DESIGN PLAN

DESIGN PLAN A TOOL FOR ORGANISING THE DESIGN ACTIVITIES ORIENTED TO GENERATE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS Working paper / internal use

François JÊgou Ezio Manzini Anna Meroni

Summary This paper aim at presenting the definition of a new designer tool, the Design Plan, for organising the design activities (within complex processes) oriented to generate sustainable solutions.

The generation and the formalisation of the Design Plan has been done in the context of the HiCS (Highly Customerised Solutions) EU research, whose objective was to define methodological tools for supporting and guiding network of firms in the development of highly customised solutions.

The presentation will consist in an implementation case history, visualising step by step the methodological tool.

1/22

1.1 1.1.1

DEFINITION AND PURPOSE What is it about ?

• Its an codified and progressive system of representation of a solution.

- it's a codified system in the sense that it's a "technical drawing" of a solution allowing to represent new PSS in a reproducible and comparable way.

Figure 1 example of System Organisation Maps

The Design Plan consists in a series of fixed formats of representation (maps, matrix, storyboards...), an open library of graphic elements (icons, pictures, arrows...) and a set of rules (layout, syntax...) to be used in order to represent the different dimensions of an emerging solution (platform organisation, partners interest, user benefits...).

- it is progressive in the sense that it is a "formalisation-in-progress" of the solution giving a more and more accurate picture of the strategic conversation between partners.

The Design Plan specifies "inputs formats" and "outputs formats" at each stage of the SOPMF from the early visualisations of tentative solutions and related hypothetical partnerships to a detailed description of agreed specifications within an identified platform.

2/22

Figure 2 different steps of the Design Plan within the SOPMF (it is to be noted that the Design Plan is only defined yet for the 2 first columns)

Main steps are: • formalisation of "tentative solutions" generated by the first creative workshop(s) involving the "platform promoters" (first column of the SOPMF).

• formalisation of the "solution architecture" generated during the progressive involvement of the "platform providers" (second column of the SOPMF).

• formalisation of the "tentative HiCS" generated by the "tentative SOP" (third column of the SOPMF) • formalisation of the final "HiCS" generated by the final "SOP" (fourth column of the SOPMF) It is to be noted that the action research process is currently in progress and the Design Plan may be modified in the 2 last columns of the SOPMF according to feedback form the implementation stream.

1.1.2

What is it for ?

Within a process of building a platform and refining solutions, the Design Plan is: A tool to communicate and exchange between partners; The Design Plan works as a format to present in a synthetic and attractive way a PSS involving numerous actors in a complex interaction process.

3/22

Figure 3 Modular structure and set of rules to be used for the construction of the system organisation map.

• Building a common language...

- a learning process bringing convergence A large number of actors from very different horizon with a poor/no understanding of each other tends to make conversation processes difficult. The very process of learning / modifying / agreeing a common language induces them to reconsider their references, discuss their divergences and constitute a first converging progress.

- a shared framework Distant actors working in parallel needs to build a common framework of expression. Fixed formats using explicit rules of representation allows them to share the same language, to speed up the comparison of their views and to facilitate decision making. • Motivating the strategic conversation...

- a goal-oriented visualisation Multiple actors with different backgrounds most of the time only share the final vision of the projects (corresponding to their condition of being also potential users of the new PSS in their personal lives). Visualisations formats are based on typical non professional media of communication: simulated advertisement (posters), invented reportage (user story-boards) for the use of the solution and corporate presentation for the introduction of stakeholders.

- a visual identity for each element Early phases of concept generation tends to produce large numbers of potential solutions.

The systematic identification of each solution as a final result (a PSS with name, slogan and visual identity) facilitate memorisation / recognition by the multiple partners involved. • Customizing the standards...

- an open technical drawing A prefabricated language never encompass the specificity of each SOP building process. A process of customisation allows to adapt the standard formats to the purpose of its users. I.e. customised icons resulting from the association of prefabricated pictograms and verbal elements to specify the solution.

- a qualitative expression 4/22

A standard language facilitate the conversation between partners but should also allow the refinement of the solutions leaving areas of personalisation and interpretation in producing complementary elements (i.e. enriching the library of prefabricated elements) and refining the visualisation (embedded images could sophisticate from the use of image bank to specific advertising-like pictures simulating the PSS in its context of use)

1.1.2.1

A tool of co-elaboration of the solutions.

The Design Plan works as a mediation tool to collectively build and refine a complex solution.

Figure 4 example system organisation maps comming from the 3 different platforms and formalising the different creative workshop results

• Producing synthetic views...

- a reduced number of limited formats Creative workshops sessions and partners involvement business meeting require a complete information of the participants. The large among of data (multiple actors, numerous solutions ideas...) to be communicated in a reduced among of time is facilitated by the standardization of the information in a reduced number of limited formats.

- a control on the level of details The concept generation phase requires the progressive refinement of the solutions keeping a controlled and equivalent level of detail for all of them. Each proposed formats induce a determinate level of details (i.e. the graphic readability of the image is a clue to find the accurate level of detail of the representation). • (Re)constructing the solutions...

- a visualisation system independent from the graphic capabilities of its users Visualisation material normally requires the intervention of experts/designers and slow the strategic conversation process and increase its costs. A system based on manipulation / association / disposition of prefabricated elements from a library and home made pictures 5/22

within a commonly diffused software for presentation and report allow all actors involved to contribute.

- a visualisation in-progress easy to change The process of refining solutions and involving partners is iterative and needs numerous and constant adjustments. Therefore, a formats made of modular elements allows different actors to manipulate it by parts in order to refine and make it evolve. • Agreeing a visual contract...

- an informal collective document agreed "de facto" The first phase of new partners involvement is focused on the identification of possible collaboration. The resulting "solution ideas" constitute the first shared output of a potential later collaboration. Concretised according the Design Plan, they constitute the first informal agreement between partners.

- a solution oriented format with pre-business plan consideration in back-ground The process of formalisation of solution ideas induces in background the related modalities of collaboration of the potential partners. The formats proposed in the Design Plan help to "boil down" the implication of a determinate solution in the relationship between the foreseen partners and explore potential modalities of collaboration towards a business plan.

1.2

GUIDE-LINES AND MODALITIES OF APPLICATION

1.2.1 What does it consist of ?

The Design Plan consist of 3 formats presenting the solution from different point of views: • a system organisation map showing the solution form the point of view of the organisation of the platform performing the PSS

6/22

Figure 5 system organisation maps

It consists of both a visualisation of the solution idea (through an advertising-like poster characterizing the solution) and a map of the general system organisation (main stakeholders and flows of relationship between them) (Figure 5). The map distinguishes: system boundaries, main and secondary stakeholders; physical, informational and financial flows; core performance of the PSS and secondary functionalities.

Figure 6 initial poster of the system organisation map showing solution ideas suggested by the investigation of each contexts.

7/22

The investigation of the context of use by the Italian team is characterised by two main specificities: - the use of the "broad approach" of the methodology (see D4) in order to investigate as many subjects as possible and discover new potential needs in terms of access to food and so, enlarge the traditional targets of classical market segmentation; - the presentation of the investigation results directly in terms of solution ideas instead of a extensive description of the context of use.

This second point was an attempt to avoid the traditional gap between context/user investigation and solution ideas generation. Different to principles of ethnografic observation, the investigation did not only report about context observations but propose potential ideas / tentative solutions that may answer to the outlined contexts.

Designers were involved as investigators in order to ensure the expression of the context analysis in operational terms.

The tentative solutions ideas outputs follows a standard format visualising each contexts of use and organising them into tentative solution clusters. The example fig‌ shows three different contexts of use from the Italian investigation that suggest the same kind of solution based on a subscription program providing food on a regular basis.

In order to stimulate the following steps of concept generation, each contexts of use is expressed by an image reconstructing the context(s) observed by the investigator, a synthetic expression of the needs formulated as a quotation form the user showing his/her "expectations in terms of food" and "limitation in terms of mobility", and finally a list of "residual capabilities" the user may involve into the realisation of the solution.

All this material has then been used to "feed" the following concept generation workshops and was often used as the starting basis for the "system organisation maps".

Tentative solution are based on the solutions ideas suggested by the investigation of context of use (Figure 6). Each of these solution idea is represented by a poster showing the context of use and a title picturing the general idea of the solution in terms of "expected performance in terms of food + limited context in terms of mobility"

8/22

Figure 7 clusterisation of the 3 tentative solutions using the superposition of related system organisation maps presented in Figure 1 and Figure 5 in order to outline the common platform elements.

One of a key application of the system organisation map is the clusterisation of the different tentative solutions. The SOPMF approach intend to build a unique core platform of actors able to perform multiple customised solutions (HiCS).

Starting from the creative generation of tentative solutions the process is then to recognise which partners/system organisation each of these solution have in common.

This task is facilitated by the superposition (Figure 7) of the respective system organisation maps of all the considered tentative solution to cluster in order to: - visualise which partners are the same in all the maps; - outline the common core platform; - visualise which specific partners are needed to perform each specific solution.

This graphic approach helps in particular to decide between all the tentative solutions which are based on the similar core partnerships and may be clutered and which need too specific system organisation and should be forgotten.

The "system organisation maps" have been used by the Italian team to communicate and discuss solution all along the partnership building process. They constitutes a synthetic view of the architecture of the platform, showing all partners involved, defining their role and relationships in the process of performing the solution.

Their modular and up-gradable characteristics make them convenient tools to support strategic conversation between potential partners.

9/22

Fig. 1 shows snapshots of "system organisation map" at main stages of the Italian partnership involvement and especially how: - the draft outputs of the workshops progressively enrich with the progressive definition of the platform; - architecture adapst according to the necessity of approaching potential partners; - intermediates maps "freeze" the state of the art of the partner interests at each stage of the discussion in a sort of informal "visual contract"; - the final map identifies the nature, position, role and interaction of the SOP.

10/22

Fig. 2 shows snapshots of "system organisation maps" at the same stage (the output of the first concept generation workshop and the final agreed SOP) of the strategic conversation. Each map is related to the performance of a specific solution. Their superposition and comparisons shows: - which actors are common to the performance of the different solutions and may constitute the SOP; - which actors are specific to the performance of a particular solution and should complete the SOP only to perform this very solution.

At early stage of the concept generation, the comparison of the maps help to "filter" which solutions are based on similar platforms and may be clustered and which solution require a too different platform and should be excluded.

At the final stage of the partnership building, the superposition of the maps as layers allows to communicate how the same SOP is able to perform different solutions with the help of respective specific partners.

• a solution story-board showing the solution from the point of view of the user benefits

Figure 8 solution story-board

It consists of a series of pictures showing the main elements of the solution in a sequential process.

The solution story-board is used in the Design Plan at 2 levels: 11/22

User story-board level (Figure 8).

The story-board show the user in a characteristic interaction with the PSS. The particular interaction illustrated should be a typical use of the PSS showing all the most important dimension of the solutions (i.e. sustainable benefits; economical facilities, user collaboration; help and maintenance services etc‌)

Figure 9 solution element story-board showing the break down into solution element and their attribution to each of the platform parners.

12/22

The "solution element story-board" provides a synthetic view of the brief of each actor in the development of the solution elements showing who is responsible for providing / designing what.

Figure xxx shows zoom on some part of the "solution element story-board" issued by the Italian SOP. It works as a matrix crossing each solutions element with all the partners involved and fixes if the partner is involved: - in producing / providing a solution element : square sign; - in designing the solution element : cross sign; - in both providing and designing : square + cross sign; - neither in providing nor in designing the solution : no sign.

The zoom on the "solution element story-board" in this figure shows as illustration the specific question of the production of food in the Italian SOP: - all the SOP is involved in the design of the food element and are supposed to interface themselves in this task (Biologica should specifies the biological qualities of the food, the "health software provider" should integrate the food characteristics in its diets program and the "cooking appliance producer" will specifies the food according to the cooking devices he will provide); - the production of the food is not done by one of the SOP actor: although food is a core element in the platform, it's a local resource and therefore, it will depend from a series of local producers. Some of them will be associated in the initial design phase and all the other will only receive specifications form what they have to provide to the system.

13/22

Solution elements level (Figure 9) The story-board shows the break down of the solution into solution elements that may be recomposed in order to perform the different final HiCS. It shows in particular: - all solution elements that are necessary to perform all the targeted HiCS (horizontaly); - the different options for each solution element (vertically); - the briefing of each platform partner (which solution element is already in its core business, which may be implemented and which connection with other solution element should be carefully considered); - the solution elements that have to be performed by specific partners. • a platform motivation matrix showing the solution from the point of view of the stakeholder interest to take part to the platform.

Figure 10 initial platform motivation matrix showing the promoting partners, their own motivations and the intention for the platform.

The matrix shows a check-list of motivation, benefits and contributions from each stakeholder point of view, between them and with the platform. Crossing the stakeholders (already identified or only foreseen) between them allows to check in particular what is/may be their respective initial motivations to start evolutions in their current business; what they may bring to the platform and what the platform may bring to them; which potential synergies/conflicts may occurs between each others.

The platform motivation matrix is filled initially (Figure 10) by the platform promoters as an input for the SOPMF showing: - each platform promoter, its intentions, potential contribution to the platform and expected benefits form it; - the intention for the targeted SOP; - eventual description of hypothetical partners to be identified in the process.

14/22

Figure 11 final platform motivation matrix showing all the platform partners, their contribution and benefits form the platform and potential interaction between eachother.

Along the identification of all partners that will be constituting the SOP, the platform motivation matrix is completed (Figure 11) : - hypothetical partners are substituted by real ones; - partners contributions to the platform and expected benefits are adjusted; - interaction between partners, synergies and potential conflicts are investigated.

It is to be noted that the platform motivation matrix will then be relayed in the Business Plan and constitute the basis for the Costs/Benefits/Risks matrix.

15/22

The "platform motivation matrix" allow to explore the potential relationship between the partners within the collective scope of building a platform and outlines the modalities of the business plan. It shows in particular if possible synergies / conflicts may occur between partners taken two by two. The matrix explores systematically each couple of actors in their business relationships: what they should provide and gain participating to the new platform but also what could be the incidence on their current business. As for example, this figure shows a zoom in the "platform motivation matrix" of the Italian SOP and illustrates the relationships between the "Appliance producer" and the "Health software provider". Their respective intentions in taking part to the platform (boxes at the crossing of an actor to himself) appear distinct: "find new application fields for advanced cooking and preserving solutions" and "enter non-medical markets and open and finalise new areas of research". Their specific relationships within the partnership shows more clear synergies as the health software provided by one could be directly hosted in part by the appliance produced by the other.

1.2.2

How to use it ?

How to use the different format at each stage of the SOPMF ?

Main steps are: Step 1: Tentative solutions Formalisation of "tentative solutions" generated by the first creative workshop(s) involving the "platform promoters" (first column of the SOPMF).

16/22

Figure 12 visualisation of the input and output formats at first step of the Design Plan within the SOPMF

input formats are: - initial "platform promoters matrix" presenting current activities, interests and intentions of promoting partners; - initial poster of the "system organisation map" showing each single context of use in term of potential solution ideas. output formats are: - tentative "system organisations maps" visualising roughly all selected tentative solution ideas; - hypothetical "platform motivation matrix" investigating related partnership needed to implement each of these tentative solution ideas.

Step 2: Solution architecture Formalisation of the "solution architecture" generated during the progressive involvement of the "platform providers" (second column of the SOPMF).

17/22

Figure 13 visualisation of the input and output formats at second step of the Design Plan within the SOPMF

input formats are: - refined "system organisation maps" detailing the organisation of each solution; - related "platform motivation matrix" redefining the relationship between partners with the progressive involvement of new ones. output formats are: - the "system organisation map" cluster showing the various solutions provided by the same platform; - an agreed "platform motivation matrix" showing contributions and benefits of all the already identified partners; Step 3: Tentative HiCS Formalisation of the "tentative HiCS" generated by the "tentative SOP" (third column of the SOPMF)

18/22

Figure14 visualisation of the input and output formats at third step of the Design Plan within the SOPMF

input formats are: - the different "user story-boards" showing the customized solution performed for each of the targeted contexts of use; - the hypothetic "solution elements story-board" showing the hypothetical break down into solution elements and the brief of each partners; - the first "costs/benefits/risks platform matrix" of the Business Plan based on the agreed "platform motivation matrix". output formats are: - the refined "user story-boards" integrating the users reactions on the customized solution performed for each of the targeted contexts of use; - the final "solution elements story-boards" showing the agreed break down into solution elements between, the brief of each platform partners and the brief of each specific partner to be found; - the refined "costs/benefits/risks platform matrix" of the Business Plan.

Step 4: HiCS Formalisation of the final "HiCS" generated by the final "SOP" (fourth column of the SOPMF)

19/22

Figure 15 visualisation of the input and output formats at fourth step of the Design Plan within the SOPMF

input formats are: - the draft design of the solution elements on the basis of the briefing of each partner; output formats are: - final design of the solution elements by each partner; - the final "costs/benefits/risks platform matrix" of the Business Plan.

20/22

François Jégou Administrator, visiting professor DALT, Politecnico di Milano Rue Marconi, 125 1190, Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 (0)495 50 24 33 Fax: +32 (0)495 50 24 35 Email: francois.jegou@skynet.be Consultant in strategic design François Jégou has a degree in industrial design and teaches as visiting professor in the Faculty of Design of the Politecnico in Milan. Since 1990 he runs the consultancy DALT based in Paris and Brussels specialised in co-design of scenarios and definition of new PSS. DALT is active in various fields such as sustainable design, interaction design, cognitive ergonomics, senior friendly design, compliance and security of pharmaceutical products, innovation in food products and involved in EU research projects (HiCS, MEPSS, E-VAN, Sustainable Household, Ambiant Agoras).

Ezio Manzini Full professor Politecnico of Milano, INDACO Research Unity: Innovation of the system-product Via Durando 38/a 20158 Milano Italia Tel

+39 (0)2 2399 5967

Fax

+39 (0)2 2399 5997

Email

ezio.manzini@polimi.it

www.design.polimi.it Professor of Industrial Design at the Milan Polytechnic where he is Co-ordinator of the "Dottorato in Disegno industriale" (Phd in Industrial Design) and Director of the Master in Strategic Design.

In the year 2001 he has been Chair Professor of Design under the Distinguished Scholars Scheme at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

His works are based on strategic design and design for sustainability, with a focus on the scenario building and solution development.

Recent research activities: • Strategies towards the sustainable household, within the Environment and Climate Programme of DG XI of the European Community (1998 – 2000).

• The role of Industrial Design in product innovation: the Italian Design System, from local resources to global markets, for the Italian Ministry of University and of Scientific and Technological Research (1999 - 2000) • “Strategic design and Design for sustainability in China”, programme of research promoted by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2000-2001) • HiCS, Highly Customerised Solutions, within the Growth Programme of the European Community (2001, 2004)

Anna Meroni Researcher Politecnico of Milano, INDACO Research Unity: Innovation of the system-product Via Durando 38/a

21/22

20158 Milano Italia Tel

+39 (0)2 2399 5967

Fax

+39 (0)2 2399 5997

Email

anna.meroni@polimi.it

www.design.polimi.it Architect and PhD in Industrial Design, she is a research and design consultant for various institutions and companies. She is lecturer and researcher at Politecnico di Milano, Faculty of Design, in the research-unity “Innovation of the system-product�; among the other activities, she is currently in the team working on the UE project HiCS, Highly Customerised Solutions as responsible for the Italian implementation activity.

22/22