6

Work from home, wash

hands Stay home

7

Computer

breakdown 50 7 3,5 Do back-ups

Talk to the IT- department on RCK, ask for help

8

Chosen idea(s) does not work in

real life 50 10 5

Test the ideas at an early stage, talk to supervisors and ask for their opinion at an early stage

Make new ideas.

9

Fail to produce enough material

for presentation 10 10 1

Save all material from day 1

Take the extra time to produce new material

*The biggest threat to this project is that the planning cracks or sickness.

(37)

Appendix 5

Användarstudie om förpackningar

Jag gör ett examensarbete om förpackningsdesign där målet är att ta fram nya förpackningar med förbättrade egenskaper beträffande öppning, återförslutning, dosering, tömning och återvinning.

Jag har gjort denna enkät eftersom jag vill ta reda på hur konsumenter upplever förpackningar de kommer i kontakt med dagligen.

De förpackningar jag är intresserad av är kartongförpackningar icke innehållande vätska.

Välj ut 3 förpackningar som du använder och svara på frågorna tillhörande var och en av dem.

Välj gärna ut några du tycker fungerar mindre bra, eller en förpackning som är bra men har en dålig funktion som kan förbättras.

För att dina svar ska komma med i den slutgiltiga sammanställningen behöver jag ditt svar snarast, dock senast den 4 oktober.

Förpackningsdagbok

Förpackning 1

Produkt _________________

Varumärke_______________

Volym__________________

I följande frågor anses 1 vara dåligt och 5 bra.

Öppning

1a. Hur lätt var det att öppna förpackningen på en skala 1-5 (där 1 är sämst och 5 är bäst)?

1 2 3 4 5

1b. Vad var det som gjorde den bra eller dålig i detta hänseende tycker du?

______________________________________________________________________________

1c. Förslag på förbättringar på öppningen:

______________________________________________________________________________

Tömning

2a. Hur lätt var det att hälla ur/ta ur innehållet ur förpackningen utan spill?

1 2 3 4 5

2b. Vad var det som gjorde att det var lätt/svårt?

(38)

Appendix 5 (1 of 6)

______________________________________________________________________________

2c. Förslag på förbättringar på tömning:

______________________________________________________________________________

Återförslutning

3a. Hur lätt var det att återförsluta förpackningen efter öppnandet?

1 2 3 4 5

3b. Vad var bra/dåligt med återförslutningen?

______________________________________________________________________________

3c. Förslag på förbättringar på återförslutning?

______________________________________________________________________________

Dosering

4a. Gick det att dosera innehållet?

JA NEJ

Om JA hoppa till 4c.

4b. Hade det behövts?

JA NEJ ÖNSKVÄRT

4c. Om förpackningen hade dosering, hur väl fungerade den?

1 2 3 4 5

4d. Vad var bra/dåligt med doseringen?

______________________________________________________________________________

4e. Förslag på förbättringar:

______________________________________________________________________________

Återvinning

(39)

Appendix 5 (2 of 6)

5a. Hur lätt är det att återvinna förpackningen?

1 2 3 4 5

5b. Vad är bra/dåligt med hänseende på återvinning?

______________________________________________________________________________

5c. Förslag på förbättringar:

______________________________________________________________________________

5d. När du tänkte slänga förpackningen, var det då något kvar i den?

JA NEJ

Helheten

6a. Hur var ditt helhetsintryck av förpackningen?

1 2 3 4 5

Förpackning 2

Produkt _________________

Varumärke_______________

Volym__________________

Öppning

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

Tömning

(40)

Appendix 5 (3 of 6)

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Dosering

JA NEJ

JA NEJ ÖNSKVÄRT

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

(41)

Appendix 5 (4 of 6)

______________________________________________________________________________

Återvinning

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

JA NEJ

Helheten

1 2 3 4 5

Förpackning 3

Produkt _________________

Varumärke_______________

Volym__________________

Öppning

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

(42)

Appendix 5 (5 of 6)

______________________________________________________________________________

Tömning

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

Dosering

JA NEJ

JA NEJ ÖNSKVÄRT

(43)

Appendix 5 (6 of 6)

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Återvinning

1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________________________________________

JA NEJ

Helheten

1 2 3 4 5

TACK för din medverkan!

/Melinda From

Melinda_from@hotmail.com 0768008522