Constructive research develops a taxonomy for digital fabrication techniques, highlighting materials and machinery.
This article presents the Taxonomy for Digital Fabrication (TDFab+Arch), a tool developed to categorize and compare projects materialized through digital fabrication. In this article, TDFab+Arch has been applied to the Homo Faber (HF) catalogs, which bring together digital fabrication projects in Latin America from 2015 to 2022, and a comparison has been made between the techniques used by these projects. The structuring of the taxonomy was based on systematic literature reviews that identified criteria in the design processes, resulting in four categories: "design aspects," "machinery," "materials," and "surface topology." The methodology used in this article is "constructive research" as described by Kasanen et al. (1993) and Lukka (2003), which involves three phases of the process: understanding the project, proposing a solution, and validating the taxonomy. This methodology facilitates an understanding of the application of the taxonomy as a mode of classification, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field. The article presents the projects through text and images, making it easier to identify relevant aspects. TDFab+Arch stands out for its flexibility and versatility, making it suitable for cataloging project design. The taxonomy generates various visualization types, allowing designers to explore the criteria according to their specific needs. Qualitative content analysis and the structuring of the taxonomy were essential for organizing the techniques, materials, and equipment involved in digital fabrication, promoting a clearer understanding of the field. As a result, TDFab+Arch allows the designer to explore the criteria from different perspectives and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the projects. The taxonomy is an adaptable and customizable tool, allowing users to understand the criteria used in the development of each project.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oliveira et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: