PROTOTYPE
WORKSHOP
Ashley Bailey Spring 2013 Service Design II Prototype Workshop Process Book
Prototype Workshop Process 1
What Is Prototyping?
2
What Materials Can Be Used?
3
Explore Generative Prototyping
4
Explore Evaluative Prototyping
5
Reflect And Document Process
WHAT IS PROTOTYPING? Prototyping in a design research context, is the process of thinking through making. Different from prototyping a product, creative prototyping is used to work towards an idea, rather than to express an idea through developing a visual and tangible draft to represent a final outcome. With limitless methods of visual expression, tangible materials can be used as a tool to facilitate the thought process during the divergent phase of developing creative and collaborative solutions. Prototyping in this way allows communication amongst teams and collaborators, to share and engage in the development of ideas. Prototyping can be done as a way for an individual to express their perspective with others, or accomplished as a team to think collectively. The materials used can vary, but ideally should allow the maker to work quickly, in order to prototype many ideas within a relatively short amount of time. This process is centered around sharing and testing ideas, rather than the most accurate depiction or model of a decided outcome. The function of creative research prototyping is to externalize and explore many possible solutions to the challenge at hand through form, in order to diverge, test, refine, and arrive at the most relevant and appropriate creative solution.
Within this context, evaluative prototyping occurs during the optimizing phase of the design process. The purpose of using prototyping as a tool during this phase is to express a possible solution, ready for feedback and adaption. This type of prototyping should provide opportunity for engagement, but should have a convergent tone to the movement.
PROC IGN ES ES
GENERATIVE PROTOTYPING:
S
D
EVALUATIVE PROTOTYPING
Within this context, generative prototyping occurs during the conceptualizing phase of the design process. The purpose of using prototyping as a tool during this phase is to externalize ideas, and collaborate with others to shape and define a problem statement and shape the criteria surrounding the opportunity. This type of prototyping should be divergent and requires active engagement from all participants.
MATERIAL CATALOG At the start of our prototyping workshop, we discussed materials we might use, and the criteria which deems them appropriate for generative and evaluative prototyping within this early phase in the design process. Once these criterias were clearly defined, we individually gathered materials we felt met that criteria. As a class, we came together to observe and discuss all of the materials, and create a catalog of all of the items available for use. The criteria for materials are described below. MODULAR/ ADDITIVE Anything used should be modular, in order to allow additive action between collaborators. Items such as pipe cleaners have this quality, with their ability to wrap around one another to attach and build upon what exists. FLEXIBLE/ MUTABLE Mutability allows for repeated adaptation and refinement, an important quality in collaborative prototyping. Items like wire offer flexibility. Wire is continuously bendable and available to be reshaped. MOVABLE Because this type of prototyping is rapid and generative, materials used should be able to be easily moved and transported. Cardboard is lightweight and can be deconstructed to allow for stowing away until prototyping resumes. NEUTRAL Collaborative prototyping is defined by sharing perspectives. Because each of our perspectives are shaped by our individual experiences and understanding of the world, neutral materials are very important. Language, verbal and non verbal, is shaped by the context in which we have lived, and items with specific contextual meanings can be distracting when used within an ‘inappropriate’ settings.
MATERIAL CATALOG
MATERIAL CATALOG
HOW MIGHT WE CONNECT EACH STUDENT WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPOWERMENT? For this workshop, I have each chosen an opportunity space from a project completed in Service Design I, in which the objective was to understand the context and areas for opportunity in the lives of young elementary schoolers, that attend an after school program held at the MartindaleBrightwood Community Center. This area for opportunity will serve as a platform to explore prototyping and to give content for the collaborative sessions conducted with my peers. My first task was to visualize the context and area for opportunity for my peers, so that they could understand the problem at hand, and the criteria for consideration when diverging into ideas for solution. I did this by creating a tangible map of the community center, the people that are involved, and the resources available to them within the space.
GENERATIVE PROTOTYPING
SESSION ONE
PUT YOURSELF IN SOMEONE ELSES SHOES
WHAT DID I DO? First, I asked my peers what empowered them in their journey to becoming who they are, and finding their strengths. Whether it was the people in their life, or experiences they have had, I wanted to know what made an impact on them and led them to where they are now. I had them draw, or write their responses on a large piece of kraft paper, so that all of our answers were documented on a transportable material. We placed these responses within a box in the center of the paper. Second, I handed each classmate a slip of paper with an identity of a child who attends the Martindale-Brightwood Community Center. They were given their name, age, daily schedule, hobbies, and a career that they could grow up to attain. Next I asked them to write or draw a responses to what might be an experience, or opportunity we could provide to these students that could lead them to the careers listed. These responses were placed on the same piece of large kraft paper, outside of the box that contained our answers to the first question. WHAT WAS MY INTENT? The purpose of reflecting upon the opportunities we have had, was to get in touch with the importance of each stepping stone we’ve experienced along our journey so far, and to look back to what, no matter how small, influenced us to tap into our potential, and become aware of the opportunities available to us. In comparison to ourselves, we were able to jump into someone elses shoes, and wipe away our own experiences. From that point we could realize the lack of empowerment these kids might feel and cleared the space to fill with our ideas for helping them arrive at their full potential. WHAT WERE MY FINDINGS/FEEDBACK? The feedback I received were activities or relationships that could be created within the context of the kids time spent at the community center. These ideas could become small building blocks that plant confidence to propel and guide the kids towards further opportunities. WHAT DID I LEARN ABOUT PROTOTYPING? After this session, I became more aware of the level of engagement that can be achieved depending on the materials used. While writing with pen and paper is useful for documentation’s sake, it is not as interactive and engaging as collaborative action.
GENERATIVE PROTOTYPING
SESSION TWO
REARRANGE THE CONTEXT
WHAT DID I DO? For this session, I used the map of the community center that I made during the first session, and asked my peers to use the movable pieces to create scenarios of ideas for interaction that provides empowerment. We explored ideas for six elements of life that require empowerment for growth. Those six are family relationships, friendships, education, occupation, enjoyment and emotional intelligence. WHAT WAS MY INTENT? The purpose of having all of the moving parts in front of us to rearrange was to quickly externalize possible solutions. Having the parts in front of us, we knew what we had to work with, and where there was room to play. WHAT WERE MY FINDINGS/FEEDBACK? This exercise allowed us to work together to rearrange the moving parts within the context of my opportunity area, and gave us a chance to actively diverge on possible ideas toward a solution. We focused on how to provide individual attention to each student, in order for them to receive feedback from others, which helps them to become more self aware. WHAT DID I LEARN ABOUT PROTOTYPING? From this session, I learned that the way I prompt participants to engage is very critical to the response I receive. How I trigger the participants, directly effects how they understand my intention. In addition, it became clear that generative prototyping is a wonderful tool to quickly become more in touch with criteria that shapes relevant and appropriate solutions. While moving things around, it was easy to rule out ideas when they did not follow the criteria.
EVALUATIVE PROTOTYPING
SESSION ONE
SHARING POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
WHAT DID I DO? For this session, I presented two ideas to my peers, and asked for their feedback. My first solution was based on creating a student leadership group, that would become a collective voice to impact the community. My second solution was a volunteer program, in which knowledgeable community members could come to share their skills with small groups of kids. This would provide individual attention, as well as opportunity for the kids to try out different activities in order to find their strengths and passions. I shared these ideas through modeling with my context map and movable parts. I verbalized my ideas, and asked for verbal response. WHAT WAS MY INTENT? My intention was to share my ideas verbally, but also to visualize them so that my peers were able to see how I would use the space, and the relationships that would fuel the empowerment. I wanted feedback to know which direction would be more successful in creating empowerment. WHAT WERE MY FINDINGS/FEEDBACK? Feedback told me that creating a volunteer program to give individual attention and skill finding would be more beneficial to the kids. While creating a voice within the community would feel empowering, it would not provide individual attention, which we agreed was an essential step in feeling empowered. WHAT DID I LEARN ABOUT PROTOTYPING? This session made me aware of the difference in level of engagement between generative and evaluative prototyping. Having movable parts allowed the participants to engage, but was not as collaborative as the generative sessions.
MY REFLECTION After the last few classes, my understanding of generative prototyping has become more clear although I know I would better grasp upon further experience. I have learned that there is a balance between the amount of information and ground work that I bring to the table, and what participants will contribute. I don’t feel as though my efforts within our first two attempts were in line with what I now understand of the prototyping process. Had I known what I know now, I would definitely approach each session differently. It has been difficult for me to invasion how to work with such an intangible ‘How Might We’ statement, find a way to physically express that, and how to facilitate a prompted experience for participants to engage with it, and give valuable insight and response to my problem space. I feel our discussion last class helped me to understand that I can express the elements, assets and factors that influence my problem space, in order to both show context, and give substance to engage with. I am starting to see all the pieces that come together to create the generative prototyping process: How might we statement, physical representation of context as pieces of a puzzle, a designed activity or experience for participants to engage in, initiated by a carefully thought out prompt. I still feel a bit unsure about my understanding of how to design and create an effective prompt, but I also know that trying out different ideas will help me to get a better grip, much like the process of learning the creation of tools for creative engagement, during the research process. Although this process is much more abstract to me. One thing influencing my process of understanding is my experience in Korea. Although I felt I understood what we learned through INDEX:, I am experiencing it much differently in this context. Although again, after our last class discussion, I am beginning to connect the dots and understand how to apply what I know to what I am learning.
Works Cited Daniel. (2012, August 13). The Design Gym. Retrieved 2013, from thedesigngym.com: http://thedesigngym.com/service-design-prototyping/ Engine Group. (n.d.). Retrieved 2013, from enginegroup.co.uk: http://www.enginegroup.co.uk/service_ design/m_page/service_prototyping Gardner, E. (2009, October 26). Archis. Retrieved 2013, from archis.org: http://archis.org/action/2009/10/26/thinking-through-design-thinking/ Helfand, J. (2006, April 21). Design Observer. Retrieved 2013, from observatory.designobserver.com: http://observatory.designobserver.com/jessicahelfand/feature/the-art-of-thinking-through-making/4287/ Hewens, S. (2011, September 30). IDEO. Retrieved 2013, from ideo.org: https://www.ideo.org/stories/ prototyping-with-the-tedx-in-a-box-team Johan Blomkvist, S. H. (2010). Servdes. Retrieved 2013, from Servdes.org: http://www.servdes.org/pdf/ blomkvist-holmlid.pdf Kelley, T. (2001). Prototyping is the Shorthand of Innovation. Design Management Journal Vol. 12, No. 3 , 12 (No.3). Marc Stickdorn, J. S. (2011). This is Service Design. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons,Inc. Naranjo-Bock, C. (n.d.). paulolyslager. Retrieved 2013, from paulolyslager.com: http://www.paulolyslager. com/paper-prototyping-tool-participatory-design-research/ Schott, J. (2009, June 4). Service Design Network. Retrieved 2013, from service-design-network.org: http://www.service-design-network.org/content/experience-prototyping Tassi, R. (2009). Service Design Tools. Retrieved 2013, from servicedesigntools.org: http://www.servicedesigntools.org/taxonomy/term/3
What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I understand. -Lao Tzu