A Compromisity Between Creation and Production of Corn Comb Raw Material Products
Based on the results of previous research, it is concluded that the characteristics of corncob as an alternative raw material can produce a product that can be a commodity that has good economic opportunities. This is strongly supported by the fact that corn cobs can be easily obtained in almost all parts of Indonesia, and until now it has not been used economically. Previous research has just proven that corncob can be used as a raw material that can give a unique value to the product being produced. Current research focuses on aspects of production efficiency that are compromised with aspects of creation that previously emphasized product uniqueness, which is used as a bargaining value for the commodities produced. This emphasis is given because in previous studies the variable speed of production, the characteristics of the appropriate production machines have not been used. With an emphasis on the aspects of production and the suitability of production machines, it is hoped that creations made from corncob as raw material can become a realistic industrial commodity. In order to become an industrial commodity, it requires a product form (creation) that is industrially appropriate, efficient and effective in terms of production, while maintaining a visual quality that supports marketing value.
The research will be initiated by an evaluation of the product designs made from corncob that have been produced. The evaluation emphasizes the efficiency that can be produced by the machines currently used. The results of the evaluation will produce criteria for machine capabilities that should be properly used. Parallel to the design of the production machine, several designs will be designed that still have good visual value but are in conformity with the product being designed. Through the method of several iterations of experimentation, the criteria for an appropriate industrial form and production machine will be obtained in accordance with the characteristics of these conventional raw materials. This is very necessary because the corncob has its own different material characteristics so that it demands conformity from conventional production machines. The results of the research offered around 24 prototype creations made from corncob that were tested and produced by industrial and market-worthy production machines as a new offer for the business world in Indonesia.
J.-A. Johannessen, B. Olsen, and G. T. Lumpkin, “Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom?,” Eur. J. Innov. Manag., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 12, 2001.
“Nurturing creative thinking - UNESCO Digital Library.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227680 (accessed Dec. 10, 2020).
A. D’Angour, “THE DYNAMICS OF INNOVATION,” Univ. Coll. Lond., p. 281, 1998.
K. Talke, S. Salomo, J. E. Wieringa, and A. Lutz, “What about Design Newness? Investigating the Relevance of a Neglected Dimension of Product Innovativeness,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 601–615, Nov. 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00686.x.
A. Sachari and P. Widodo, “Visual Newness Value of Craft Products for Indonesian Public,” Art Des. Stud., vol. 28, p. 10, 2015.
W. D. Anjaningrum and A. P. Sidi, “Determinan Keunggulan Kompetitif dan Kinerja Industri Kreatif,” J. Ekon. Mod., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 40–56, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.21067/jem.v14i1.2379.
S. T. Bryant, K. Straker, and C. Wrigley, “Business model innovation by design: a review of design’s role in business model innovation,” Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 125–140, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1080/21650349.2020.1717997.
H. Vantrijp and E. Vankleef, “Newness, value and new product performance,” Trends Food Sci. Technol., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 562–573, Nov. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2008.03.004.
Z. Ma, Z. Yang, and M. Mourali, “Consumer Adoption of New Products: Independent versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives,” J. Mark., vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 101–117, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1509/jm.12.0051.
N. Crilly, J. Moultrie, and P. J. Clarkson, “Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design,” Des. Stud., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 547–577, Nov. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001.
N. Crilly, J. Moultrie, and P. J. Clarkson, “Shaping things: intended consumer response and the other determinants of product form,” Des. Stud., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 224–254, May 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2008.08.001.