Franze, Anthony (2024) Augmented fabrication: An Australian industry 4.0 augmented reality (ar) framework. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Abstract
This research project establishes a practice-informed augmented reality (AR) framework designed to enhance Australian SMEs' custom fabrication workflows. Underpinned by a Research-through-Design methodology, the project develops novel situated augmented fabrication scenarios (SAFS) methods in collaboration with Queensland-based custom fabrication experts and manufacturing SMEs. Through thematic and reflective analysis of interviews and co-design workshops, the study holistically integrates insights to produce an AR framework that supports the Australian manufacturing sector's adoption and implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies and contributes to custom fabrication SMEs' readiness for a more human-centric Industry 5.0 by promoting workforce transformation and sector resilience.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Caldwell, Glenda; Fialho Leandro Alves Teixeira, Muge and Rittenbruch, Markus |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | augmented fabrication; augmented reality; custom fabrication; human–computer interaction; industry 4.0; industry 5.0; custom manufacturing; advanced manufacturing |
| Index terms: | transformation, industry 4.0, design workshop, fabrication, implementation, interaction, Queensland, interview, workflow, augmented reality, methodology, collaboration |
| Subjects: | design process, Geography, research methods, manufacturing engineering, behavioral psychology, contractual arrangements, visualization, management, business, data collection methods, technology adoption |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Procurement, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here