IN DEGREE PROJECT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020

Designing an indoor modular micro-farm

RADU COSMIN DEACONU

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:403

Designing an indoor modular micro-farm

Radu Cosmin Deaconu

Approved 2020-06-22

Examiner Claes Tisell

Supervisor Mia Hesselgren

Commissioner Confidential

Contact Person Confidential

Abstract This thesis is a product design and engineering master’s project that has been carried

out in partnership with a swedish product design and greentech company. In this

project, an array of data gathering and design methods were used with the goal of

developing a modular solution for an indoor hydroponic micro-farm. The project also

investigates the benefits and consequences of designing this type of product in this

fashion. A secondary goal was set, as discovered through the research and analysis

process. This goal was to investigate the possible impact that a self-sustaining micro-

farm has on the UX of growing plants and how it can be addressed.

Key words: Hydroponics, micro-farm, scalability, modularity, module, user need,

customer value.

Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:403

Design av modulär mikrofarm för inomhusbruk

Radu Cosmin Deaconu

Godkänt 2020-06-22

Examinator Claes Tisell

Handledare Mia Hesselgren

Uppdragsgivare Confidential

Kontaktperson Confidential

Sammanfattning Detta är en masteruppsats i produktutveckling och teknik som har utförts i samarbete

med ett svenskt företag med fokus på grön teknologi. Projektet använder sig av flera

typer av metoder för datainsamling och design för att ta fram en modulär lösning för en

hydroponisk mikromiljö för inomhusbruk. Projektet undersöker vilka fördelar och

eventuella konsekvenser en sådan typ av design för med sig. Under analysens gång

har ett bimål tagits fram, nämligen att undersöka vilken möjlig påverkan en

självdrivande mikromiljö har på användarupplevelsen av att ta hand om växter samt hur

detta kan adresseras.

Key words: Hydroponik, mikromiljö, skalbarhet, modularitet, modul, användarbehov,

kundvärde.

FOREWORD First of all I, the author of this thesis project, would like to thank the company for giving

me the opportunity to be part of their design team. Special thanks go to the people I

have worked with for their support, feedback and advice over the 20+ week

collaboration period and for making the work environment both welcoming and fun.

I would also like to thank my supervisor Mia Hesselgren at KTH Royal Institute of

Technology for her constant support and suggestions that greatly helped shape my

thesis project and final report.

Last but not least, I would like to send my appreciation to all the people that took the

time to answer the surveys and shared their opinions, problems and experiences,

providing me with the necessary qualitative and quantitative data to carry out this thesis

project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Background........................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Problem definition ................................................................................................. 1

1.3. Scope ................................................................................................................... 2

1.4. Goals .................................................................................................................... 2

1.5. Assignment description ......................................................................................... 3

1.6. Limitations ............................................................................................................ 3

1.7. Company’s guidelines ........................................................................................... 5

1.8. Project outline ....................................................................................................... 5

2. Frame of reference 7

2.1. Hydroponic techniques ......................................................................................... 7

2.2. Modularity in product design ................................................................................. 9

2.3. How making products more self-sustaining influences users’ experience of

using them ................................................................................................................. 11

3. Method 15

3.1. Market analysis ................................................................................................... 15

3.2. Market positioning map ....................................................................................... 15

3.3. Online communities ............................................................................................ 16

3.4. Surveys ............................................................................................................... 16

3.5. Clustering insights .............................................................................................. 16

3.6. Personas ............................................................................................................ 17

3.7. MFD technique ................................................................................................... 17

3.8. Iterative design process ...................................................................................... 18

3.9. CAD simulation ................................................................................................... 18

4. Market research 19

4.1. Defining the strategy wheels ............................................................................... 19

4.2. Analysed products .............................................................................................. 21

4.3. Market positioning ............................................................................................... 30

4.3.1. Preliminary product placement ..................................................................... 32

5. User studies 35

5.1. Online communities ............................................................................................ 35

5.1.1. Online communities findings ........................................................................ 35

5.2. Surveys ............................................................................................................... 36

5.2.1. “Plant growing” survey findings .................................................................... 37

5.2.2. “Plant growing without soil” survey findings .................................................. 45

5.2.3. Analysis of survey findings ........................................................................... 49

5.3. Product’s strategy wheel ..................................................................................... 52

5.4. Personas ............................................................................................................ 55

6. Implementation 59

6.1. MFD technique ................................................................................................... 59

6.1.1. Step 1: Clarify customer needs .................................................................... 60

6.1.2. Step 2: Identify Functions and Solutions ...................................................... 62

6.1.3. Step 3: Propose Modules and Interfaces ..................................................... 65

6.1.4. The impact of GreenZ on users’ experience of growing plants .................... 66

6.1.5. Step 4: Define Variants and Configurations ................................................. 69

6.1.6. Step 5: Confirm architecture feasibility ......................................................... 79

6.2. Iterative design process ...................................................................................... 84

6.2.1. Iteration #1 ................................................................................................... 84

6.2.2. Iteration #2 ................................................................................................... 87

6.3. Final concept ...................................................................................................... 91

6.4. Stress simulation and analysis............................................................................ 91

7. Discussion and conclusion 93

7.1. Project scope ...................................................................................................... 93

7.2. Reflection on the final concept ............................................................................ 96

7.3. Future development ............................................................................................ 96

7.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 97

1

1. IntroductionThis chapter is an introduction to the thesis, presenting the background and problem

definition, the scope, research questions, company’s guidelines and limitations for the

project.

1.1. Background

This project is a thesis work performed by a single master student in Integrated Product

Design (Industrial Design Engineering track). The project was carried out in

collaboration with a swedish product design and greentech company. For the purpose

of this thesis, due to confidentiality reasons, the company will be named “Green AB”.

Green AB strives to tackle the issue of the ever increasing global food demands, by

providing people with new and innovative ways to grow plants indoors. For the next

generation of products, they were looking to use a new technique called hydroponics to

improve the indoor plant growing experience. Green AB is looking to reach as many

customer segments as possible with the new product in their lineup in order to make a

bigger positive impact on the way people grow plants and towards a more sustainable

future as a whole.

1.2. Problem definition

In trying to reach as many customer segments as possible, there was a clear need to

incorporate a modular design for the new product in their lineup. They are interested in

the development of a complete modular architecture that would allow them to customize

and adapt the product to the current and future demands of the users. The current

market demands also need to be investigated in order to achieve a user-driven design

concept.

2

1.3. Scope

Green AB's desire to empower as many people as possible to grow their own food or

aesthetic plants indoors led to a collaboration project in designing the next generation of

their smart micro-farms. The aim of this thesis is to develop a modular solution for

making indoor plant-growing easy for a wide range of users.

1.4. Goals

In order to stay true to the Green AB vision, the following of the UN’s 17 global

Sustainable Development goals were considered when carrying out the work included in

this master thesis project:

Goal number 2. Zero hunger Bringing the farm directly into people’s houses increases the

choices that the users have when it comes to where and

how they get their food. The product developed in

collaboration with Green AB is just a small drop of water in

the ocean of problems that is “world hunger” but is meant to

be a stepping stone towards achieving this goal in the future.

Goal number 3. Good health and well-being

Bringing an easy and reliable way of getting fresh fruits and

vegetables directly into people’s houses, regardless of

season or outside conditions, especially in this age of fast-

food and pesticide-full produce, could have a positive impact

on user’s health. This on top of the fact that having plants

indoors provides clean air, as well as having a soothing

effect, increasing people’s well-being.

3

Goal number 11. Sustainable cities and communities

Not relying on a third party to access your food and having

complete control over how and where the food is produced

could greatly contribute towards more sustainable cities. The

vision for these types of products is to create communities

where people interact more with each other, redefining the

notion of going to the supermarket for fruits and vegetables.

1.5. Assignment description

To fulfill the scope of the thesis and also to provide Green AB with valuable insights and

concepts, the assignment was divided into 4 distinct steps:

● Gathering of quantitative and qualitative data regarding potential users and

current market solutions.

● Analysing the data and obtaining valuable insights for the design process and

concluding a final market positioning of the new product

● Investigating how the product can be made modular in order to fulfill the needs of

as many people as possible and what are the benefits and or drawbacks of

designing the product this way.

● Designing a viable final concept that incorporates the modularity aspect.

1.6. Limitations

One master level student in Integrated Product Design (Industrial Design Engineering

track) at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm conducted this thesis over the

span of 20 weeks. The time constraints along with the global events of early 2020

influenced the scope of this project and the following limitations were set in place:

Resolution of results The thesis was to provide the company with a first interpretation of the gathered data

and with a modular design concept of the new micro-farm product. This design was not

4

meant to be ready for manufacture but only present the general idea and some rough

dimensions of the product, therefore no technical drawings were delivered.

Modularity The final concept featured the modular architecture and modular variants to fulfill the

customer needs of the 4 developed personas. These personas were developed from

the data gathered through the use of the two surveys, which had a combined total of

167 responses, being a relatively small number of respondents. Even so, the product

does allow for additional module variants to easily be added to the current architecture if

the situation calls for it in the future. Also, many optional steps in the MFD design

process were skipped as they did not contribute to the scope of this thesis such as cost

analysis, production and manufacturing or internal company strategy.

Stress simulation and analysis

A stress simulation and analysis was done using a CAD software in order to validate the

modularity and scalability features of the product. The tested model was restricted to the

geometry designed up to that point, which was not at all optimized from a manufacturing

point of view therefore the results apply only to that specific version of the product.

When the market-ready version of the product will be developed in the future, the

simulation needs to be redone in order to test the strength and stability of that

configuration. Assembly & Ergonomics The final product only featured basic assembly steps and ergonomic features, due to

the fact that a higher level of importance was attributed to the user-centered

development process of the modular architecture and modular concept itself. Further

optimization of the designed assembly steps and ergonomic features are needed to

obtain a market-ready product.

5

Cost Due to the time constraints and the conceptual nature of the final design, data related to

cost was omitted and no detailed cost analysis was made. This being said, the

developed product had to be designed within reasonable cost related parameters such

as being constructed out of viable and readily available materials, the number of

components needed to be kept to a minimum as much as possible, the construction and

assembly process of the final product needed to be feasible and so on.

1.7. Company’s guidelines

From the beginning, the task was kept very open, the company having only three

guidelines for the design of the product:

• Use hydroponics - The benefits of using these types of growing techniques over

traditional soil-based methods are undisputed, therefore the final design of the

product must be specifically optimized for hydroponic growing.

• Vertical - Investigate to what extent the product should use vertical plant growing

as a feature over horizontal plant growing.

• “In your face?” - Investigate to what degree the product should be visible. I.e.

attract attention and interactiveness versus blend in with the environment.

1.8. Project outline

From the time when Green AB was founded, the company’s goal was to provide people

with new and innovative ways to grow plants in order to cope with the ever increasing

global food demands. They were exploring new micro-farm products that could utilize

App connectivity to notify the user on the status of the growing process and allow for

changes to be made easily. The product that was to be designed was to incorporate this

function.

The growing technique to be used was hydroponics as there are undisputed

advantages over other growing techniques (Savvas, 2003, p. 81). One of the upsides of

developing a product that uses hydroponics was the flexibility to grow any type of plant.

This created the opportunity to fulfill the needs of every type of user, therefore the

6

product had to do the same. Thus, the largest portion of the project was dedicated to

investigating how the new product could be made as flexible as possible for its targeted

audience as is the hydroponic technique itself. It was clear from the beginning to both

the student and the company that modularity was to be the key in reaching a final

design concept.

In the initial stage, the thesis was to conclude by providing an answer to the following

research question:

1) What are the benefits and consequences of modularity as a solution for these types of products?

A large section of the project was the gathering of quantitative and qualitative data to

work towards designing a final concept for the product. In doing so, an important

realisation was come across, regarding the impact that a self-sustaining growing system

has on users’ plant-growing experience. This aspect was deemed of high importance for

both the company and the thesis, therefore a second research question was formulated:

2) What impact does a self-sustaining growing system have on the experience of growing plants and how can it be addressed?

Many other supporting aspects were discovered and investigated throughout the thesis

in the process of answering these two main research questions.

7

2. Frame of reference This chapter describes the key concepts used as a guide for the project. The frames of

reference were chosen and explored in order to get some of the necessary knowledge

required for designing a product fit for the task at hand.

2.1. Hydroponic techniques

The first key concept explored was the growing of plants without soil, also known as

hydroponics. Acquiring a good understanding of the different hydroponic techniques

was deemed to be very important for both the company and the thesis, this knowledge

serving as the backbone for the design process.

Savvas (2003, p. 80) defines hydroponics as “any method of growing plants without the

use of soil as a rooting medium, which involves supply of all inorganic nutrients

exclusively via the irrigation water”. The plants get their nutrition grace to the hydroponic

system supplying a mixture of water and nutrient solution directly to the roots. The first

standardized nutrient solution was developed by Knop and Sachs in the 1860 in

Germany and ever since, many scientists have developed and improved different

techniques to grow plants using this type of nutrition. There are two main types of

systems: Open and Closed hydroponic systems. In an open hydroponic system, a new

batch of nutrient solution is introduced for every watering cycle, after which it gets

recycled or discarded. In a closed hydroponic system, the same nutrient mixture is

continuously recirculated within the system. This is of course a more sustainable

solution but in doing so, several aspects need to be continuously or periodically

monitored, such as the varying pH level of the mixture, adjustments being done

accordingly. The most commonly used hydroponic systems, as described in Smart

(2020), are:

• Deep Water Culture (DWC) - This is regarded to be the simplest type of

hydroponic system, where the plants are suspended with their roots

submerged in an oxygen-enriched, water and nutrient solution filled reservoir.

8

• Wick - This is a passive hydroponic system, meaning that no pump is

required for water circulation, this being achieved through capillary action,

using wicks to draw the nutrient mixture from a reservoir to the roots.

• Ebb and Flow - Also commonly known as “Flood and Drain”, this is the most

popular type of hydroponic system. The growing bed is flooded with the

nutrient mixture, submerging the roots, after which it is left to drain back into

the reservoir, allowing the roots to aerate in between flooding cycles.

• Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) - This system uses a thin film of nutrient

mixture that circulates and covers the tips of the roots, achieving nutrition and

aeration at the same time.

• Drip - This technique constantly drips the nutrient mixture directly over the

roots, aiming to keep a constant level of nutrient balance in the root zone.

There is also another popular technique called aeroponics that is considered by many to

be another type of hydroponics even though the roots are not growing in water but are

hanging in the air. A sprayer or mister is used to coat the roots with the water and

nutrient solution mixture at short intervals of time to prevent them from drying off. The

size of the water droplets that the system creates classifies it into either Low Pressure

Aeroponics (LPA) or High Pressure Aeroponics (HPA).

These systems can further be divided into vertical or horizontal growing systems. In a

horizontal growing system such as in most DWC or Ebb and Flow systems, the plant

bed is horizontal whereas in a vertical growing system, such as in Drip systems, the

growing bed is vertical and plants grow at an angle or in some cases perpendicular to it.

For the purpose of this thesis, if multiple horizontal growing systems are stacked one on

top of another, it does not classify as a vertical growing system.

Presented next are the advantages and disadvantages of using hydroponics as

presented by Savvas (2003, p. 81). First of all, by growing in a different medium than

soil, the growing process does not need to overcome such as soil-borne pathogens or

the decline of soil structure and fertility over multiple cultivation cycles. Another

9

advantage is the independence of the geographical location, being able to constantly

achieve high yields using hydroponics, “even in [areas with] saline or sodic soils, or non-

arable soils with poor structure, which represent a major proportion of cultivable land

throughout the world”. Also, with hydroponics, the preparation time of the soil is all but

removed, reducing the time between crops. Because water and nutrient solution mixture

can be carefully designed and the nutrients are delivered straight to the roots allowing a

higher level of control of the nutrition of plants. The last and the biggest advantage of

using hydroponics is in regards to sustainability due to the recyclability nature of the

substances used (especially in closed hydroponic systems), eliminating the need for

fertilizers.

Regarding the disadvantages of using hydroponic systems over traditional soil-growing,

there are only two that hold true to this day as a result of decades of research and

improvements. They are the cost required to set up the system, especially when talking

large scale and the increased technical skills that are required to keep the system

running optimally.

2.2. Modularity in product design

Another key area of interest for this project was modularity in product design. It was

clear from the start of the thesis that in order to create a product that can satisfy the

needs of a wide range of users, it needed to be a modular product. Generally speaking,

there is no exact way to quantify modularity, however, Baldwin (2015, p. 718) states that

products can be classified into two groups: highly modular systems, which are made of

many, small, loosely coupled components and non modular systems, which are single,

large structures in which “everything depends on everything else”.

Modularity is deeply dependent on the market needs. The more volatile the needs of the

customers are, the more can be gained from designing a modular product and changing

its module variants to keep up with the shift. Considering this, the opposite is also true,

Schilling (2000[2003]) stating that “[if] all customers want the same thing, there is little to

be gained through offering a modular system.”.

10

Technological progress is another aspect that drives the design of modular products

since, breaking down a structure into modules makes upgrading a component

independent of other moules, reducing the time to market and reducing design costs in

the long run. Although this is generally the case, one must be careful when designing a

modular product for this reason. Baldwin (2015, p. 720) goes on to state that

“technological progress does not always lead in the direction of higher levels of

modularity. Adding interdependencies between components can lead to higher levels of

performance and efficiency.”, referring to Fixson and Park (2008) example of the non

modular bicycle drivetrain introduced by Shimano in 1984 that “quickly replaced older

modular systems” due to its increase in precision and ease of use.

The biggest influence on the design process in this thesis was by far the way of looking

at a product architecture and the Modular Function Deployment (MFD) technique

developed by the company Modular Management (Ekerå and Erlandsson, 2019). The

bulk of the knowledge was obtained during the first year of master’s in the course

“Modularisation of products” taught at KTH by designers from the company itself. The

steps taken in designing a modular product for this thesis, using the MFD technique, are

presented in chapter 3: Method.

The advantages of designing a modular product are elegantly presented by Lammers

(2015, p. 59) as “reduced complexity and increased interchangeability in engineering, a

lower rate of production errors and reduced component variety in manufacturing”. There

are also risks when designing a modular product that must be analyzed before doing so,

such as high implementation costs and product-specific technical restrictions. He goes

on to say that “The risks also provide good reason to pursue an optimal rather than

maximal degree of modularity, depending on the individual characteristics of the focal

company.”.

The biggest influence on the thesis regarding modularization was by far the

“Modularization of products” course taught at KTH (Ekerå and Erlandsson, 2019) about

the Modular Function Deployment (MFD) technique, developed by the company

Modular Management. The steps followed in designing Green AB’s new product were

11

further described in the Chapter 3: Method. Listed and explained below is the

terminology required to follow and comprehend the QFD method:

Module - A functional building block with standardized interfaces chosen for company-

specific strategic reasons.

Module Variant - The physical realization of a module.

Customer values - The needs of a particular customer segment.

Product property - A measure of a product that quantifies the delivery of value to

customers.

Goal value - The quantity of a Product property that delivers a specific level of value to

customers.

Technical solution - A solution designed to embody Product Properties and realize a

product Function.

Function - The description of what a Technical Solution does as it transforms inputs

into desired outputs.

2.3. How making products more self-sustaining influences users’

experience of using them

In order to have a general understanding of how a more self-sustaining product (with

increased automation) can impact experiences of their users, existing literature was

reviewed regarding applicable cases similar to the one in this thesis. The two most

influential papers researched were “Agitated to Clean: How the Washing Machine

Changed Life for the American Woman” and “The Determinants behind the Acceptance

of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review”. It was discovered that there are both

positive and negative (or inconclusive) influences regarding the increase in automation.

Green (2016, p. 14-26) describes the positive impacts that the increase in technology in

the 19th and 20th centuries, especially the invention of the electric washing machine,

12

had on the life of the American woman. The article describes the American household

of that period and the tasks of a stay-at-home woman, which was the norm for most

women at that time, as “a long term storehouse and a large-scale processing plant that

required constant labor almost around the clock”. One of the many responsibilities of

these women, or so-called “homemakers”, and also one of the hardest, most

backbreaking and most time consuming was the cleaning of clothes. With the

implementation of a national oral history program in 1981, many women shared their

experiences of managing their households. One important aspect noted by several

participants was laundry. It used to be an all-day affair that was generally done outside

due to the lack of water indoors and it used to be so labour-intensive that women

specifically scheduled it after a day of rest (e.g. Monday).

Early washing machines were viewed as a tool to drastically reduce the amount of work

women had to do in the home and they were marketed as such. There is a stunning

difference in advertisement boards of that time between women washing by hand and

women using a washing machine, in one case promoting the idea of changing the “Blue

Monday” into a “Happy Monday”, referring to the usual laundry day.

For women “the household inventions did produce a higher standard of living and a

wide range of technological possibilities by the end of the 19th century.”. From the early

models of washing machines that only reduced the effort women needed to put out for

washing clothes but still required a lot of preparation time and overview, technical

advances solved these issues, allowing them to walk away from the machine when it

was running. This is a clear example where an increase in self-sustainability of a

product impacted the lives and experiences of their users in a positive way.

Jing et al (2020, p. 1719) describe in their paper, a case where an increase in

automation may have negative impacts, presenting the the current and future state of

autonomous vehicles (AVs) and the factors that might influence the acceptance of these

new means of transportation among the population. By “autonomous vehicle” the

authors refer to a vehicle intended to drive without manual operation. By implementing

and using AVs, “passenger travel experience may be improved in many ways, including

leisure or productive activities, improving the mobility of unlicensed people, reducing

13

traffic accidents, etc. “. However, the authors also go on to say that “autonomous

technology is also predicted to have some drawbacks, such as the aggravation of road

congestion in the case of extra empty driving, the increase of energy consumption and

greenhouse gas emissions due to increased mileage, the risk of being hacked, and so

forth”. Nowadays it is still unclear to what extent people will accept AVs in the future.

Most technology acceptance studies may lead to prejudice or false conclusions as they

generally push the narrative that “inventions are good and people should accept them

for granted”, which might not be the case with AVs. One of the reasons presented in this

paper, of why some people would resist the implementation of AVs, directly relates to

the impact it would have on the driving experience, suggesting a negative correlation:

“Some people may not accept AVs from their perspective, such as those who are

driving for fun.”. This second case proved that the increase in self-sustainability might

not always positively impact the users’ experience of using those products, therefore

careful considerations need to be kept when designing a self-sustaining product.

15

3. Method In order to answer the two research questions, several methods were used throughout

the thesis. This chapter describes those different methods used in further detail, starting

with the methods used to investigate the current market, continuing with the methods

used to gather and analyze quantitative data and ending with the methods used to

design the final concept of the product.

3.1. Market analysis

A general study of the products that are currently out on the market and perform similar

functions as the new Green AB’s micro-farm was done at an early stage in the thesis.

For the purpose of this thesis, six products were studied in depth and their

characteristics were presented in the form of Strategy Wheels. This step was done as a

precursor to the next step, gathering the necessary data and creating an overview of the

most relevant competitors and their flagship products.

3.2. Market positioning map

This method was used to get a complete overview of the market and whether or not

there is a gap in the market that Green AB can target with its new product in order to

stand out, which in terms creates increased traction with the customers and in the end,

fulfilling the goal of bringing indoor farming to as many people as possible. Strategy

wheels were used to represent the traits of the analyzed competitors and using this

data, the axes of the market positioning map were chosen and the competitors were

placed in the map accordingly. It was observed that there was an apparent lack of

products in two areas of the map and, based on the Green AB’s vision and goals, a

preliminary desired market placement for the new product was chosen. A final desired

market positioning was reached after the qualitative and quantitative data analysis step.

16

3.3. Online communities

Several online communities and the behaviors of the people who belong to these

communities were studied in order to get insights into what and how people talk about

plant-growing in general or with regards to hydroponics. The aim of this method was to

help with the design of the survey, by making it tailored to the way these groups of

people interact and respond in the online environment. In this stage, several inherent

differences were noticed between people in groups related to plant-growing and people

in groups related specifically to hydroponics, therefore the decision was made to create

two different surveys, each with its own aim and design.

3.4. Surveys

The two surveys created were titled “Plant growing” and “Plant growing without soil”.

Due to the global events of early 2020 including the Covid-19 pandemic, the initially

planned qualitative methods to be used in this thesis (Contextual interviews,

Shadowing, Design scenarios, Mystery shopper and others) could not be carried out to

a relevant level. This led to the change of the surveys design to include more open

answer questions, promoting the gathering of qualitative insights, and to also include

follow-up questions to further support some multiple-choice questions (resulting in

quantitative data), incentivising the respondents to motivate their answers in a more

qualitative way. This allowed for personas to be created, which were imperative for the

modular design process, by only using remote data gathering techniques. The two

surveys were then posted in their respective online groups (see Appendix A) in two

rounds and resulted in 92 responses for the “Plant growing” survey and 75 responses

for the “Plant growing without soil” survey.

3.5. Clustering insights

After the open answers from the surveys were collected, they were clustered into

different categories to get a clear look of the respondents’ view on the matter. Both an

analog visualizing method, using post-its, and a digital method were used throughout

the survey findings interpretation. This was done by writing each answer down onto

17

post-it notes and then grouping them or breaking them up until clear categories were

formed, with the final step being the creation of corresponding digital pie charts.

3.6. Personas

Insights from similar respondents, from both surveys, were used to create personas

which are fictional but research-driven characters representative of a specific group of

people. These insights were gathered by using qualitative-type questions in the surveys,

to combat the inability to perform other qualitative methods (such as contextual

interviews) as presented in Chapter 1.5: Limitations. Each persona describes in a

condensed form, one of the main user groups for Green AB’s new product. Four

personas were created for the purpose of this thesis.

3.7. MFD technique

The modular design process relied on the Modular Function Deployment (MFD)

technique developed by the company Modular Management. This method is comprised

of five main steps (Ekerå and Erlandsson, 2019):

1) Clarify customer needs - The beginning step was to define what are the different

customer segments that the product will target and what are their needs. The

four personas developed previously represented a perfect starting point for this

thesis, each of them being representative of a particular customer segment.

2) Identify functions and solutions - This step helped to identify what technologies

are needed to satisfy the target needs.

3) Propose modules and interfaces - In this step, the modular architecture of the

product was developed (modules and the interfaces between them) based on the

customers’ and company’s needs.

4) Define variants and configurations - In this step, different configurations of the

module variants were assembled into final products dedicated to individual

customer segments.

18

5) Confirm architecture feasibility - The final step of the MFD technique is to analyse

how well do the configurations made in the previous step, fulfill the needs of each

customer segment.

3.8. Iterative design process

After the MFD process was completed, an iterative design process was used to take the

developed modular concept and create a fully functional product. Two iterations were

made and presented in this thesis in order to achieve a high enough level of resolution

in areas such as: assembly, scalability, connections and ergonomics.

3.9. CAD simulation

A preliminary CAD model was created and tested using Autodesk Inventor to see if the

proposed modular design and scaling method of the product are viable from an

engineering standpoint. A stress simulation and analysis was run in order to find how

the product would behave when installed, focusing on the following aspects : the total

displacement, Von Mises stress in relation to the yield strength of the material used and

the safety factor of the setup.

19

4. Market research This chapter stems from a detailed state of the art analysis of over 40 products, both

direct and indirect competitors, done in collaboration with Green AB. The full extent of

this state of the art was not included in this thesis report for confidentiality reasons. For

the purpose of this thesis, six of the most relevant products from the state of the art,

currently out on the market, were chosen and analyzed. A “Strategy wheel'' was created

for each of the six products by identifying their most relevant characteristics (e.g. size,

number of growing spots, scalability, etc. ) and then assigning scores to those

characteristics for each individual product. The aim was to identify and showcase the

state of existing competitors and potentially find important areas or features that Green

AB’s new product could capitalize on in order to differentiate. Finally, a positioning map

was done to better visualize the placement of these products in relationship to each

other and get an overview of the market.

4.1. Defining the strategy wheels

The strategy wheel uses 8 criterias to describe a product (see Fig. 1). Each product

received a score between 1 and 5 for every criteria, 1 representing the lowest score and

5 representing the highest score. The used criterias and their scores are:

Size and Number of growing spots: The first two criterias, “Size” and “Number of growing spots”, were defined relative to the

specifications of the six chosen products. Therefore, the extremes of the “Size” criteria

belong to the smallest and largest of the products and the extremes of the “Number of

growing spots” criteria belong to the product with the least and most growing spots.

Degree of modularization: 1. The product is not modular at all. The product can not be modified by the user

after purchasing it.

5. The product has several components that can be assembled in a modular

fashion, added upon or replaced in order to reach a final, functional setup.

20

Scalability: 1. The product is not scalable at all. Simply placing multiple products next to each

other, without any intended physical, electrical or digital connectivity, is not

considered scaling the system.

5. The product can be easily scaled up or down, this aspect being a core feature of

its design.

Automation: 1 - The product functions fully analog

5 - The product uses different devices to make the growing process self-sustaining

Easy to set up: 1. The installation process requires a lot of input from the user and the product does

not come in the package with every component required to set it up.

5. The product comes in the package with every component required to set it up

(excluding tools and power tools) and it was designed to have the minimum part

count, use quick-connections or was simply designed with the intent of reducing

the assembly and installation time.

Designed for home growing: 1. The product is not meant to be used for small scale home growing.

5. The product is specifically designed to be used for small scale home growing.

The reason why both “Design for home growing” and “Designed for commercial

growing” exist is because they are not mutually exclusive. There can be products

which are designed to perform to some extent in both of these settings.

Designed for commercial growing: 5. The product is not meant to be used for medium to large scale commercial

growing.

6. The product is specifically designed to be used for medium to large scale

commercial growing.

21

Fig. 1 Strategy wheel

4.2. Analysed products

Each one of the 6 analysed products were chosen as representatives of a larger cluster

of very similar products in terms of design and functionality. The intent was to convey

the data from the state of the art in a more compact fashion while at the same time

getting an accurate overview of what type of products are currently out on the market.

Aerogarden Strategy Wheel (see Fig. 3) Aerogarden is a very popular hydroponics product

brand which started as an off spin from a NASA

developed system. There are many variations of

Aerogarden, all designed for home growing, that

stemmed from the original design of the product but

the analysis will focus on the 6 growing spots system

(see Fig. 2), holding the least number of plants out of

all the analysed products. Its reduced dimensions

make it fit in any household kitchen, measuring 0.29 *

0.12 * 0.44 [m3]. The Aerogarden scores a 1 in “Degree Fig. 2 The AeroGarden

22

of modularization” but it is worth mentioning that the company designed (during the

collaboration with NASA) a sealed seed plug that will not germinate until it is placed in

the system, making the planting process itself modular. This type of seed plugs are now

an industry standard for most hydroponic growing systems designed for home growing.

Due to this seed plug system and the fact that the product comes pre-assembled, it

scores high in the “Easy to set up” criteria. In regards to the scalability aspect, there is

no surprise that Aerogarden is not scalable at all, scoring a 1 in the respective criteria.

Fig. 3 Strategy wheel: Aerogarden

23

NAAVA Strategy Wheel (see Fig. 5)

NAAVA is a green-wall type of product that is being rented

out to offices, events and other venues (see Fig. 4). It is

meant to bring hydroponics to the customer as a service

rather than a product, the company taking care of transport,

installation and plant caring. Because of this, the size is very

large, measuring 1 * 0.35 * 3 [m3]. With a great size comes

a large number of growing spots, one unit holding 30 to 50

plants. The product does not have any modules, scoring a 1

on “Degree of modularization” and as stated in the criteria

description, placing multiple products next to each other

does not constitute scaling the system, being exactly what

Naava is doing therefore scoring a 1 on “Scalability” as well.

There is a moderate degree of automation coming with the product, the system taking

care of the watering cycles and climate control. As for how easy it is setting it up, it is

hard to know precisely as the installation is done by professionals deployed by the

company at the site but from physically inspecting multiple systems up close it seems a

moderately easy process, the only predicament being the size, scoring in the mid-

section for “Easy to set up”. This product stands apart from the other analyzed products

as it is not designed for home growing neither is it designed specifically for commercial

growing, as it only grows indoor plants.

Fig. 4 NAAVA

24

Fig. 5 Strategy wheel: NAAVA

25

Herbert Strategy Wheel (see Fig. 7)

Herbert is a product purely designed for home

growing with no commercial applications today (see

Fig. 6). It scores around the middle for both the

“Size” and “Number of growing spots”-criteria,

measuring 0.56 * 0.115 * 0.82 [m3] and holding 15

plants in total. The product is not designed at all

with modularity as a feature, neither with the intent

of easily scaling up the system, scoring a 1 in both

of their respective criteria. The product comes with

an app, telling the user basic information regarding

the lifecycle of different plants and the water level in

the reservoir, scoring in the mid-section of

“Automation”. Herbert’s installation process is

relatively simple, consisting of mounting a rail to the

wall and hanging the product on it. The reason why it

scores only a 3 in the “Easy to set up” criteria is the fact that it does not come in the

package with all the necessary components, more precisely the required screws and

wall anchors. It might seem like a small issue but in fact, the customer buys a product

that cannot be used before going to a third-party store to purchase the missing

components.

Fig. 6 Herbert

26

Fig. 7 Strategy wheel: Herbert

TowerGarden Strategy Wheel (see Fig. 9) TowerGarden is a vertical hydroponic system designed as a

cylindrical tower with plants (see Fig. 8), measuring 0.76 m in

diameter and 1.34 m tall. It’s shape and size grant the product

an above average score in the “Size” criteria but as an

upside, it also makes good use of all that available growing

area, holding 32 plants and scoring above average in the

“Number of growing spots” as well.The user has the option to

purchase and add an extension for their TowerGarden,

adding an additional 32 small growing spots, making the

product somewhat scalable. The product is mainly designed

for home growing, being completely analog, but it is used in

some fashion for commercial growing as well. It only scores a Fig. 8 TowerGarden

27

4 on “Designed for home growing” as there are aspects that are inconvenient for a

home user, mainly the size, shape and the large reservoir that needs refilling. These

aspects also tie into how easy it is to set up, scoring a 3 in this respective criteria. It

scores a 3 on “Designed for commercial growing” as there are farms using multiple

TowerGardens for a combined yield, the system being vertical, but the product is clearly

not optimized to be scaled up efficiently.

Fig. 9 Strategy wheel: TowerGarden

28

IKEA Växer Strategy Wheel (see Fig. 11)

The IKEA Växer (see Fig. 10) is the second smallest

of the analyzed products (after Aerogarden)

measuring 0.44*0.25*0.42 [m]. The same comment

applies to the number of growing spots, with 8 in

total, it has the second lowest number of growing

spots. It is a product specifically designed for

households which justifies the scores given under

“Designed for home growing” and “Designed for

commercial growing”. In the true IKEA fashion, simplicity is

the word that would best describe the Växer, scoring a 1 in

“Degree of modularization”, “Scalability” and “Automation” while at the same time

scoring a 5 in “Easy to set up”.

Fig. 11 strategy wheel:IKEA Växer

Fig. 10IKEA Växer

29

ZipGrow Strategy Wheel (see Fig. 13)

ZipGrow is a product purely designed for medium

to large scale commercial growing (see Fig. 12). It

comes as a complete system consisting of

multiple 3 m tall PVC strips, covering between

20m² to thousands of m². The PVC strips are

continuous growing patches that can hold up to

200 individual plants per m². The product is not

modular but it is extremely scalable and space

efficient, these aspects being the main

differentiators for this product. A large number of

ZipGrows can be placed in close proximity to

each other, which in terms does not constitute

scaling up the system, but all the individual strips

are connected to a digital web of products,

making them scalable in this sense. The whole array

of products is meant to be placed in a closed, controlled environment in order to

maximize the yield of the system, scoring the highest in “Automation”. Even though at

first glance it might seem like the product is easy to install, the high degree of human

input when doing so leads to the user making mistakes. This is a very common topic

brought up by people on the product page and in ZipGrow forums. The reason why it

scores a 2 in “Easy to set up” instead of a 1 is the fact that the plants can be freely

plugged into the growing patch without preset growing spots, offering a little more

flexibility when setting up the plants themselves.

Fig. 12 ZipGrow

30

Fig. 13 Strategy wheel: ZipGrow

4.3. Market positioning

A positioning map of those competitors was created (see Fig. 14) in order to better

visualize the market where the Green AB’s new product can fit in. This was done by

condensing the criterias used in the strategy wheels into the two axes of the map and

then positioning the products based on that. The X axis of the map was chosen to

represent “Self-sustaining” vs “Analog”, describing the amount of user input and

knowledge required when growing plants. “High tech” means that the product takes care

of certain aspects by itself and conveys information regarding the state of the system

and/or plants to the user, requiring low amount of input or knowledge to run optimally,

while “Low tech” means that the user has to take care of most plant growing aspects.

The Y axis of the map was chosen to represent “Rigid Design” vs “Flexible Design”,

combining multiple aspects into the ranking process such as modularity, scalability and

designed for use in multiple contexts. “Rigid Design” means that the product does not

31

perform these aspects, being restricted to a single setup. “Flexible Design” means that

the product can be modified whether through modularity or by scaling in order to be

optimized for a large number of users and contexts.

Fig. 14 Market positioning map of competitors

At the bottom of the positioning map sit the IKEA, AeroGaren and Herbert products.

Even though Herbert sits in 4th quadrant, as it uses sensors and an app to make the

growing process easier and give more control over it to the user, all of them can not be

changed whatsoever outside their original setup. TowerGarden ranks higher on the Y

axis as there is an option for quick-mounting an additional segment to the initial tower

for additional growing spots as well as the fact that it can be used in multiple contexts

but the lack of any digital aid grants it a place in the 3rd quadrant. Both NAAVA and

ZipGrow rank above the X axis due to the option the user has of purchasing a big

enough setup to fit their available space, ZipGrow in particular, with different amounts of

technology support built in them but they lack the flexibility to be used in a wide range of

contexts. In the end, based on the two chosen axes, there are two main areas where

there is an apparent lack of products on the market.

32

4.3.1. Preliminary product placement

In order to stand out, Green AB’s new product should capitalize on a position within the

two identified empty areas in the market positioning map. Standing out (differentiating)

would be desired in order to create increased traction with the customers and to fulfill

the goal of bringing indoor farming to as many people as possible. First off, due to the

aim of this thesis, one of these areas can be outright excluded, more precisely the one

in the 4th quadrant, as the new product will feature modularity to some extent, making it

have a flexible design. That left the entire top area, ranging from “Analog” all the way to

“Self-sustaining”. As the company is striving towards innovation in the technological field

when it comes to the plant growing process, it was obvious that Green AB’s new

product should rank in the top right corner of the 2nd quadrant, being highly flexible to

suit the needs of as many users as possible as well as incorporating the necessary

gadgets to make the growing process easier for the user. The preliminary market

positioning can be seen below in Fig. 15. Making a definitive, more precise market

placement decision required the strategy wheel for the new product. Many of the

product’s specifications were not known at this point in the thesis. In the following

chapter titled “User studies”, both qualitative and quantitative methods were

implemented in order to gather the necessary data to create the strategy wheel for

Green AB’s new product and complete the market placement.

33

Fig. 15 Initial market positioning of Green AB’s new product

35

5. User studies In order to gather information directly from potential users, two methods were used,

being the study of online communities centered around plant growing and the posting of

online surveys in those said communities.

5.1. Online communities

The study of online communities was done as a prerequisite for creating the online

surveys, in order to better understand what questions should be asked and how the

questions should be formulated. Those online communities were constituted by

Facebook and Reddit groups dedicated to plants and plant-growing enthusiasts,

household plant growers, people who come in contact with plants on a day by day

basis, hydroponics, hydroponic plant growing and the like. A complete list of those

groups can be found in Appendix A.

5.1.1. Online communities findings

As a result of this investigation, several aspects of interest were found with regards to

the studied groups. These aspects were further used to develop the survey section of

this chapter.

The first and biggest aspect discovered was the fact that there is a clear distinction

between the soil plant growing and hydroponic plant growing groups. It was also noticed

that the subject matter of these two types of groups is extremely different to one

another. While the comments and posts in the soil plant growing groups were focused

on plants, questions about plants and tips about plants, the comments and posts in the

hydroponic plant growing groups were focused on the hydroponic system itself, the type

of system used, optimizing parameters and increasing the yield of the system.

Therefore, the survey part of this chapter had to be split into two, one survey dedicated

to people who grow plants in soil and another for people who grow plants

hydroponically.

36

A common recurrence in both of those types of groups were users asking for help with

problems they had encountered. This led to the creation of dedicated sections in both of

the surveys asking about common problems encountered, in order to find people’s pain

points with the intent to incorporate solutions to those pain points in the final design of

the product.

Another similar aspect between these two types of groups was the language used when

posting or responding to someone else's post. People joining these groups were writing

detailed posts or responses to posts and were generally found to be very passionate

about plant growing or hydroponics when it applied. This aspect allowed for a drastic

change of the surveys’ design. Generally, the type of data gathered through this method

is mostly quantitative but given the opportunity of having groups of passionate people to

send the survey to and noticing their openness towards giving long and complex

answers, the following decision was taken. Both of the surveys would incorporate in

their structure, a good number of open answer questions and follow-up questions to

those in order to simulate to some extent a more qualitative online interview. The

quantitative data was to be analyzed and used to better define the product (optimal size,

number of growing spots, features and so on) while the qualitative data was to be

analyzed and used to determine users’ needs and pain points to focus the design

process for the product.

5.2. Surveys

It was decided from the “Online communities findings” chapter, that two surveys were to

be made for the purpose of this thesis. Both the aim and the intended audiences of

those surveys were different.

“Plant growing” survey: The first survey, titled “Plant growing”, had as a core audience, people growing plants in

soil or people who generally interact with plants. As the new product is meant to

facilitate indoor plant growing and to some extent coexist with or replace people’s

existing plants, one of the aims of this first survey was finding out specifics about how,

where and why people grow and own plants, or the reasons why they do not. It included

37

questions regarding their level of expertise, the type and number of plants that people

grow, the amount of space they occupy in the home, the time per day spent taking care

of the plants and so on. In addition, this survey included sets of questions meant to

discover respondents' needs and pain points when growing plants and this was done

using open answer questions followed up by a “why” question or by a question asking

them to elaborate on their previous answer.

“Plant growing without soil” survey: The second survey, titled “Plant growing without soil”, had as a core audience, people

who grow plants through a method that does not use soil as the growing medium. This

included people growing plants hydroponically, aquaponically or aeroponically with

different levels of expertise, from beginners and DIY growers to professionals. As the

new product will use a type of hydroponic technique, the aim of this survey was to find

out specifics about how, where and why people grow plants without soil as well as

finding what are the aspects they deem most important or want improved in their

systems. The survey, just like the previous one, used a good number of open anwer

and follow-up questions in order to obtain qualitative type of data, alongside the usual

quantitative data.

5.2.1. “Plant growing” survey findings

The “Plant growing” survey resulted in 92 responses. Only 6 of the respondents stated

that they do not grow plants which does not constitute a reliable range of data

descriptive of the population therefore their answers were not included in the analysis.

The data gathered from the 86 respondents that did grow plants is presented below.

General findings When looking at the 86 respondents stating

they do grow plants, a comprehensive

analysis could be done based on this range.

Most of the respondents were growing

plants in soil (98.8%), with some also

growing without soil. Their level of Fig. 16 Time spent per day taking care

of plants

38

expertise was as expected, considering the groups the survey was posted in, 71.4% of

the respondents stating that they know how to provide optimal conditions for growing

and 32.1% stating that they don’t know that much about growing plants, with only an

extremely low number of them stating they are plant growing experts or horticulturists.

The average time spent per day taking care of plants was calculated as a weighted

mean of the responses (see Fig. 16) and was 10.2 minutes, which is quite a

considerable amount of time.

Number of plants The survey was posted in two rounds (06.03.2020 and 20.03.2020). The first time it was

posted, in order to find out how many plants people grow, a multiple answer question

was asked that had as the ceiling the option “More than 20 plants”. Because a large

percentage of respondents chose that option, the second time the survey was posted,

more options were added to the question in order to get a more accurate result, raising

the ceiling to “More than 40 plants”. Even with this in place, a significant number of

respondents (22,6%) chose the ceiling option, which introduces a noticeable margin of

error in the analysis of the answers for this question. As the multiple choices for this

question were ranges, the average number of plants that the respondents have was

determined as a range as well (see Fig. 17). The values of this range were calculated

as a weighted mean based on the min

and max values of the range of each

choice and the percentages they

represented. Because the survey was

posted in two rounds and changed

after the first one, there are a number

of responses under “More than 20

plants”. This value was calculated as a

separate weighted mean (see Formula 2) using the

mean values of the range of every choice over 20 plants (25.5 plants for “21-30 plants” -

11 people - , 35.5 plants for “31- 40 plants” - 6 people - and 45.5 plants for “More than

40 plants” - 19 people - for which the min value was 41 and max value was

approximated to be 50. This gave as a result that people that answered “More than 20

Fig. 17 Number of plants

39

plants” had on average 37.71 plants. This value was then introduced into the first

formula (see Formula 1). Just as in the case of people who answered “More than 20

plants”, the max value for the range of the “More than 40 plants” was approximated to

be 50 while the min value was 41.

Formula 1: Weighted mean of the number of plants people own

Σ (min value of the choice’s range)*(weight of the choice as %) + Σ (max value of the

choice’s range)*(weight of the choice as %)

Formula 2: Weighted mean of the number of plants for the “More than 20 plants” choice

Σ (mean of the choice’s range)*(weight of the choice as %)

The calculated range representing the average number of plants owned by the

respondents is 21.86 - 28.18, or an average of 25 plants per respondent.

The reasons why respondents grow plants

The first open answer of this survey was “For what purpose(s) do you grow plants at

home?”. In order to drive more qualitative and detailed answers, this question was

followed up by “Could you please elaborate on your above answer(s)?”. Answers

gathered from this pair of questions were used in different parts of the analysis in order

to find users' needs. A clustering method was used, using post-it notes, to group the

answers into specific categories (see Fig. 18). A digital representation of the reasons

why people grow plants can be seen in Fig. 19. The following ten categories were

devised, in which all of the answers could be included:

• Food • Decoration / Aesthetics • Love / Joy of seeing plants grow • Personal enjoyment / Relaxing / Fun • Cleaner air • Hobby • For morale / happiness / mental health • Social aspect • The smell of the plants • Cozy / Happier environment

40

Fig. 18 Clustering of the reasons why people grow plants

Fig. 19 Digital representation of the reasons why people grow plants

41

The open answers reveal several interesting reasons why respondents grew plants. The

most stated one, with 30 responses, was for aesthetics and decorative purposes. A

surprising reason, with 29 responses, was for personal enjoyment. More respondents

found growing plants to be fun and have a relaxing effect even more than a mean to

grow fresh food which only had 26 responses. This relaxation purpose was supported

even further by the 21 respondents who stated that they grow plants for morale,

happiness and even for their mental health, implying that plants almost have a

therapeutic effect. Growing plants was seen as a hobby by a considerable number of

respondents (22 responses) and their motivation might have been due to a love for

plants or the joy of seeing them grow (13 responses).

Amount of space occupied by the plants

The question “How much space do your plants occupy?” had both multiple choice

answers and an open answer section. Looking at the first choice, “About 10 x 10 cm”

was often misinterpreted therefore those answers were excluded from the analysis. The

pie chart below depicts the distribution of the responses (see Fig. 20). Including the

open answers, 75% of respondents stated that their plants occupy “About the area of a

coffee table”, “About the area of a study table” and “They take up a designated part of a

room which I don’t mind”. Before a decision was taken regarding what size Green AB’s

new product should have, the data from the second survey needed to be analyzed as

well.

Fig. 20 Amount of space that plants occupy

42

What people do to their plants The answers to the multiple-choice question “I do the following to my plants” was asked

and several aspects were noted regarding this topic. First of all, it was not surprising

that most people water their plants regularly and make sure they get enough sunlight as

these are the two factors required for a plant to grow. Only a small percentage of

respondents forgot to water their plants regularly or used LEDs to offset the need for

sunlight. A large majority of respondents also stated that they do relatively complex

actions such as transplanting the plants when needed and prune the stems and leaves

or they actively check for diseases.

Common challenges In order to find the common challenges that respondents faced when growing plants,

they were first asked to answer “What common challenges do you encounter when

growing plants at home?” (question 1) which was a multiple-choice question with an

open answer as one of the choices. On the same topic, an open answer question

(question 2) was asked regarding plants they are not growing and the reasons why.

This question was designed to gather qualitative responses about challenges faced

when growing plants in an indirect fashion, with the goal of finding people’s pain points.

The biggest reported challenge, with 34 answers, was the fact that people can not give

their plants the optimal lighting conditions followed by knowing and remembering the

needs of each plant, with 28 answers. In one open answer, a respondent stated that In

order to offset the former issue, they have “made a notebook with plant info” to keep

track of the needs of each plant.

The next challenge noticed was in regards to the health of plants, whether it was related

to pests or diseases or plants dying for reasons they do not know, with a combined total

of 55 responses.

Another challenge was the lack of space for growing plants, with 24 responses, an

aspect that at first glance did not seem like an overly important issue but, in fact, was

found to be a recurrent topic throughout the analysis process.

43

When looking at the answers from question 2, some of people’s pain points became

clearer (answers related to cost were omitted as this aspect was not within the scope of

the thesis). Some of the answers were directly related to the quantitative data gathered

with question 1 but could not be further clustered, these answers being:

• “I don't have a system for watering them when I'm away for a while” which related

to the “I fail to water my plants regularly” choice from the previous question but

explaining more in depth that the pain point was not related to the periods when

the respondent was at home (and therefore could water their plants) but for leave

periods or vacations.

• The answer “Some plants are fussy, and I don't know what changed that made

them drop leaves” related to the question 1 choices “My plants die for reasons I

don’t know” and “It is hard to know and remember the needs of each plant”,

further cementing the idea that, in the traditional plant growing process, personal

experience and knowledge dictates the outcome and the health of people’s

plants.

The rest of the responses could be clustered into two categories as they were in

regards to two main issues. The biggest one was the lack of proper lighting due to

reasons such as windows not facing the sun, dark room or too little light for certain

types of plants. The second issue, being just as prominent as the first one, was the lack

of space.

Noticing and looking at plants One of the company’s requests was to investigate to what degree the product should be

visible. I.e. attract attention and interactiveness versus blend in with the environment.

In order to decide on a design path regarding how visible or blended in the product

should be, firstly, a baseline had to be determined regarding if and to what extent

people notice plants around them. A set of two, multiple choice questions was asked to

get respondents' opinion of the matter. The first question was phrased as an open-

ended sentence, “When I walk into a room with plants” and respondents were asked to

choose the ending that fits them. An overwhelming majority of the respondents stated

44

that plants attract their attention, half of them stated that they also interact with the

plants and only a small percentage only noticed the plants sometimes.

The second question asked what were the reasons why people don’t notice plants or

only sometimes notice them. Both the multiple choice options and the responses can be

seen below in Fig. 21. The main reason the respondents stated they do not notice

plants was “(I am) Focused on doing other things” with 36 responses. The second

biggest reason that, to some extent, ties into the previous reason is “I get used to plants

being around me” with 24 responses.

Fig. 21 Reasons why people don’t notice plants or just notice them sometimes

In order to understand why people look at plants in the first place, respondents were

asked to complete the statement “When I see plants, I feel…” with an open answer. In

order to dig deeper into the reasons and find the actual needs of the respondents, a

follow-up question was used, asking them to elaborate on their previous answers. After

looking at the data from both questions, two aspects were noted.

Firstly, the attitude about seeing plants was extremely positive. The overwhelming

majority of the responses to the first question (over 90% of them) included the words

“Happy” (or “Happyness”), “Calm” or “Relaxed”, with the rest of the responses (~10% of

them) also being positive in nature, to the extent that clustering the responses was

deemed unnecessary. The more detailed qualitative responses from the second

question, revealed the underlying need of the respondents and, to some extent, the

perceived benefits of looking at plants, being surrounded with plants and growing plants

45

as a whole. Plants had almost a therapeutic effect on people (“Plants have a nice

calming effect on me, it makes me less stressed out”) and some even growing plants to

help dealing with depression (“Plants help me cope. They are something happy to do

when life gets difficult”).

The second aspect noted was the fact that the health of the plants ties in and directly

influences respondents’ mood. Without being asked specifically about the health of their

plants, an unexpected large number of respondents gave detailed responses about the

relationship between the health of the plants and how they feel, well maintained plants

influencing them in a positive way whilst poorly maintained or dying plants influence

them in a negative way.

5.2.2. “Plant growing without soil” survey findings

The “Plant growing without soil” survey resulted in 75 responses. The analysis of this

survey was conducted after the analysis of the “Plant growing” survey. From the

previous analysis, one of the common challenges stated by people was the lack of

space, an issue that cannot be left unaddressed but one that can be remediated by

designing the product as a vertical hydroponic system. When asked about the

hydroponic technique used, the vast majority of the respondents reported using Deep

Water Culture (DWC) as the method of growing plants without soil, this type of system

is the staple for horizontal growing, being extremely hard and inefficient to function as a

vertical growing system (large dimensions, heavy, water hungry, additional piping

required and so on). It is worth mentioning that staking multiple horizontal systems

vertically, one on top of another (as done in commercial DWC farming), does not

constitute a vertical growing system; the verticality comes from the orientation of the

growing bed on which plants are growing. Similar considerations can be made for the

Kratky systems which is a type of DWC and for Ebb & Flow systems which share some

of the issues when converted to a vertical growing system. Considering this, in order to

get accurate insights for the design chapter of this thesis, answers from people only

using DWC, Kratky or Ebb & Flow to questions directly related to the growing system

were taken out of the analysis process while their answers to general questions

46

regarding hydroponics were still used. The answers that were taken into consideration

for questions related to the growing system were from respondents who used Nutrient

Film Technique (NFT), Drip and Aeroponics systems.

Reasons why respondents use the hydroponic technique(s) that they use

The open answer question “What are the reasons you use this technique(s)” was asked

with the intent of finding what do people value most from their system. As this question

is related to the type of system used, only answers from people who used NFT, Drip or

Aeroponics. One recurrent aspect was observed from the answers to this question

(excluding the cost aspect, since it is not in the scope of this thesis) which was

“Simplicity”. An interesting observation can be made about the fact that many

respondents that used Aeroponics systems reported that the simplicity was one of the

aspects why they use this technique. Aeroponic growing is regarded as one of the most

difficult growing processes, requiring a good understanding of plant growing and having

a high skill ceiling. This led to the conclusion that the responses regarding “Simplicity”

were addressed to the complexity of the system (how it is built, number and type of

components, etc. ) rather than to how easy it was to get maximum results in terms of

yield from the system.

Number of plants

People were asked “How many plants do

you grow?” in order to gather more insights

(see Fig. 22), along with the results from the

first survey, into how many growing spots

Green AB’s new product should have. Using

the same formula as in the previous survey

analysis, the weighted mean was calculated

for the number of plants that respondents

grow as a value range. 93.5% of the

respondents grow on average between 16 and 26 plants.

Fig. 22 How many plants people own

47

DIY or Off-the-shelf system

In order to find more about what people value in a hydroponic system, the multiple

choice question “Is your growing system bought or built by you ?” was asked. Both the

choices and the answers can be seen in Fig. 23. Depending on the selected answer, a

follow-up open question was asked, regarding the reason(s) why they went with their

choice of system.

1) Off-the-shelf system The open answers of the respondents who bought a

ready-made hydroponic system revolved around the

simplicity aspect, supporting the previously stated idea

that a simple and easy to get started product is of value

to people.

2) DIY system The majority of the respondents chose this option and the majority of the answers

revolved around the fact that a DIY system best fitted their needs and more specifically

in many cases, it best fitted their space.

3) Bought system and made changes to it Respondents who selected this choice offered supporting answers to the aspects

mentioned by both of the previous groups, being simplicity and it best fitted their needs /

space.

Most important aspects when growing plants without soil In order to find what aspects are valued most by the respondents, the multiple choice

question “What are the most important aspects to you when growing plants without

soil?” was asked (see Fig. 24, followed by the open question ”Why do you consider

those aspects to be "most important"?”

Fig. 23 Type of system owned

48

Fig. 24 Most important aspects when growing plants without soil

A surprising result that was noted from the responses was the fact that the two most

popular choices were regarding the experience of plant growing, being “The joy of

growing my own food” and “The unique experience of growing plants without soil”.

These aspects were more popular than other more quantifiable choices and what were

previously assumed to be more important aspects such as the yield of the system, the

space the system takes up, how easy it is to get started, how easy it is to maintain or

food related choices such as food self-sufficiency. These previously mentioned aspects

do represent a significant percentage of the total responses but it was apparent that

respondents, on average, value more the experience that comes with being involved in

the plant growing process and benefiting off the fruits of their actions. This aspect is

further supported by the open answers from the follow-up question.

Scalability of the system

When asked about the scalability of their system, 64.4% of the respondents stated that

they “wish to scale up”. The rest stated that they are happy with the current scale while

nobody stated that they would scale down their system. This shows that there is an

apparent value in making Green AB’s new product easy to scale up, as opposed to

being a stand-alone unit.

49

5.2.3. Analysis of survey findings

The survey uncovered that people have several reasons for growing plants. Based on

that, I have identified several needs that Green AB’s new product must meet.

Respondents to the survey also expressed multiple difficulties with owning and growing

plants in or without soil. These pain points must also be considered when doing the final

design of the product. Both the needs and pain points are listed and discussed further in

this chapter.

The surveys also provided enough information for building a complete strategy wheel

for the product, as it gave insights into the optimal size, number of growing spots and

other aspects.

NEEDS 1. Having plants around them / looking at plants - from the survey results it was

clear that having and seeing plants around you was of value to the respondents.

Plants served a therapeutic use, making respondents feel more happy, calm,

relaxed and even helping to cope with difficult aspects of their daily lives.

Necessary feature - After investigating to what degree the product should be visible.

I.e. attract attention and interactiveness versus blend in with the environment, it was

decided that it should be highly visible. The product needed to be designed to sit at

close to eye level, making it visible and easy to interact with (i.e. harvesting plants).

Also, the plants should be the center of attention when looking at the product. In order

to fulfill this user need, the easiest solution was to design the product to be mounted on

the wall for small setups or to be sitting on the floor for larger setups.

2. Being involved in the growing process - A noticeable number of soil growers

stated that the reasons why they grow plants were in regards to their “love” for

plants and “the joy of seeing them grow”. They found it to be “fun” and “relaxing”

and some of them grew plants to boost their “happiness”, for “morale” or for their

“mental health”. It was also found that, on average, they spent 10.2 minutes per

day taking care of plants, which is a significant amount of time. Looking at the

second survey, hydroponic growers stated that the two most important aspects to

50

them were the joy of growing their own food and the unique experience of

growing plants without soil. All of these aspects led to the conclusion that users

want to be involved in the growing process.

Necessary feature - In order fulfill this user need, further investigation and ideation was

needed.

3. Having healthy plants - This need stems from the relation between the health of

the plants and how they feel, well maintained plants influencing them in a positive

way whilst poorly maintained or dying plants influence them in a negative way.

There was not enough to just grow or see plants but they needed to be healthy

plants as well.

Proposed solution - In order fulfill this user need, further investigation and ideation

was needed.

PAIN POINTS

1. Lack of proper lighting - the most reported pain point and one of the biggest

reasons why respondents did not grow more plants or did not grow certain plants

was the inability to provide plants with the optimal lighting conditions.

Necessary feature - In order to treat this pain point, the product had to incorporate

appropriate LED growing lights to offset the lack of available sunlight

2. Lack of space - another big pain point was the inefficient use of the available

space when growing plants or the lack of space altogether.

Necessary feature - In order to treat this pain point, it was decided that the product was

going to be designed as a vertical hydroponic system to make the most out of the

available space

3. Hard to know and remember the needs of each plant - another big challenge

faced by many respondents was the inability to know precisely what are the

needs of each plant (lack of knowledge) and remember those needs every time

(different plants have different needs).

Necessary feature - In order to treat this pain point, the App could be linked to the

product, providing the necessary plant information. Also, the product could take care of

51

the watering process so that the user would not have to remember the needs of every

plant since it would be done automatically.

4. Dying plants - A very common challenge that was reported was related to

growing healthy plants, whether it was in regards to diseases, pests or simply

plants dying for unknown reasons. As stated in the user need:“Having healthy

plants”, dying plants influence users’ mood in a negative way.

Necessary feature - In order to treat this pain point, further investigation and ideation

was needed.

After analyzing the results from both the “Plant growing” survey and “Plant growing

without soil” and looking at respondents’ needs and pain points, a paradox between

several features of the product was uncovered. If trying to solve the “Hard to know and

remember the needs of each plant” pain point, by making the product more self-

sustaining (through automation), the user involvement when growing plants would

diminish, negatively impacting the “Being involved in the growing process” need.

Another clash was that, by automating aspects such as the watering cycle, users would

have more time to do other activities. This would reduce to some extent the amount of

time they would spend looking at plants, clashing with the first user need, “Having plants

around them / looking at plants”. This aspect is further supported by the findings from

the first survey where the biggest reported reason “why people don’t notice plants” was

the fact that people got “focused on doing other things”.

It became apparent that exploring the impact that an increase in self-sustainability of a

product has on the user’s experience, was very important for both the thesis and the

company. Based on this, the second research question was devised:

“What impact does a self-sustaining growing system have on the experience of growing plants and how can it be addressed?”

52

5.3. Product’s strategy wheel

Based on these results, a strategy wheel for the new product was created, following the

same criteria used to rank the competitors, in order to showcase the vision for its

design. From the results of the “Plant growing without soil” survey as well as the aim of

the thesis it was clear that the product should rank high in the “Scalability” criteria. In

order to do so, modularity will aid a considerable amount, ranking high in this respective

criterion as well. As scaling up the system will be a big part of the product as well as the

responses regarding “simplicity” when asked about the type of hydroponic system and

about the most important aspects when growing plants without soil, it made it clear for

the product to be easy to set up. In addition, because the product will be highly scalable

and modular, it can satisfy the needs of users who want a few plants as well as

satisfying the needs of users who want many plants. The product should rank as high

as possible in the “Automation” criteria as that will make the growing process simple for

any user. This direction seems to be backed up by the data gathered from the second

survey, when asking what factors do people monitor and control, where no singular

particular factor was underrepresented (meaning that there is an apparent need for all

of them to some extent). Because the product will be scalable, both the “Size” and

“Number of growing spots” will vary depending on the scale of the system desired by

each user. The scores for these two criteria were used to only describe a single “unit”,

meaning the smallest, fully functional setup that the product can take.

The average number of plants for the soil growing respondents was between 21.86 to

28.18 and for the soilless growing respondents was between 16 to 26 plants. The

decision was made to have 8 growing spots per unit, ranking the product between IKEA

Växer and Herbert in the strategy wheel. This number of growing spots was chosen for

several reasons:

1. Because the product will be scalable, different needs in terms of the number of

plants that the user wishes to grow can be satisfied by purchasing multiple units.

2. Having a relatively small number of growing spots meant that one unit could

accomodate the needs of the people who grow a small number of plants (under

10) and still cover ⅓ of the average number of plants for the soil growing

53

respondents (3 units cover 100% of their current plants) and ½ to ⅓ of the

average number of plants for the soilless growing respondents (2-3 units cover

100% of their current plants).

3. Having 8 growing spots allowed for a staggered arrangement of plants over 3

levels as shown in Fig. 25. This arrangement provides plants with more room to

grow without increasing the total height of the product.

Fig. 25 Staggered arrangement of growing spots for one unit

The size of the unit was chosen based on the most common reports from the surveys

and based on the previously decided number of growing spots that needed to be held.

Every plant was spaced 150 mm apart which, along with the staggered pattern, gave

each plant enough space to grow, with an extra 100 mm from the edges to allow for

multiple units to be installed one next to another and still have enough space for the

plants not to clash (total of 500 x 500 mm for the front of the product). An extra

estimated 500 x 150 mm was added for a water reservoir and the thickness of the whole

unit was chosen to be between 130 mm based on the hydroponic system that was

going to be used. The final unit had the dimensions (width x height x thickness) 500 x

650 x 130 mm, ranking between IKEA Växer and Herbert on the “Size” criteria as well.

This data allowed for the strategy wheel for Green AB’s new product to be completed

(see Fig. 26). Considering this, the preliminary market position presented in chapter

4.3.1 still stands correct based on this strategy wheel (see Fig. 15) therefore it was left

unchanged for this updated version of the product.

54

Fig. 26 Strategy wheel for Green AB’s new product

55

5.4. Personas

Using the surveys’ results, personas were created to aid in the design process. This

method was used in order to simplify the data from the surveys and to better visualize

the different potential users and their needs. The following four personas were created:

1. Kevin is the classic big city dweller (see Fig. 27). He is a tech savvy guy and lives

by himself in a modern style apartment in the

heart of the city. He enjoys having a few

decorative plants around to liven out the

apartment but he doesn’t have a lot of

experience growing plants nor much time to

take care of them and the lighting in his

apartment is not great either. He also leaves

home for multiple days at a time to go on

business trips and vacations. He is looking for

a product that is simple to get started, simple

to maintain and can accommodate his

lifestyle, his apartment style

and lighting conditions and

the longer periods he is not

at home.

Fig. 27 Persona #1: Kevin

56

2. Sarah is a mother of three, living in a house in the suburbs of Stockholm (see

Fig. 28). She is a stay-at-home mom with an adamant love for gardening. She

also grows plants so that she and her family have fresh herbs and veggies every

day. She knows a lot about plant growing but no amount of

knowledge can offset Sweden’s volatile climate, therefore

she is considering moving her “garden” indoors. She is

looking for a product that allows her to grow enough plants

indoors to provide her family with fresh herbs and leafy

greens, while at the same time satisfying her love of plants

and the need of being involved in the growing process.

Fig. 28 Persona #2: Sarah

57

3. Greg is a young adult living in a suburban part of the USA

(see Fig. 29). He recently graduated from an agricultural

college, knows about growing plants hydroponically and

wants to start growing in his own house. He wants to go big

and fill a whole room growing herbs and

vegetables. He is looking for a product that is

flexible enough to fill a larger space and

allows him to control multiple aspects of the

growing process.

Fig. 29 Persona #3: Greg

58

4. Gillian is a young business woman living in Stockholm (see

Fig. 30). She wants to decorate some larger open spaces

with many indoor plants and flowers. She is not experienced

in growing plants herself but that won’t stop her. She is

looking for a product that is flexible enough to fit differently

sized rooms, is easy to get started and easy to maintain.

Fig. 30 Persona #4: Gillian

59

6. Implementation Described in this chapter is the design process used to develop the product, featuring

the Modular Function Deployment (MFD) technique (Ekerå and Erlandsson, 2019),

followed by an iterative product design process, concluding with a final concept and a

CAD analysis to verify its validity. The modular architecture developed using the MFD

technique serves as the foundation for the product design process, deciding on the

features and components that the product will incorporate. Green AB’s new product was

attributed the name “GreenZ” for the purpose of the following chapters.

6.1. MFD technique

Firstly, the MFD technique was used in order to identify and define the modules and

module variants for Green AB’s new product, the “GreenZ”. This is a circular method

consisting of 5 main steps (see Fig. 31). The terminology necessary to understand this

process is listed and explained in Chapter 3: Method.

Fig. 31 MFD steps

60

6.1.1. Step 1: Clarify customer needs

The modularization design process started with setting up the different types of

customers targeted with the new product and identifying their needs. The four personas

created in the previous chapter, based on the surveys’ results, represented the perfect

starting point for this step of the process. Each persona correlates to one customer

segment:

1. Kevin is representative of the “Beginner grower” customer segment

2. Sarah is representative of the “Experienced grower” customer segment

3. Greg is representative of the “Larger spaces - control” customer segment

4. Gillian is representative of the “Larger spaces - aesthetics” customer segment

Based on the personas and their individual

needs, I created a list of customer values.

These values apply to all customer segments

but they have different levels of importance for

each individual segment. I have used a

Customer Value Ranking (CVR) matrix (Ekerå

and Erlandsson, 2019) to rank the customer

values (see Fig. 32). A ranking system from 1

to 8 was used, 1 being the least important

customer value for that specific segment and 8

being the most important customer value for the

segment. Right away, several aspects were

noted from the CVR matrix:

● Both “Provide optimal lighting” and

“Easy to set up” Customer Values

were rated highly throughout the segments which meant that the GreenZ needed

to satisfy those needs for all segments.

Fig. 32 CVR matrix

61

● “High-tech control” was rated high for only one segment which meant that a

separate solution was needed for that specific customer segment; Same was

noted for the “Easy to get started” Customer Value.

● “Attractive appearance” was rated differently among the segments which meant

that different appearances of the GreenZ needed to be created. Same was noted

for the “Easy to maintain” Customer Value

In order to link the identified Customer Values to actual Technical Solutions, Product

Properties for the GreenZ were developed along with Goal Values. I have done this by

creating an Ishikawa fishbone diagram for each Customer Value (see Fig. 33). The dot

below each Product Property signifies its importance for fulfilling that specific Customer

Value, a full dot showing a strong relation, a half dot showing a medium relation and an

empty dot showing a weak relation.

Fig. 33 Ishikawa fishbone diagrams for the identified Customer Values

A Quality Function Deployment (QFD) matrix (Ekerå and Erlandsson, 2019) was

created in order to better visualize the Product Properties along with their Goal Values

62

and to determine the relationship between them and Customer Values (see Fig. 34).

The aim was to find which properties influence which customer experiences.

Fig. 34 QFD matrix of the GreenZ

6.1.2. Step 2: Identify Functions and Solutions

The next step in the process was to do a function analysis of the product in order to

identify what technologies are needed to satisfy the needs of the different customer

segments. A top-down function analysis of the GreenZ was chosen for the purpose of

this thesis (see Fig. 35), every Function being assigned a Technical Solution below it.

63

Fig. 35 Top-down function analysis of the GreenZ

Following this step, Product Properties had to be linked to the Technical Solutions.

There are three major reasons for doing this. Firstly, the technical specification of the

product is built. Secondly, seeing which Technical Solutions can be clustered into

modules. Lastly, it can help simplify the product architecture if certain Technical

Solutions are linked to too many Product Properties. I have showcased the link between

Product Properties and Technical Solutions using a Design Property Matrix (DPM)

(Ekerå and Erlandsson, 2019) that can be seen below in Fig. 36. Similar to before, dots

were used to link Technical Solutions with Product Properties, this time relating to the

potential number of Module Variants, an empty dot showing 1 potential variant, a half

dot showing 2 potential variants and a full dot showing 3 or more potential variants of

the Technical Solution. An indicator of a good coupling was the fact that the diagonal of

64

the matrix is populated by dots showing the number of variants, which in terms should

“enable good modularity” (Ekerå and Erlandsson, 2019).

Fig. 36 DPM matrix of the GreenZ

The DPM matrix offered a first look into potential Modules for the GreenZ, as highlighted

in the above figure:

● Several modules vary in the same categories therefore they could be grouped

into singular modules:

○ The “Reservoir” and “pump” Technical Solutions were grouped into the

“Reservoir” module.

○ The “PCB control unit” and “Hat” (the “Hat” refers to a component meant

to hold and protect the PCB) Technical Solutions were grouped into the

“Control module”, with only two Module Variants depending on the number

of sensors used in the GreenZ.

65

○ The “LED grow-lights” and “Lighting support” were grouped into the

“Lighting” module, with Module Variants depending on the number of LED

panels.

○ The “Front-end” and “Growing spots” Technical Solutions were grouped

into the “Front-end module”, with several Module Variants depending on

the user's needs.

● The “Wall mount” and “Floor stand” Technical Solutions fulfill the same Function

and could instead be ordered as a module with two variants where the user can

choose between using the GreenZ mounted on the wall or standing upright on

the floor.

6.1.3. Step 3: Propose Modules and Interfaces

In this step of the MFD process the Modules were defined and the interfaces between

those modules were set. The part related to the relation between the different modules

and the company strategy was taken out of the thesis for confidentiality reasons as it

would give away information about planned areas of innovation. As a result of the DPM

matrix, the following 10 modules of the GreenZ were created:

● Body module - Representing the “Body” Technical Solution

● Lighting module - Composed of “LED grow lights” + “Lighting support” Technical

Solutions

● Mounting module - Composed of the “Floor stand” + “Wall mount” Technical

Solutions

● Front end module - Representing the “Front end” Technical Solution

● Control module - Composed of “PCB control unit” + “Hat” Technical Solutions

● Hub module - Representing the “Control hub” Technical Solution

● Sensors module - Representing the “Sensors” Technical Solution

● Power module - Representing the “Power outlet” Technical Solution

● Reservoir module - Composed of “Pump” + “Reservoir” + “Filter” Technical

Solutions

● Tubing module - Representing the “Tubing” Technical Solution

66

Following this, the interfaces between modules needed to be defined. These represent

the type of connection between components when they are assembled. Modular

Management states that there are 3 main types of interfaces (Ekerå and Erlandsson,

2019):

● A - Attachment - Physical connection of Modules through a referenced

Interface. ● T - Transfer - Material and or energy that passes through a referenced Interface. ● C - Command & Control - Module based operational signals that pass through

an Interface All the interfaces between the GreenZ Modules were presented using an Interface

Matrix that can be seen below in Fig. 37.

Fig. 37 Interface matrix of the GreenZ Modules

6.1.4. The impact of GreenZ on users’ experience of growing plants

The survey respondents brought out the need of “having plants around them and

looking at plants” as well as “having healthy plants”. Some also brought up the need of

“being involved in the growing process”. Some identified pain points, among others,

were the fact that it was “hard to know and remember the needs of each plant” and the

67

fact that “plants were dying” for reasons they didn’t know. The core idea behind GreenZ

was to make it easy to grow plants indoors and that would be achieved by making the

product self-sustaining. But by automating the growing process, people would feel less

involved in the growing process and would spend less time taking care of plants.

Considering this on top of the fact that the most reported reason why people do not

notice plants was that they were “focused on doing other things”, which a self-sustaining

growing system allows them to, created a paradox in the sense that people would buy

the GreenZ to spend more time with plants around them but, because of automation,

they would spend less time with the plants.

Because of this paradox, the second research question of the thesis was formulated:

“What impact does a self-sustaining growing system have on the experience of growing plants and how can it be addressed?”. In trying to answer this question, I

have developed several possible solutions to this paradox that are described in this part

of the process.

The product, just as a few other similar hydroponic products on the market, was

designed to be self-sustaining (e.g. automatic watering of plants). This is very appealing

to some customer segments who do not know a lot about growing plants and value a

product that is easy to maintain, such as the “Beginner grower” or “Larger spaces -

aesthetics” segments but in doing so, the plant growing experience is skewed or even

diminished. The GreenZ, similarly to other hydroponic products on the market, would

also gather data from the various sensors used within the product and convey that

information to the user through a mobile App just as in Green AB’s previous products.

The concern is that the user will no longer be incentivised to interact with the plants but

with the App instead, taking away some of the benefits of having plants around you and

a large reason for purchasing the GreenZ in the first place.

The possible solutions I formulated with the intent to of addressing this issue are

presented below:

1) Using existing features to involve people more in the growing process. This solution relied on the 2 other aspects that were left undefined from Chapter

5.2.3: Analysis of survey findings to bring back some elements of the traditional

68

growing experience. These aspects were the need of “Having healthy plants” and

the “Dying plants” pain point. It was very important to the respondents to not only

have plants around them but also be healthy plants and a large number of people

stated that “pests”, “diseases” or “aspects they don’t know” caused their plants to

die. The App connectivity can be used to provide users with some general

information regarding how to take care of their plants (e.g. pruning) or what

diseases to look out for. In this way, the user would be directly in charge of the

well-being of their plants, feeling more involved in the growing process and also

aiding to solve the “Dying plants” pain point.

2) Reducing some features of the GreenZ to preserve the growing experience. From the design philosophy “less is more” comes the last possible solution that

involves scaling down some features of the product with the goal to involve the

user more often in the growing process. The most obvious aspect that can be

reduced is the volume of the reservoir. Since even in the most self-sustaining

configuration of the GreenZ, the user still needs to refill the reservoir with water

and nutrient solution when it is running low, purposely choosing a smaller

reservoir for a setup will make the users interact with the product more often,

making them feel more involved in the process. The opposite is also true, for the

segments that value an easy to maintain system, a larger reservoir can be used

for their setup to make the product function for longer without the need for

maintenance.

Another aspect is the planting process. For the segments that value an easy to

get started product or that do not know a lot about growing plants, the planting

process can be done using premade “seed plugs” (see Fig. 38), similar to those

used by Aerogarden, by simply placing them in the growing spots of the “Front

end”, making the growing process very easy to get started. On the other hand, in

order to preserve the experience of growing plants for the users that value this

aspect, the planting process can be done manually by placing seeds into cups

filled with the user’s growing material of choice, allowing for any seed to be

69

planted, offering more control and involving the user more in the growing

process.

6.1.5. Step 4: Define Variants and Configurations

The goal of this step is to create product configurations that can

fulfill the needs of the different customer segments. The

variants of the modules, which constitute the building blocks of

the GreenZ, were defined based on Product Property’s Goal

Values and can be seen below in Fig. 39.

Fig. 38 Premade “seed plug”

70

Fig. 39 Module Variants of the GreenZ

71

The next step was to create a dedicated product configuration for each customer

segment, meant to satisfy their individual needs, by choosing different Module Variants

for each setup. From the proposed Module Variants of the product, a total of 768

different configurations of the GreenZ can be created (not including different numbers of

units in each setup). For the purpose of this thesis, four configurations were created,

dedicated to the four personas (customer segments), that are presented below in Fig.

41 and Fig. 43.

It is worth noting that there are four Modules that do not have any variants and at the

same time represent integral components of the product, therefore they were used for

every configuration. These four modules are the Body module, the Tubing module, the

Hub module and the Power module.

72

Fig. 40 Product configuration for the beginner grower customer segment

The first Module Variant configuration (see Fig. 40) was tailored for the beginner grower

customer segment (Kevin). First of all, it uses all of the single variant Modules: Body

module, Tubing module, Hub module and Power module. One GreenZ (one-unit setup)

was chosen to satisfy the needs of this segment since it ranked lowest in the CVR

matrix under the “Number of plants” customer value. The planting process was to be

73

done using premade “seed plugs” to satisfy the “Easy to get started” Customer Value

since it ranked highest in the CVR matrix. Because of the one unit setup, the Lighting

module for this configuration was composed of the “Lighting support” and one “LED

panel”. Also, this configuration used the “Wall mount” to install the GreenZ on the wall

for easy, shoulder-level access. For the Front-end Module of this setup, the black

polypropylene panel with a high Ra (smooth surface finish) was chosen in order to fit

Kevin’s modern apartment and lifestyle. Due to the growing needs of this segment being

relatively low, the Sensors and Control modules were chosen as basic. Finally, the

reservoir module was composed of the “12W pump” due to only one unit being used,

and the “10 l reservoir” to account for the longer periods when the user is not at home.

Fig. 41 Beginner grower GreenZ setup

74

Fig. 42 Product configuration for the experienced grower customer segment

The second Module Variant configuration (see Fig. 42) was tailored for the experienced

grower customer segment (Sarah). As before, this setup uses the single variants

Modules: Body module, Tubing module, Hub module and Power module. A medium

number of GreenZs was chosen to satisfy the needs of this segment since it ranked

high in the CVR matrix under the “Number of plants” customer value. The planting

75

process was to be done manually, since the “Easy to get started” Customer Value

ranked lowest in the CVR matrix. The Lighting module for this configuration was

composed of the “Lighting support” and two “LED panels” to provide optimal light for the

plants. This configuration also used the “Wall mount” to install the GreenZ on the wall

for easy, shoulder-level access. For the Front end Module of this setup, the white plant-

based plastic panel with a high Ra (smooth surface finish) was chosen in order to fit

Sarah’s home and lifestyle. The growing needs of this segment are higher when

compared to the previous one. Even so, the same Sensors and Control module was

chosen for this setup in order to not take away too much from the traditional growing

experience. On the same note, the reservoir module was composed of the “12W pump”

due to the relatively low number of units being used, and only the “5 l reservoir” to keep

the users involved with the GreenZ (refilling the reservoir) more often.

Fig. 43 Experienced grower GreenZ setup

76

Fig. 44 Product configuration for the Larger spaces - Control customer segment

The third Module Variant configuration (see Fig. 44) was tailored for the Larger spaces -

control segment (Greg). As before, this setup uses the single variants Modules: Body

module, Tubing module, Hub module and Power module. A large number of GreenZs

was chosen to satisfy the needs of this segment since it ranked high in the CVR matrix

under the “Number of plants” customer value. The planting process was to be done

77

manually to offer more control since this was important to Greg. The “Lighting support”

and three “LED panels” to provide optimal light to all the plants. This configuration used

the “Floor stand” to install the GreenZ directly on the floor, for more efficient space use.

For the Front end Module of this setup, the white polypropylene panel with a low Ra

(rough surface finish) for the reduced cost and the fact that the look of the product is not

important to this segment. The growing needs of this segment are the highest of all

segments therefore, the Sensors module included more sensors and the Control

module was composed of the “Advanced PCB unit” and “Hat”. To account for the

number of units in this configuration, the “20W pump” and “10 l reservoir” were used.

78

Fig. 45 Product configuration for the Larger spaces - aesthetics customer segment

The last Module Variant configuration (see Fig. 45) was tailored for the Larger spaces -

aesthetics customer segment (Gillian). As before, this setup uses the single variants

Modules: Body module, Tubing module, Hub module and Power module. A medium to

large number of GreenZs was chosen to satisfy the needs of this segment since it

ranked high in the CVR matrix under the “Number of plants” customer value. Different

79

setups of the GreenZ were proposed for Gillian in order to accommodate the differently

sized rooms she wants flowers in. The same can be said about the “Lighting module”.

The planting process was to be done using premade “seed plugs” to satisfy the “Easy to

get started” Customer Value. This configuration can make use of both the “Wall mount”

or “Floor stand” Module Variants depending on the room layout. For the Front end

Module of this setup, the black plant-based plastic panel with a low Ra (rough surface

finish) was chosen to require less maintenance. The growing needs of this segment are

low, since mainly indoor plants were going to be grown therefore the basic Sensors

module and Control module was chosen for this setup. The Reservoir module was

composed of the “20 W pump” and the “10 l reservoir” to account for the relatively large

number of plants and to increase the time between refills.

6.1.6. Step 5: Confirm architecture feasibility

The last step in the MFD process helped in closing the design loop by visualizing and

evaluating the modular concept in a critical fashion. By evaluating the different Module

Variants configurations and how well they satisfied the needs of the different customer

segments, potential improvements and or problem areas were identified.

Were the configurations appreciated by the customer segments? Overall, through both modularity and scalability, the product manages to satisfy the

needs of all four personas (customer segments) with its four dedicated configurations.

Each persona and their needs are individually analysed next:

80

Kevin, the beginner grower Kevin wanted to have a few indoor plants indoors and was looking for a product that is

simple to get started, simple to maintain and can accommodate his lifestyle, his

apartment style, poor lighting conditions and the longer periods he is not at home.

First of all, it is very easy to get started with growing plants hydroponically with his

configuration of the GreenZ. All it takes is to

install the GreenZ, fill the reservoir with water

and nutrient solution, place the premade “seed

plugs” in its growing spots and then the

growing process can start. Due to the self-

sustaining nature of the product paired with the

Green AB App connectivity, notifying the user

when and what to check regarding the health

of their plants, the GreenZ is also easy to

maintain as well as making it easy to grow

healthy plants. By using the 10l reservoir in his

configuration, the maintenance time (how often

it needs refilling) is reduced even further and it

accounts for the longer periods when the user

is not at home. The chosen “Front end” for this

configuration was the black polypropylene

panel with a smooth surface finish (high Ra) to

fit with Kevin’s modern style apartment and

lifestyle.

In conclusion, the GreenZ appears to be the perfect choice for Kevin when it comes to

growing plants in his apartment.

Sarah, the experienced grower Sarah wanted to move her outside garden indoors and was looking for a product that

allows her to grow enough plants to provide her family with fresh herbs and leafy

81

greens, while at the same time satisfying her love of plants and the need of being

involved in the growing process.

First of all, the dedicated LED growing lights provide

the optimal lighting conditions in order for her to

move her garden indoors and bypass Sweden’s

harsh and volatile weather. The chosen “Front end”

for this configuration was the white plant-based

plastic panel with a smooth surface finish (high Ra)

to be more environmentally conscious and fit her

home. Through scalability, Sarah’s dedicated

GreenZ configuration can provide a good amount of

herbs and leafy greens for her and her family. In

order to involve her more in the growing process,

preserving the growing experience, the planting

process will be done manually, giving Sarah the

choice and control to grow exactly what plants she

wants. Also on this topic of involving her more in the

growing process, the 5l reservoir was chosen,

needing refilling more often.

In conclusion, the GreenZ appears to be a great

alternative for Sarah to grow plants indoors and provide fresh produce for her family, as

opposed to having an outdoor farm that is exposed to the elements.

82

Greg, Larger spaces - control segment Greg wanted to start growing hydroponically in his house. He was looking for a product

that is flexible enough to fill up a large space and allows him to control factors of the

growing process.

First of all, the dedicated LED growing lights provide the

optimal lighting conditions in order to have an indoor

hydroponic farm. The scalability feature of the product

combined with the “Floor stand” allows Greg to make the

most out of the available space for his farm, by not being

constricted by needing walls to install the GreenZs. The

“High-tech control” Customer value was rated highly only

by this customer segment; therefore, a dedicated solution

was created in the product architecture to accommodate

this need. This comes in the form of the “Advanced PCB

unit” and more sensors than the other segments, allowing

for more aspects of the growing process to be monitored

and controlled. The planting process will be done

manually, giving Greg the choice and control to grow

exactly what plants he needs. The chosen “Front end” for

this configuration was the white polypropylene plastic

panel with a rough surface finish (low Ra) to keep the

costs down, since the appearance of the system is not

important to him.

In conclusion, the GreenZ appears to be a very viable solution for Greg to start his

indoor hydroponic project, allowing for both high levels of flexibility when it comes to the

available space as well as high levels of control over the growing process.

83

Gillian, Larger spaces - aesthetics segment Gillian was looking for a product that can fit different sized spaces in the multiple larger

rooms, is easy to get started and is easy to maintain.

In order to fit the different sized spaces that

Gillian wants flowers in, both the “Wall mount”

and the “Floor stand” can be used effectively.

The number of the “lighting” module is chosen

according to each specific setup. Regarding

the ease of maintaining and ease of getting

started, similarly to the first customer

segment, the planting process will be done

using premade “seed plugs”, the GreenZ and

the Green AB App will take care of most of the

growing process and the 10 l reservoirs will be

used to reduce how often they need to be

refilled. The chosen “Front end” for this

configuration was the black plant-based

plastic panel to be more environmentally

conscious but with a rough surface finish (low

Ra) to be more resistant to scratches.

In conclusion, the GreenZ appears to be the

perfect choice for Gillian to replace those fake plants laying throughout the building with

thriving, hydroponically grown indoor plants.

Evaluation results After evaluating the modular concept of the GreenZ, it was concluded that it can

successfully fulfill the needs of the different customer segments and configurations of

the product can be adjusted towards ease of use (self-sustaining) or towards preserving

the growing experience (being involved in the growing process). The biggest aspect that

allows the product to accomplish this, besides modularity, is the scalability feature.

Using the modular architecture developed through the MFD technique as a base, an

84

iterative product design approach was used further to develop a final concept of the

GreenZ.

6.2. Iterative design process

This iterative design process kept into consideration the identified needs and pain points

from the surveys, the market analysis and positioning and the modular concept and

architecture built in the previous chapter. Presented further are the iterations made to

reach the final GreenZ concept.

6.2.1. Iteration #1

The start of this chapter was the scalability feature of the GreenZ since this was the

most influential aspect towards the final design. This is mostly linked to the design of the

“Body” module since that is the component that holds all other modules, houses the

hydroponic system and also makes the connection to the wall through the “Wall mount”

or to the floor through the “Floor stand”. Regarding the hydroponic system that is going

to be used in the GreenZ, a method was devised together with the Green AB team but

due to confidentiality reasons it will not be presented in this report. This being said, the

hydroponic system that resides inside the “Body” module greatly impacts the shape and

design of it, therefore 3 general aspects that needed to be met in order for the system to

function as intended, are presented below:

● Allow for the water and nutrient solution to be transported to all units.

● Allow for the water and nutrient solution to circulate inside the system.

● Allow for multiple units to function using one pump.

85

The design idea behind this first iteration started from the way

that LEGO blocks connect with each other and how easily they

can be stacked to create a column (scaling them up). The

design of the body in this first iteration resembles a singular,

LEGO block, having a “male” and a “female” geometry to allow

the stacking of multiple units. Since no other connections will

be used (such as screws, snap locks or others), the assembly

needs to be tested further to validate this design (see Chapter

6.3: Stress simulation and analysis). The “Reservoir” and “Hat”

modules share this similarity in how they are connected to the

“Body” module. Also, the “male-female” geometry is hollow to

allow the passing of tubes.

Regarding the water circulation inside of the GreenZ, it was decided that hoses with

quick-connections will be used to circulate the water and nutrient solution (see Fig. 46).

This will allow for multiple tubes to be easily connected when scaling up the system,

satisfying the previously set requirement regarding the circulation of water and nutrient

solution, while at the same time, keeping the installation process of the hydroponic

system very simple. A component called a “3 way-stop-cock” will be housed, allowing

the flow of water to be split in two directions, using a built-in handle. This will allow the

user to connect the tubing of multiple towers of units and to run the system with fewer or

even one pump, satisfying the previously set requirement regarding the circulation of

water and nutrient solution.

Fig. 46 Quick-connection tubes and the “3 way-stop-cock”

86

Regarding how the GreenZ will be mounted when scaled up, there are two possible

cases: mounted on the floor and mounted on the wall. In the second case (mounted on

the wall), the body of the GreenZ will slide in place on the “Wall mount” which would

have been previously attached to the wall using screws and screw anchors (commonly

used method).

This is more complex than first expected for several reasons. Firstly, the “Wall mount”

needs to allow for a one-unit setup to be installed on the wall. Secondly, it also needs to

allow for a multi-unit setup to be installed on the wall. Lastly, having one “Wall mount”

supporting every unit in the system means that multiple units are installed identically

next to each other, which as mentioned previously in this report, does not constitute

scaling up the system. A method was devised in which one unit was to be installed on

the wall using the “Wall mount” while the neighboring units could be attached directly to

the body of the first one (see Fig. 47). This would classify as scaling up the system, as

well as greatly reducing the installation time for larger setups.

Fig. 47 Installing multiple units on the wall (iteration 1)

87

6.2.2. Iteration #2

The previous iteration allowed theGreenZ to easily be scaled up vertically but not as

much horizontally. This iteration focuses on achieving both, by breaking down the

“Body” into different components. The “Body” module presented in iteration 1 was one

singular component and because of that, for the purpose of this chapter, it was referred

to as the “one-mold body” since it can be molded into one solid shape. Two potential

solutions were developed in this chapter and then compared to the “one mold body”

(used as a baseline to do the comparison) using a Pugh's matrix in order to decide on

the best solution for the final concept.

Solution 1: The “Yin-Yang body” This first solution was to split the “Body” vertically through the middle and to have two

opposite components (mirrored components), coming together to assemble into one

complete unit, hence the name “Yin-Yang body” (see Fig. 48).

Fig. 48 “Yin-Yang body” assembly

This design would introduce one additional level of complexity to the “one mold body” by

using two components for one unit. Scaling up the system would require a separate

88

component to be installed. The advantage with this design is that the inside of the

system when scaled up is open both horizontally and vertically (unlike in the case of the

“one mold body” design), removing the unnecessary surfaces, increasing the

sustainability of the product by reducing the amount of material used.

Solution 2: The “IKEA body” The second solution took the idea of splitting the “Body” one step further, and separated

every surface into a different component (see Fig. 49). The user would have to

assemble it all together when installing the system, just like they would assemble an

IKEA piece of furniture, hence the name “IKEA body”. One advantage of this design is

that the separation between components is done at the edges as opposed to the former

solution where the separation was done in the middle of the unit. Another advantage is

the amount of flexibility and control the users have when building their setup but it would

come at the cost of increased complexity and assembly time and decreased structural

strength (since every surface is separate).

Fig. 49 The “IKEA body” assembly

89

In order to get an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each solution and

decide which of the three designs is the best for the GreenZ, they were compared to the

“one mold body” design using a Pugh’s matrix (see Table 1). Eleven criterias were used

to rank the solutions, each with its own weight (1 = Not that important; 3 = Important; 5 =

Very important.). The “one mold body” was used as the reference and scores ranging

from -2 to +2 were attributed to the other two solutions based on whether they improved

on the its design or not (-2 = Much worse than the reference; -1 = Worse than the

reference; 0 = Equal to the reference; +1 = Better than the reference; +2 = Much better

than the reference).

Table 1: Pugh’s matrix of the two new “body” designs

CRITERIAS WEIGHTS "Yin-Yang body" "IKEA body"

No# of molds 3 -2 -1

No# of components per unit 3 -1 -2

Easy to install 5 0 -1

Installation time 5 -1 -2

Vertical scalability 5 0 0

Horizontal scalability 5 2 2

Flexibility 3 1 2

Structural strength 3 -1 -2

Reduced weight when scaled up 1 1 1

Water tightness 5 -1 -1

Reduce environmental impact 5 1 1

TOTAL SCORE -3 -13

The Pugh’s analysis revealed that the advantages brought by either of the two new

solutions, the “Yin-Yang body” (scoring -3) and the “IKEA body” (scoring -13), were not

enough to justify their implementation in the GreenZ over the “one mold body” design

presented in the previous iteration.

The aspect that did require a change from the previous iteration, was how the product

would be installed on the wall. Having one unit attached to the wall using the “wall

90

mount” module and then up to 5 others attached directly to the body of the previous one

posed a lot of design and structural problems. Therefore, a compromise design was

created between the previous model and attaching every unit to the wall. The first row of

units would be attached to the wall using the “Wall mount” and the next 2 rows of units

on top would be supported by the first row (see Fig. 50). This method would allow for a

sturdier setup to be created and at the same time still classify as scaling the system.

Fig. 50 Installing multiple units on the wall (iteration #2)

91

6.3. Final concept

Presented below is a summary of the features of the final concept of the GreenZ:

● The GreenZ has modularity as a fully working feature and, depending on what

the user needs, it can be configured in hundreds of ways.

● TheGreenZ also has scalability as a fully working feature and can be used as:

○ One single GreenZ with all the necessary features to efficiently run a

hydroponic system (watering, lighting, sensors, App connectivity)

○ Multiple GreenZs clustered as a singular setup.

● Depending on the setup, the GreenZ can be installed:

○ On the wall using the “wall mount” module

○ On the floor using the “Floor stand” module

● The product was specifically designed to be easy to set up and easy to maintain

● Depending on preference, planting process can be done:

○ Using premade “seed plugs” by simply placing them in the growing spots

of the product, making the growing process very easy to get started.

○ Manually by placing seeds into cups filled with the user’s growing material

of choice, offering more control and involving the user more in the growing

process.

● The GreenZ uses the Green AB App to make the growing process easy for any

user.

6.4. Stress simulation and analysis

In order to validate the scalability feature of the GreenZ from an engineering standpoint,

a CAD simulation and analysis was done, focusing on the following aspects: the total

displacement, Von Mises stress in relation to the yield strength of the material used and

the safety factor of the setup. For this analysis I created a CAD model of a tower setup,

consisting of three units stacked on top of each other. All components were made out of

Polypropylene with the exception of the “Wall mount” and “Lighting support” which were

made out of Aluminum. The simulation took place in a standard gravity environment

(9810.000 mm/s^2). Additional inputs were created as follows:

92

● 24 loads of 3.18 N each, applied vertically on every “Growing spot” (24 in total)

corresponding to the average weight of a small Iceberg lettuce head (324g)

(Weight Equivalents: Lettuce - Hannaone.com, 2020)

● One load of 107.91 N applied vertically, distributed on the bottom of the reservoir

corresponding to 10 l of water (the reservoir being full) plus an extra 1kg for other

components such as the water pump and tubing.

● The “Wall mount” was fixed in 4 points corresponding to the four screw positions

used to attach it to the wall.

Total displacement result First of all it needs to be mentioned that the lighting support was excluded from all the

analysis as it was skewing the results of the rest of the assembly which was the main

focus of this analysis. The displacement simulation resulted in a maximum value of

0.2246 mm which is very small for a setup of this size. This means that the assembly is

sturdy enough using the chosen type of connections, validating the decision to only use

“male-female” geometry to connect units to each other and to the “Wall mount”.

Because of this, the resulting safety factor was above 10 which is huge for any system.

This was the case due to overly conservative design dimensions of the CAD model.

Von Mises stress result The maximum recorded value of the Von Mises stress was 7.726 MPa at the position

where the first unit was connected to the “Wall mount”. When a component

manufactured out of a certain material is under load, the material starts yielding when

the Von Mises stress reaches a value known as yield strength (Von Mises yield

criterion, 2020). The value measured is lower than the yield strength of Polypropylene

which is between 12-43 MPa (Mitchell, 2018) meaning that no major deformations occur

where the GreenZ is attached to the “Wall mount”.

93

7. Discussion and conclusion In this chapter, a discussion regarding the scope of the thesis, the final concept and

future development for the GreenZ is presented, finalizing with a brief conclusion.

7.1. Project scope

Sustainability goals

The project addressed three out of the seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals:

● Goal 2: Zero hunger

● Goal 3: Good health and well-being

● Goal number 11. Sustainable cities and communities

These goals were chosen because they were closely connected with the scope of the

thesis and the type of product that was to be designed. The aim was that the GreenZ

concept would be a stepping stone towards achieving those three goals. The first two

were tied to the setting and the use of the product, being meant to provide both fresh air

indoors and allow for people to grow their own food from the comfort of their home. The

last goal was tied to the vision of what the GreenZ could become, bringing back the

choice of being more sustainable as a community.

Research questions

Through this thesis, the two research questions were answered. The necessary data to

do so was gathered through the mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods

and the frames of reference that were previously presented.

The first research question was “What are the benefits and consequences of modularity as a solution for these types of products?”.

As a result of this thesis, it was found that by designing these types of products with

modularity in mind brings many improvements to their design. Firstly, the modular

architecture allowed the product to be configured in ways to satisfy the needs of

different customer segments. Furthermore, it made it so that the product can be easily

scaled up when needed, achieving both a high degree of customizability and different

94

scales of the system in order to bring indoor hydroponic growing to as many people as

possible. The modular architecture also allows for the product to keep up with the

increases in technology or with the changes in trends or customer preferences. The

modules and module variants can be changed (e.g. colors, materials, surface finishes,

etc.), updated or created (new modules as a result of a change in customer

preferences) without a total redesigning, with a lower time to market and a lower

economic impact.

The consequences are minor when compared to the benefits of modularity in the long

term. There is a slight increase in the complexity of the product and number of

interfaces between different components. Also, the design process is more complex,

requiring a holistic approach and a good overview of what features were to be

incorporated into the product.

In conclusion, it was found that the benefits of modularity as a solution for these types of

products, by far outweigh the consequences that come with it.

The second research question was “What impact does a self-sustaining growing system have on the experience of growing plants and how can it be addressed?”.

It was found that a self-sustaining growing system would potentially have a negative

impact on the experience of growing plants. By automating the watering of the plants

and lighting and by allowing the control of the GreenZ to be done using the Green AB

App, the concern was that the user will no longer be incentivised to interact with the

plants but with the App instead. This would take away some of the benefits of having

plants around you and a large reason for purchasing the product in the first place. There

were two solutions proposed to address this issue. The first solution was to use the App

to provide the user with the necessary information about how to best take care of their

plants. In doing so, the user would feel more involved in the growing process by directly

being in charge of the well-being of their plants as well as making the user spend more

time with their plants.

The second solution was to intentionally reduce / diminish some aspects of the GreenZ

in order to make the user interact more often with the product. One of these aspects

95

was the water capacity of the reservoir. By choosing a smaller size for a larger system,

the user would have to refill it more often, thus increasing the time they spend with the

GreenZ. Another aspect was the planting process that can be done manually for the

customer segments that value the growing experience, as opposed to being done using

premade “seed plugs” as is the case for the segments that value simplicity.

Frames of reference

The hydroponic research and the knowledge acquired from this frame of reference

greatly influenced the design of the product. It aided in taking the benefits of hydroponic

growing and translating them into product features, modules or design decisions. The

thesis could not have been possible if not for the modularisation frame of reference,

especially if not for the knowledge acquired in the “Modularization of products” course

taught by Malin Ekerå and Arne Erlandsson at KTH in 2019, regarding the MFD

technique. In this project, certain steps were not included in the MFD such as providing

a strategic direction for the company to follow or a comprehensive manufacturing and

assembly chain of the product. These steps and others could influence the decision

process and change some of the features of the GreenZ such as separating or

clustering modules or changing the module variants. As it stands, the final concept of

the product fulfills the needs of the four customer segments identified as a result of the

surveys. Shifts in the needs of those segments in the future, or identifying new

segments will influence the design of the GreenZ. The modular architecture aimed to be

thorough enough to accommodate these changes in the future and allow Green AB to

make quick adjustments of the modules or module variants based on the new demands.

The research done in the field of automation and its potential impacts on the user

experience (both positive and negative), helped with understanding the self-sustaining

paradox and with defining possible solutions to this issue. The aspect that was

uncovered and that sits at the base of this paradox was users’ need of being involved in

the growing process. The proposed solutions should aid with preserving the plant

growing experience for the segments that value it the most and should definitely be

investigated further and confirmed using qualitative methods.

96

7.2. Reflection on the final concept

The final concept of the GreenZ managed to integrate in a single product the efficiency

of a vertical hydroponic system with the benefits of modularization and the ability to

scale up the system when needed. It showed that it can successfully accommodate the

different needs of all four identified customer segments. The iterative design process

focused on bringing the modular architecture of the product closer to viability by tackling

issues such as installation process, how the physical and electrical connections were to

be done and how the setup behaved under load.

7.3. Future development

The final concept of the GreenZ can be considered as the version 1.0 of this new

product in Green AB’s product line. The design process focused on developing a

functional modular architecture that would fit the needs of the identified customer

segments, on developing a scalable solution for the product and on outlining the

features it was going to have. Aspects such as manufacturing, assembly line, material,

technical drawings, aesthetics, ergonomics, weight, costs and others were regarded as

secondary but not totally excluded from the design process. Presented further are the

areas that are recommended to be researched and developed in the future in order to

obtain a market-ready version of the GreenZ.

First of all, due to the modular architecture, the aesthetics of the product can be easily

modified for reasons such as new insights obtained from future investigations done by

the company. The current aesthetics of the product were tailored around the identified

customer segments but everything from the looks, colors, materials, surface finishes

and more for any of the proposed modules or module variants can be easily changed

and appended to the current design.

The impact that the product has on users’ experience of growing plants should definitely

be investigated further as the need of “being involved in the growing process” was

deemed a high level of importance for the users. Due to the time constraints, the

97

proposed solutions were not tested using qualitative or quantitative methods therefore

their validity was yet to be confirmed.

A redesign in terms of dimensions is required for most of the components in order to

reduce the safety factor down to a reasonable value and to achieve a balance between

it and the manufacturing resources used. This redesign should also consider the means

of manufacturing when deciding on the geometry and other parameters.

7.4. Conclusion

In conclusion, this project resulted in a comprehensive design proposal for Green AB of

the new product in their micro-farm product line, with both modularity and scalability as

a fully working feature, achieving the scope of the thesis. Also delivered was a base

analysis and proposal of how the user can be involved more in the growing process in

order to preserve the experience of growing plants when using a self-sustaining

hydroponic system.

98

References Baldwin, C., 2012. Modularity and Organizations. SSRN Electronic Journal, 15(2),

pp.718-723.

Ekerå, M. and Erlandsson, A., 2019. Modularisation Of Products.

En.wikipedia.org. 2020. Von Mises Yield Criterion. [online] Available at:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Mises_yield_criterion> [Accessed 18 May 2020].

Green, C., 2016. Agitated to Clean: How the Washing Machine Changed Life for the

American Woman. McNair Scholars Research Journal, 12(1), pp.14-26.

Fixson, S. and Park, J., 2007. The Power of Integrality: Linkages between Product

Architecture, Innovation, and Industry Structure. SSRN Electronic Journal,.

Hannaone.com. 2020. Weight Equivalents: Lettuce - Hannaone.Com. [online] Available

at: <https://hannaone.com/Recipe/weightlettuce.html> [Accessed 17 May 2020].

Jing, P., Xu, G., Chen, Y., Shi, Y. and Zhan, F., 2020. The Determinants behind the

Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 12(5),

p.1719.

Lammers, T., 2015. Modular Product Design: reducing complexity, increasing efficacy.

Performance, 7(1), pp.56-63.

Mitchell, J., 2018. Yield Strength Of Plastics - Basic Principles, The Tensile Test And

Material Property Table - Engineeringclicks. [online] EngineeringClicks. Available at:

<https://www.engineeringclicks.com/yield-strength-of-plastics/> [Accessed 18 May

2020].

Savvas, D., 2003. Hydroponics: A modern technology supporting the application of

integrated crop management in greenhouse. Food, Agriculture & Environment, 1, pp.80-

86.

99

Schilling, Melissa A., 2000. Toward a general systems theory and its application to

interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review 25(2), 312–334.

Reprinted in: Raghu, G., Kumaraswamy, A., Langlois, R.N. (Eds.), 2003.

Smart Fertilizer. 2020. Hydroponics: Growing Plants Using Nutrient Solutions, Without

Soil. [online] Available at: <https://www.smart-fertilizer.com/articles/hydroponic-

systems/> [Accessed 10 May 2020].

100

APPENDIX A - List of online communities

Facebook groups - general survey: Houseplants, gardening and nature enthusiasts

Houseplant enthusiasts

How to grow plants

House plant hobbyists

Indoor plants lovers

Grow plants at home

House plant lovers

The plant community

Houseplant hoarders

The house plant enthusiasts

Facebook groups - hydroponics survey: Hydrokultur Sverige

HYDROPONICS

Kratky (Passive) Hydroponics

DIY aquaponics - hydroponics

Hydroponics for humanity

Hydroponics

Creative hydroponics

Reddit groups - hydroponics survey: Hydroponics H

Hydro H

Anthroponics G

Houseplants G

TRITA -ITM-EX 2020: 403

www.kth.se