ISSN 2398-3132
PROCEEDINGS OF DRS
27–30 JUNE 2016
VOLUME 5
50th Anniversary Conference Brighton, UK
Design + Research + Society Future-Focused Thinking EDITED BY: PETER LLOYD ERIK BOHEMIA
This page is intentionally left blank.
Proceedings of DRS 2016 Design + Research + Society Future–Focused Thinking 50th Anniversary International Conference Brighton, UK, 27–30 June 2016 Volume 5
Editors Peter Lloyd and Erik Bohemia
This page is intentionally left blank.
Proceedings of DRS 2016 International Conference 28–30 June 2016, Brighton, UK www.drs2016.org Volumes 5 of 10 Cover and conference identity design by Gavin Ambrose, Nikki Brewster and Seamus White Proceedings compiled by Kaajal Modi Editors: Peter Lloyd and Erik Bohemia Section-Editors: Harriet Atkinson; Leonard Bachman; Giovanni Baule; Michaël Berghman; Noemi Bitterman; Alison Black; Rebecca Cain; Elena Caratti; Rachel Cooper; Anne Cranny-Francis; Tejas Dhadphale; Hua Dong; Bianca Elzenbaumer; Carolina Escobar-Tello; Luke Feast; Tom Fisher; Aija Freimanee; Lorraine Gamman; Valeria Graziano; Camilla Groth; Marte Gulliksen; Paul Hekkert; Derek Jones; Sarah Kettley; Tore Kristensen; Sylvia Liu; Geke Ludden; Jamie Mackrill; Maarit Mäkelä; Betti Marenko; Andrew Morris; Kristina Niedderer; Nithikul Nimkulrat; Maya Oppenheimer; Elif Ozcan; Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness; Ann Petermans; Philip Plowright; Tiiu Poldma; Hendrik Schifferstein; Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen; Qian Sun; Michael Tovey; Rhoda Trimingham; Kim Trogal; Nynke Tromp; Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer; Sue Walker; Alex Wilkie; Alex Williams; Seda Yilmaz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Proceedings of DRS 2016 International Conference: Future–Focused Thinking ISSN 2398-3132 Published by the Design Research Society Loughborough University, London 3 Lesney Avenue, The Broadcast Centre, Here East London, E15 2GZ United Kingdom
Design Research Society Secretariat email: admin@designresearchsociety.org website: www.designresearchsociety.org Founded in 1966 the Design Research Society (DRS) is a learned society committed to promoting and developing design research. It is the longest established, multi-disciplinary worldwide society for the design research community and aims to promote the study of and research into the process of designing in all its many fields.
DRS Special Interest Groups Design for Behaviour Change Design for Health, Wellbeing and Happiness Design Innovation Management Design Pedagogy Design for Sustainability Design for Tangible, Embedded and Networked Technologies Experiential Knowledge Inclusive Design Objects, Practices, Experiences, Networks
DRS International Conference Series DRS 2002 London; DRS 2004 Melbourne; DRS 2006 Lisbon; DRS 2008 Sheffield; DRS 2010 Montreal; DRS 2012 Bangkok; DRS 2014 Umeå
DRS 2016 Programme Committee Conference Chair Peter Lloyd, University of Brighton, UK Conference Co-Chairs Tracy Bhamra, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Stephen Boyd-Davis, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Jonathan Chapman, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Peter Childs, Imperial College, United Kingdom International Scientific Review Committee Tracy Bhamra, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Erik Bohemia, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Lin Lin Chen, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan Nathan Crilly, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Paul Hekkert, TU Delft, The Netherlands Peter Lloyd, University of Brighton, UK Debates, Conversations and Workshops Chairs Stella Boess, TU Delft, The Netherlands Carlos Peralta, University of Brighton, UK Cameron Tonkinwise, Carnegie Mellon University, US Conference Experience Chairs Dan Lockton, Royal College of Art, UK Veronica Ranner, Royal College of Art, UK PhD by Design Bianca Elzenbaumer, Leeds College of Art, UK Maria Portugal, Goldsmiths University, UK Alison Thomson, Goldsmiths University, UK DRS Special Interest Group Chairs Erik Bohemia, Loughborough University, UK Rebecca Cain, Warwick University, UK Hua Dong, Tongji University, China Tom Fisher, Nottingham Trent University, UK Sarah Kettley, Nottingham Trent University, UK Kristina Niedderer, University of Wolverhampton, UK Nithikul Nimkulrat, Estonian Academy of Arts, Talinn Michael Tovey, Coventry University, UK Rhoda Trimmingham, Loughborough University, UK Executive Advisors Carl DiSalvo, Georgia Institute of Technology, US Kees Dorst, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Janet Mcdonnell, University of the Arts London, UK Johan Redstrรถm, Umeรฅ Institute of Design, Sweden Erik Stolterman, Indiana University, US Anna Valtonen, Aalto School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Finland
International Board of Reviewers Tom Ainsworth, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Katerina Alexiou, The Open University, United Kingdom Manola Antonioli, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture Paris La Villette, France Rina Arya, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom Harriet Atkinson, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Stephen Awoniyi, Texas State University, United States Jeremy Aynsley, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Leonard Bachman, University of Houston College of Architecture, United States Betsy Barnhart, Iowa State University, United States Giovanni Baule, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Nigan Bayazit, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Michaël Berghman, TU Delft, Netherlands Tracy Bhamra, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Richard Bibb, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Noemi Bitterman, Technion, Israel Alison Black, Reading University, United Kingdom Janneke Blijlevens, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, Australia Anne Boddington, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Stella Boess, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Erik Bohemia, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Casper Boks, NTNU, Norway Elizabeth Boling, Indiana University, United States Andy Boucher, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom Simon Bowen, Newcastle University, United Kingdom Stephen Boyd Davis, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Jamie Brassett, Central Saint Martins, United Kingdom Philip Breedon, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Charlie Breindahl, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Denmark Patrick Bresnihan, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Cheryl Buckley, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Jacob Buur, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Rebecca Cain, University of Warwick, United Kingdom Elena Caratti, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Philip Cash, DTU, Denmark Tom Cassidy, University of Leeds, United Kingdom Julia Cassim, Kyoto Institute of Technology, Japan Jonathan Chapman, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Chien-Hsiung Chen, Taiwan Tech, Taiwan, R.O.C. Chun-Chih Chen, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, R.O.C. Chun-Di Chen, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C. Kuohsiang Chen, I-Shou University, Taiwan, R.O.C. Lin-Lin Chen, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. Peter Childs, Imperial College London, United Kingdom Wen-Ko Chiou, Chang Gung University, Taiwan, R.O.C. Bo Christensen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Henri Christiaans, UNIST, School of Design & Human Engineering, South Korea Abdusselam Selami Cifter, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Turkey Nazli Cila, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands Mollie Claypool, University College London, United Kingdom Stephen Clune, Lancaster University, United Kingdom Tim Cooper, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Anne Cranny-Francis, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Nathan Crilly, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Odette da Silva, TU Delft, Netherlands Massimo De Angelis, University of East London, United Kingdom Michel de Blois, Université Laval, Canada Cees de Bont, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Christine de Lille, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Jakki Dehn, Jakki Dehn Materials, United Kingdom
Federico Del Giorgio Solfa, National University of La Plata, Argentina Claudio Dell'Era, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Samuel DeMarie, Iowa State University, United States Halime Demirkan, Bilkent University, Turkey Gaurang Desai, American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Pieter Desmet, TU Delft, Netherlands Emma Dewberry, The Open University, United Kingdom Sarah Diefenbach, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany Ingvild Digranes, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway Orsalia Dimitriou, Central Saint Martins, United Kingdom Hua Dong, Tongji University, China Dennis Doordan, University of Notre Dame, United States Kees Dorst, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Shelby Doyle, Iowa State University, United States Alex Duffy, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom Delia Dumitrescu, University of Borås, United Kingdom Abigail Durrant, Newcastle University, United Kingdom Thomas Dykes, Northumbria University, United Kingdom Wouter Eggink, University of Twente, Netherlands Bianca Elzenbaumer, Leeds College of Art, United Kingdom Magnus Eneberg, Konstfack - University College of Arts, Crafts and Design, Sweden Alpay Er, Ozyegin University / Istanbul Institute of Design, Turkey Ozlem Er, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Pia Geisby Erichsen, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Carolina Escobar-Tello, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Juhyun Eune, Seoul National University, South Korea Mark Evans, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Luke Feast, Aalto University, Finland Thomas Fischer, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China Tom Fisher, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Kate Tanya Fletcher, London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom Jodi Forlizzi, Carnegie Mellon University, United States Lois Frankel, Carleton University, Canada Jill Franz, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Biljana Fredriksen, University College of Southeast Norway, Norway Ken Friedman, Tongji University, China Jennifer Gabrys, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom Loraine Gamman, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts, United Kingdom Nick Gant, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Philippe Gauthier, Université de Montréal, Canada Aysar Ghassan, Coventry University, United Kingdom Katherine Gibson, University of Western Sydney, Australia Carolina Gill, The Ohio State University, United States Steve Gill, Cardiff Met University, United Kingdom Maria Goransdotter, Umeå University, Sweden Colin Gray, Purdue University, United States Camilla Groth, Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Finland Marte Sørebø Gulliksen, Telemark University College, Norway Ian Gwilt, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom Robert Harland, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Dew Harrison, University of Wolverhampton, United Kingdom Steve Harrison, Virginia Tech, United States Marc Hassenzahl, Folkwang University of the Arts, Germany Anders Haug, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Tero Heikkinen, independent / University of the Arts Helsinki, Finland Tincuta Heinzel, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Paul Hekkert, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Bart Hengeveld, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Netherlands Ricardo Hernandez, Lancaster University, United Kingdom Ann Heylighen, KU Leuven, Belgium Clive Hilton, Coventry University, United Kingdom
Michael Hohl, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany Chung-Ching Huang, National Taiwan University, Taiwan, R.O.C. Karl Hurn, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Praima Israsena Na Ayudhya, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Robert Jerrard, Manchester Metropolitan Univ/Birmingham City Univ, United Kingdom Wolfgang Jonas, Braunschweig University of Art, Germany Derek Jones, The Open University, United Kingdom Peter Jones, OCAD University, Canada Rachel Jones, Instrata, United Kingdom Guy Julier, University of Brighton/Victoria and Albert Museum, United Kingdom Sabine Junginger, Hertie School of Governance, Germany Lorraine Justice, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States Faith Kane, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Helen Kennedy, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Tobie Kerridge, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom Richard Arthur Kettley, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Sarah Kettley, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom Jinsook Kim, Trinity Christian College, United States Lucy Kimbell, UAL, United Kingdom Holger Klapperich, Folkwang University of Arts, Germany Maaike Kleinsmann, TU Delft, Netherlands Ben Kraal, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Ksenija Kuzmina, Loughborough University London, United Kingdom John Langrish, Salford University, United Kingdom Keelin Leahy, University of Limerick, Ireland Helmut Leder, University of Vienna, Austria Ji-Hyun Lee, KAIST, South Korea Yanki Lee, Hong Kong Design Institue, Hong Kong Eva Lenz, Folkwang University of Arts, Germany Pierre Levy, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands Debra Lilley, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Rungtai Lin, National Taiwan University of Arts, Taiwan, R.O.C. Stephen Little, Asia Pacific Technology Network, United Kingdom Sylvia Liu, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Peter Lloyd, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Kathy Pui Ying, Lo, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Dan Lockton, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Vicky Lofthouse, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Lian Loke, University of Sydney, Australia Nicole Lotz, The Open University, United Kingdom Rachael Luck, The Open University, United Kingdom Geke Ludden, University of Twente, Netherlands Rohan Lulham, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Ole Lund, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Alastair Macdonald, Glasgow School of Art, United Kingdom Fiona Maciver, Norwich University of the Arts, United Kingdom Jamie Mackrill, Imperial College London, United Kingdom Anja Maier, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark Maarit Mäkelä, Aalto University, Finland Betti Marenko, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom Ben Mathews, The University of Queensland, Australia Tuuli Mattelmäki, Aalto University, Finland Ramia Mazé, Aalto University, Finland Sanjoy Mazumdar, University of California, Irvine, United States Janet McDonnell, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom Chris McGinley, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Tomislav Medak, Multimedia Institute, Croatia Wellington Gomes de Medeiros, Federal University of Campina Grande, Brazil Brian Mennecke, Iowa State University, United States Paul Micklethwaite, Kingston University, United Kingdom Karen Miller, University of Brighton, United Kingdom
Val Mitchell, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Kathryn Moore, Birmingham City University, United Kingdom Michael Moore, Ulster University, United Kingdom Sarah Morehead, Northumbria University, United Kingdom Nicola Morelli, Aalborg University, Denmark Mariale Moreno, Cranfield University, United Kingdom Andrew Morris, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Andrew, Morrison, AHO, Norway Jeanne-Louise Moys, Reading University, United Kingdom Tara Mullaney, Umeå Institute of Design, Sweden Yukari Nagai, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan Ki Young Nam, KAIST, South Korea Kristina Niedderer, Wolverhampton University, United Kingdom Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo and Akershus university college, Norway Nithikul Nimkulrat, Estonian Academy of Arts, Estonia Conall Ó Catháin, Past Chairman DRS, Ireland Arlene Oak, University of Alberta, Canada Maya Oppenheimer, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Elif Ozcan, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Kursat Ozenc, Stanford, United States Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness, Iowa State University, United States Eujin Pei, Brunel University London, United Kingdom Carlos Peralta, University of brighton, United Kingdom José Pérez de Lama, University of Sevilla, Spain Oscar Person, Aalto University, Finland Ann Petermans, Hasselt University, Belgium Daniela Petrelli, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom Doina Petrescu, The University of Sheffield, United Kingdom Ida Nilstad Pettersen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway Sarah Pink, RMIT University, Australia Silvia Pizzocaro, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Philip Plowright, Lawrence Technological University, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, United States Anna Pohlmeyer, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Tiiu Poldma, University of Montreal, Canada Lubomir Popov, Bowling Green State University, United States Vesna Popovic, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Thomas Porathe, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Ruben Post, TU Delft, Netherlands William Prindle, Iowa State University, United States Charlie Ranscombe, Swinburne, Australia Yaone Rapitsenyane, University of Botswana, Botswana Ingo Rauth, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden Kirstine Riis, University College Telemark, Norway Paul Rodgers, Northumbria University, United Kingdom Zoe Romano, WeMake, Makerspace, Italy Jose Antonio Rosa, Iowa State University, United States Seymour Roworth-Stokes, Coventry University, United Kingdom Robin Roy, The Open University, United Kingdom Keith Russell, University of Newcastle, Australia, Australia Daniel Saakes, KAIST, South Korea Noemi Maria Sadowska, Regent's University London, United Kingdom Miguel Said Vieira, Independent, Brazil Fatina Saikaly, Co-Creando, Italy Filippo Salustri, Ryerson University, Canada Liz Sanders, The Ohio State University, United States Rick Schifferstein, TU Delft, Netherlands James Self, UNIST, South Korea Nick Senske, Iowa State University, United States Matt Sinclair, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Kin Wai Michael Siu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Dirk Snelders, TU Delft, Netherlands
Ricardo Sosa, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Chris Speed, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom Jak Spencer, The Sound HQ, United Kingdom Kay Stables, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom Pieter Jan Stappers, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Shanti Sumartojo, RMIT University, Australia Kärt Summatavet, Aalto University, Estonia Qian Sun, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Helena Sustar, Aalto University, Finland Gunnar Swanson, East Carolina University, United States Ben Sweeting, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Keith Tam, University of Reading, United Kingdom Hsien-Hui Tang, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. Toshiharu Taura, Kobe University, Japan Damon Taylor, University of Brighton, United Kingdom Sarah Teasley, Royal College of Art, United Kingdom Adam Thorpe, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom Clementine Thurgood, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Jeremy Till, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom Oscar Tomico, Eindhoven University of Technology, United Kingdom Cameron Tonkinwise, Carnegie Mellon University, United States Mike Tovey, Coventry University, United Kingdom Rhoda Trimingham, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Nynke Tromp, TU Delft, Netherlands Darren Umney, Open University, United Kingdom Louise Valentine, University of Dundee, United Kingdom Anna Valtonen, Aalto University, Finland Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Johann van der Merwe, Independent Researcher, South Africa Mascha van der Voort, University of Twente, Netherlands Karel van der Waarde, Graphic Design - Research, Belgium Susann Vihma, Aalto University, Finland Andre Viljoen, University of Brighton, United Kingdom John Vines, Newcastle University, United Kingdom Bettina von Stamm, Innovation Leadership Forum, United Kingdom Sue Walker, Reading University, United Kingdom Renee Wever, Linköping University, Sweden Alex Wilkie, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom Alex Williams, Kingston University, United Kingdom Garrath Wilson, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Heather Wiltse, Umeå University, Sweden Christian Woelfel, TU Dresden, Germany Martin Woolley, Coventry University, United Kingdom Paul Wormald, National University of Singapore, Singapore Artemis Yagou, Macromedia University for Media and Communication, Germany Joyce Yee, Northumbria University, United Kingdom Susan Yelavich, The New School, United States Seda Yilmaz, Iowa State University, United States Robert Young, Northumbria University, United Kingdom
This page is intentionally left blank
Table of Content Editorial................................................................................................................................................................................................... i – Volume 1 – SECTION 1 50 YEARS OF DESIGN RESEARCH Design Research: What is it? What is it for?............................................................................................................................................. 5
Victor Margolin Schön’s Legacy: Examining Contemporary Citation Practices in DRS Publications ................................................................................... 17
Jordan Beck, Laureline Chiapello The Idea of Architecture, The User As Inhabitant: Design through a Christopher Alexander Lens ........................................................... 31
Molly Wright Steenson Design Research for Sustainability: Historic Origin and Development .................................................................................................... 43
Astrid Skjerven The Design Methods Movement: From Optimism to Darwinism ............................................................................................................ 51
John Z. Langrish User Design: Constructions of the “user” in the history of design research ............................................................................................ 65
Theodora Vardouli 60 years of creativity in business organizations ..................................................................................................................................... 83
Ricardo Sosa, Pete Rive and Andy M. Connor 20th Century Boys: Pioneering British Design Thinkers .......................................................................................................................... 97
Emma Murphy and Martyn Evans Design Research and Design Participation ........................................................................................................................................... 111
Robert Aish The Design Research Society in the 1980s and 1990s: a memoir .......................................................................................................... 125
Conall Ó Catháin SECTION 2 AESTHETIC PLEASURE IN DESIGN Introduction: Aesthetic Pleasure in Design .......................................................................................................................................... 139
Michaël Berghman and Paul Hekkert Measuring design typicality – a comparison of objective and subjective approaches ........................................................................... 145
Stefan Mayer and Jan R. Landwehr Most Advanced yet Acceptable: A case of referential form-driven meaning innovation ....................................................................... 157
Seong geun Lee, James Self and Ekaterina Andrietc Extracting Design Aesthetic Heuristics from Scientific Literature.......................................................................................................... 179
Ana Cadavid, Stefany Ruiz-Córdoba and Jorge Maya Putting product design in context: Consumer responses to design fluency as a function of presentation context ................................. 203
Laura K. M. Graf and Jan R. Landwehr The Value of Transparency for Designing Product Innovations............................................................................................................. 215
Peiyao Cheng and Ruth Mugge A comparison between colour preference and colour harmony – taking athletic shoe design as an example........................................ 233
Li-Chen Ou Creating Novel Encounters with Nature: Approaches and Design Explorations..................................................................................... 245
Thomas J. L. Van Rompay and Geke D. S. Ludden Introducing Experience Goals into Packaging Design ........................................................................................................................... 259
Markus Joutsela and Virpi Roto The beauty of balance – An empirical integration of the Unified Model of Aesthetics for product design ............................................. 277
Michaël Berghman and Paul Hekkert SECTION 3 DESIGN EPISTEMOLOGY Introduction: Design Epistemology...................................................................................................................................................... 295
Derek Jones, Philip Plowright, Leonard Bachman and Tiiu Poldma Mapping design knowledge: 36 years of Design Studies ...................................................................................................................... 303
Kathryn Burns, Jack Ingram and Louise Annable I know this one, but the answer is complex… ...................................................................................................................................... 321
Simon Downs Source domains of Architectural Knowledge: Mappings, Categories, Validity and Relevance ............................................................... 339
Philip D Plowright Using Rhetoric in Persuasive Design: What Rhetoric? .......................................................................................................................... 355
Danny Godin Design Fiction: Does the search for plausibility lead to deception? ...................................................................................................... 369
Paul Coulton, Joseph Lindley and Haider Ali Akmal
Graphicality: why is there not such a word? ........................................................................................................................................ 385
Robert Harland and David Craib Design as Anticipation and Innovation: Co-creating a future by learning from the future as it emerges ................................................ 401
Markus F. Peschl and Thomas Fundneider – Volume 2 – SECTION 4 Design EDUCATION AND LEARNING Introduction: Design Education and Learning ...................................................................................................................................... 419
Michael Tovey “Dis-course is Killer!” Educating the critically reflective designer ......................................................................................................... 425
Veronika Kelly Design Culture and Contemporary Education ...................................................................................................................................... 441
Therese Uri Promoting an emancipatory research paradigm in Design Education and Practice ............................................................................... 455
Lesley-Ann Noel Design Thinking: A Rod For Design’s Own Back? .................................................................................................................................. 471
Aysar Ghassan Designing the unknown: supervising design students who manage mental health issues ..................................................................... 483
Welby Ings Using Design Thinking to create a new education paradigm for elementary level children for higher student engagement and success 501
Lesley-Ann Noel and Tsai Lu Liu Design Research in Interior Design Education: A Living Framework for Teaching the Undergraduate Capstone Studio in the 21st Century ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 513
Charles Boggs, Helena Moussatche, Catherine Pizzichemi and Meghan Woodcock Designing Universities of the Future .................................................................................................................................................... 525
Anna Valtonen Dexign Futures: A Pedagogy for Long-Horizon Design Scenarios .......................................................................................................... 539
Peter Scupelli, Arnold Wasserman, and Judy Brooks Design and Interdisciplinarity: the improbable introduction of “fundamental physics” in a design school ............................................ 555
Annie Gentes, Anne-Lyse Renon and Julien Bobroff Card Games Creation as a Learning Method ........................................................................................................................................ 569
Birgit S. Bauer “Spend another day in our class talking about this research please”: Student insights from a research-based design thinking exercise 593
Cynthia J. Atman, Arif Ahmer, Jennifer A. Turns and Jim Borgford-Parnell Communication is not collaboration: observations from a case study in collaborative learning ............................................................ 609
Iestyn Jowers, Mark Gaved, Gary Elliott-Cirigottis, Delphine Dallison, Alan Rochead and Mark Craig The use of argumentation in design research ...................................................................................................................................... 625
Stella Boess Digital Sketch Modelling: Integrating digital sketching as a transition between sketching and CAD in Industrial Design Education ....... 637
Charlie Ranscombe and Katherine Bissett-Johnson Prototyping in the in-between. A Method for Spatial Design education ............................................................................................... 653
Jennie Andersson Schaeffer and Marianne Palmgren Global Flows of Materials: Design Research and Practice in Architecture ............................................................................................. 669
Janet McGaw Evaluating Living and Learning on Campus: A Community Engaged Research Model ............................................................................ 685
Rebekah Radtke What is sought from graphic designers? A first thematic analysis of job offers for graphic design positions in the United Kingdom ...... 705
Paulo Roberto Nicoletti Dziobczenskiand Oscar Person LIVD: An Avant-Garde Publication with Pedagogical and Epistemological Aims .................................................................................... 719
Meredith James Design Studio Desk and Shared Place Attachments: A Study on Ownership, Personalization, and Agency. ........................................... 729
Peter Scupelli and Bruce Hanington Online Reflective Interactions on Social Network Sites in Design Studio Course ................................................................................... 751
Simge Hough Junior designers’ awareness of personal values and their employment choices ................................................................................... 767
Anna Jonkmans, Julia Wurl, Dirk Snelders and Lenny van Onselen Knowledgeability culture: Co-creation in practice................................................................................................................................ 781
Alicen Coddington, Colin Giang, Alexander Graham, Anne Prince, Pauliina Mattila, Christine Thong and Anita Kocsis Visual Thinking Styles and Idea Generation Strategies Employed in Visual Brainstorming Sessions ...................................................... 795
Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi The Future of Product Design Utilising Printed Electronics ................................................................................................................... 813
Nicola York, Darren Southee and Mark Evans
Project Contribution of Junior Designers: Exploring the What and the How of Values in Collaborative Practice .................................... 835
Lennart Kaland, Annelijn Vernooij and Lenny van Onselen Exploring framing within a team of industrial design students ............................................................................................................. 853
Mithra Zahedi, Lorna Heaton, Manon Guité, Giovanni De Paoli and Marie Reumont – Volume 3 – SECTION 5 AESTHETICS, COSMOPOLITICS AND DESIGN Introduction: Aesthetics, Cosmopolitics and Design ............................................................................................................................ 873
Alex Wilkie Framing Values in Design .................................................................................................................................................................... 881
Marta Gasparin and William Green The Prototype as a Cosmopolitical Place: Ethnographic design practice and research at the National Zoo ............................................ 895
Martín Tironi, Pablo Hermansen and José Neira The Role of Participation in Designing for IoT ...................................................................................................................................... 913
Anuradha Reddy and Per Linde Aesthetics, Cosmopolitics and Design Futures in Computational Fashion ............................................................................................. 927
Laura Forlano Designing diagrams for social issues .................................................................................................................................................... 941
Michele Mauri and Paolo Ciuccarelli iPhoneography and New Aesthetics: The Emergence of a Social Visual Communication Through Image-based Social Media ................ 959
Eman Alshawaf A Creative Ontological Analysis of Collective Imagery during Co-Design for Service Innovation ............................................................ 969
Priscilla Chueng-Nainby, John Lee, BingXin Zi and Astury Gardin Post-critical potentials in experimental co-design................................................................................................................................ 985
Sissel Olander Collaborative Imaging. The communicative practice of hand sketching in experimental physics ........................................................... 997
Judith Marlen Dobler The Aesthetics of Action in New Social Design ....................................................................................................................................1013
Ilpo Koskinen Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement ....................................................................1025
Tobie Kerridge SECTION 6 DESIGN AND TRANSLATION Introduction: Design and Translation .................................................................................................................................................1039
Giovanni Baule and Elena Caratti Towards Translation Design A New Paradigm for Design Research .....................................................................................................1047
Giovanni Baule and Elena Caratti Design as translation activity: a semiotic overview .............................................................................................................................1061
Salvatore Zingale Word to Image – Image to Word The Contribution of Visual Communication to Understanding and Dialog ........................................1073
Michael Renner Perception, Meaning and Transmodal Design .....................................................................................................................................1089
Mathias Nordvall and Mattias Arvola The Ways of Synesthetic Translation: Design models for media accessibility .......................................................................................1101
Dina Riccò The narratives and the supports. Remediating Design Culture in the translation of transmedia artefacts. ...........................................1111
Matteo Ciastellardi and Derrick de Kerckhove Rules of Thumb: An Experiment in Contextual Transposition ..............................................................................................................1123
Damon Taylor, Monika Büscher, Lesley Murray, Chris Speed and Theodore Zamenopoulos Juxtaposing Chinese and Western Representational Principles: New Design Methods for Information Graphics in the Field of Intercultural Communication .............................................................................................................................................................1139
Ruedi Baur and Ulrike Felsing Elucidating perceptions of Australian and Chinese industrial design from the next generation of industrial designers .........................1163
Blair Kuys and Wenwen Zhang Translating picturebooks: Re-examining interlingual and intersemiotic translation.............................................................................1179
Anne Ketola Long Kesh: Site - Sign - Body...............................................................................................................................................................1191
Ola Ståhl
SECTION 7 DESIGN FOR DESIGN – THE INFLUENCE AND LEGACY OF JOHN HESKETT Introduction: Design for Design The Influence and Legacy of John Heskett .........................................................................................1205
Tore Kristensen and Sylvia Liu Doing qualitative studies, using statistical reasoning ..........................................................................................................................1211
Gorm Gabrielse and Tore Kristensen Design as Driver for Understanding Sustainability and Creating Value in the Fur Industry ...................................................................1223
Irene Alma Lønne, Else Skjold Design Awareness: Developing Design Capacity in Chinese Manufacturing Industry ...........................................................................1237
Sylvia Liu Design Expanding into Strategy: Evidence from Design Consulting Firms ............................................................................................1253
Suzan Boztepe – Volume 4 – SECTION 8 Design for Behaviour Change Introduction: Design for Behaviour Change ........................................................................................................................................1271
Kristina Niedderer, Geke Ludden, Rebecca Cain, Andrew Morris and Aija Freimane An alternative approach to influencing behaviour: Adapting Darnton’s Nine Principles framework for scaling up individual upcycling 1277
Kyungeun Sung, Tim Cooper and Sarah Kettley Assessment of the Co-creative Design Process ...................................................................................................................................1291
Pratik Vyas, Robert Young, Petia Sice and Nicholas Spencer The potential of Design for Behaviour Change to foster the transition to a circular economy ..............................................................1305
Laura Piscicelli and Geke Dina Simone Ludden Developing a theory-driven method to design for behaviour change: two case studies .......................................................................1323
Anita Van Essen, Sander Hermsen and Reint Jan Renes What a designer can change: a proposal for a categorisation of artefact-related aspects ....................................................................1339
Anneli Selvefors, Helena Strömberg and Sara Renström Exploring and communicating user diversity for behavioural change ..................................................................................................1357
Aykut Coskun and Cigdem Erbug How I learned to appreciate our tame social scientist: experiences in integrating design research and the behavioural sciences .........1375
Sander Hermsen, Remko van der Lugt, Sander Mulder and Reint Jan Renes A Design Approach for Risk Communication, the Case of Type 2 Diabetes...........................................................................................1390
Farzaneh Eftekhari and Tsai Lu Liu Metadesigning Design Research – How can designers collaboratively grow a research platform? .......................................................1412
Mathilda Tham, Anna-Karin Arvidsson, Mikael Blomqvist, Susanne Bonja, Sara Hyltén-Cavallius, Lena Håkansson, Miguel Salinas, Marie Sterte, Ola Ståhl, Tobias Svensén and Ole Victor SECTION 9 Design for Health, Wellbeing and Happiness Introduction: Design for Health, Wellbeing and Happiness .................................................................................................................1434
Rebecca Cain, Noemi Bitterman, Geke Ludden, Jamie Mackrill, Elif Ozcan, Ann Petermans and Carolina Escobar-Tello In the moment: designing for late stage dementia..............................................................................................................................1442
Cathy Treadaway, David Prytherch, Gail Kenning and Jac Fennell Design for Ageing-in-place: Evidence from Australia ...........................................................................................................................1458
Naseem Ahmadpour and Alen Keirnan Supporting healthy behaviour: A stages of change perspective on changing snacking habits of children .............................................1473
Geke D.S. Ludden and Laura H.J. de Ruijter Co-creating narratives: an approach to the design of interactive medical devices, informed by phenomenology .................................1487
Rowan Page and Mark Richardson A Design Primer for the Domestication of Health Technologies ..........................................................................................................1499
Paul Chamberlain and Claire Craig Disentangling complexity: a visualisation-led tool for healthcare associated infection training ...........................................................1515
Alastair S. Macdonald, David Loudon, Susan Wan and Colin Macduff Exploring Design for Happiness in the Home and Implications for Future Domestic Living ...................................................................1529
Emily Corrigan-Doyle, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Kathy Pui Ying Lo Using symbolic meaning as a means to design for happiness: The development of a card set for designers .........................................1553
Mafalda Casais, Ruth Mugge and Pieter M. A. Desmet Designs with benefits: hearth fire nights and bittersweet chores ........................................................................................................1573
Stella U. Boess and Anna E. Pohlmeyer Happy moments: A well-being driven design of a Car2Go ...................................................................................................................1589
Tessa Duste, Pieter Desmet and Elmer van Grondelle
SECTION 10 DESIGN FUTURES Games as Speculative Design: Allowing Players to Consider Alternate Presents and Plausible Futures ................................................1609
Paul Coulton, Dan Burnett and Adrian Gradinar An approach to future-oriented technology design – with a reflection on the role of the artefact .......................................................1627
Tiina Kymäläinen Future Product Ecosystems: discovering the value of connections ......................................................................................................1643
Tim Williams and Marianella Chamorro-Koc Vision Concepts within the landscape of design research ...................................................................................................................1659
Ricardo Mejia Sarmiento, Gert Pasman and Pieter Jan Stappers Visual conversations on urban futures. Participatory methods to design scenarios of liveable cities ...................................................1677
Serena Pollastri, Rachel Cooper, Nick Dunn and Chris Boyko – Volume 5 – SECTION 11 Design Innovation Management Introduction: Design Innovation Management ...................................................................................................................................1701
Rachel Cooper, Alex Williams, Qian Sun and Erik Bohemia Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK ........................................................................................................................................1709
Qian Sun Resourcing in Co-Design .....................................................................................................................................................................1725
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas .......................................................1739
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions .................................................................................1759
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process .......................................................................................1779
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong ................................................................................................1795
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social Enterprise ...................................................................................1811
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Moreno and Samantha Porter Fiction as a resource in participatory design .......................................................................................................................................1829
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen Space as organisational strategy ........................................................................................................................................................1845
Pia Storvang The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation ..................................................................................................1865
Mariana Fonseca Braga A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices ..............................................................................1883
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes .........................................................................................1905
Anders Haug How Companies adopt different Design approaches...........................................................................................................................1921
KwanMyung Kim Challenges in co-designing a building .................................................................................................................................................1937
Min Hi Chun SECTION 12 DESIGN PROCESS Form as an abstraction of mechanism ................................................................................................................................................1953
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process: An Ethnographic Study in Architectural Practice in Egypt .....................................1971
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm. .......................................................................................1987
Émeline Brulé and Frédéric Valentin Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas ............................................................2001
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation................................................................................2017
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking .......................................................................................................................2031
Lisa Mercer Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design? ...........................................................................................2045
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
Intuitive Interaction research – new directions and possible responses. .............................................................................................2065
Alethea Blackler and Vesna Popovic Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design ........................................................................................2077
Giuseppe Salvia, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a case study .................................................................2091
Maria Gabriela Hernandez Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination .....................................................................................................................2109
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations ...........................................................................2123
Piotr Michura, Stan Ruecker, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato – Volume 6 – SECTION 13 DESIGN INNOVATION FOR SOCIETY Introduction: Design Innovation for Society .......................................................................................................................................2143
Nynke Tromp and Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer The Challenges of Human-Centred Design in a Public Sector Innovation Context ................................................................................2149
Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer Activating the core economy by design ..............................................................................................................................................2165
Rebeca Torres Castanedo and Paul Micklethwaite On presenting a rich picture for stakeholder dialogue ........................................................................................................................2183
Abigail C. Durrant, Wendy Moncur, David S. Kirk, Diego Trujillo Pisanty and Kathryn Orzech Design and the Creation of Representational Artefacts for Interactive Social Problem Solving ............................................................2203
Richard Cooney, Nifeli Stewart, Tania Ivanka and Neal Haslem Appreciative Co-design: From Problem Solving to Strength-Based Re-authoring in Social Design ........................................................2221
Tasman Munro Design Tools for Enhanced New Product Development in Low Income Economies ..............................................................................2241
Timothy Whitehead, Mark Evans and Guy Bingham Redesigning governance – a call for design across three orders of governance....................................................................................2257
Tanja Rosenqvist and Cynthia Mitchell Involving stakeholders in cross-border regional design .......................................................................................................................2273
Annet Kempenaar From the specificity of the project in design to social innovation by design: a contribution .................................................................2287
Marie-Julie Catoir-Brisson, Stéphane Vial, Michela Deni and Thomas Watkin SECTION 14 EFFECTIVE INFORMATION DESIGN Introduction: Effective Information Design.........................................................................................................................................2303
Alison Black and Sue Walker Informing the design of mobile device-based patient instructions leaflets: the case of Fentanyl patches ............................................2309
Myrto Koumoundourou, Panayiotis Koutsabasis and Jenny S. Darzentas Design methods for meaning discovery: a patient-oriented health research case study ......................................................................2327
David Craib and Lorenzo Imbesi Expectations and prejudices usurp judgements of schematic map effectiveness .................................................................................2343
Maxwell J. Roberts and Ida C.N. Vaeng Data Visualisation Does Political Things .............................................................................................................................................2361
Joanna Boehnert The information designer through the lens of design for learning .......................................................................................................2381
Eden Potter A user centred approach to developing an actionable visualisation for ‘balance health’ .....................................................................2393
Shruti Grover, Simon Johnson, Ross Atkin and Chris Mcginley SECTION 15 Design Thinking Introduction: Design Thinking ............................................................................................................................................................2417
Seda Yilmaz, Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness and Tejas Dhadphale From Technology-Driven to Experience-Driven Innovation: A Case from the Aviation Industry using VIP ............................................2425
Wan-Jen Jenny Tsay and Christine de Lille Critically Exploring the Development of a Conceptual Framework for Building Innovative Brands .......................................................2447
Xinya You and David Hands United We Stand: A Critique of the Design Thinking Approach in Interdisciplinary Innovation ............................................................2465
Fiona Maciver, Julian Malins, Julia Kantorovitch and Aggelos Liapis
Designing Creative Destruction ..........................................................................................................................................................2483
Ashley Hall Blending Hard and Soft Design via Thematic Analysis .........................................................................................................................2495
Vasilije Kokotovich and Kees Dorst2495 The cycle of interdisciplinary learning and theory-solution building in design research .......................................................................2507
Young-ae Hahn Don’t Look Back: The Paradoxical Role of Recording in the Fashion Design Process ............................................................................2521
Helen McGilp, Claudia Eckert and Christopher F Earl Contrasting similarities and differences between academia and industry: evaluating processes used for product development..........2535
Nathan Kotlarewski, Christine Thong, Blair Kuys and Evan Danahay What is the Nature and Intended Use of Design Methods? .................................................................................................................2551
Colin M. Gray Becoming a More User-Centred Organization: A Design Tool to Support Transformation ....................................................................2565
Lennart Kaland and Christine de Lille – Volume 7 – SECTION 16 DESIGN RESEARCH – HISTORY, THEORY, PRACTICE: HISTORIES FOR FUTURE-FOCUSED THINKING Introduction: Design Research – History, Theory, Practice: Histories for Future-Focused Thinking .......................................................2585
Harriet Atkinson and Maya Rae Oppenheimer The Structure of Design Processes: ideal and reality in Bruce Archer’s 1968 doctoral thesis ................................................................2593
Stephen Boyd Davis and Simone Gristwood Closing the circle ................................................................................................................................................................................2613
Douglas Tomkin Re-integrating Design Education: Lessons from History ......................................................................................................................2627
Peter A. Hall (Re)working the Past, (Dis)playing the Future. Italy: The New Domestic Landscape at MoMA, 1972 ...................................................2639
Ingrid Halland Rashidi Recommendations to rebuild the body of feminist work in industrial design ......................................................................................2655
Isabel Prochner and Anne Marchand Design practice and design research: finally together? .......................................................................................................................2669
Kees Dorst Design Research is Alive and Kicking… ................................................................................................................................................2679
Paul A. Rodgers and Joyce S.R. Yee Reverse Innovation: How Has Design in the Greater Pearl River Delta Region Changed the World ......................................................2701
Ningchang Zhou and Tao Huang Beautiful Nerds: Growing a rigorous design research dialogue in the Irish context ..............................................................................2711
Adam de Eyto Carmel Maher, Mark Hadfield and Maggie Hutchings Design Research in the East – at Universities and the Board of Industrial Design of the GDR between the 1960s and 1990 ..................2723
Sylvia Wölfel and Christian Wölfel International Norms and Local Design Research: ICSID and the Promotion of Industrial Design in Latin America, 1970-1979 ...............2739
Tania Messell SECTION 17 DESIGN-ING AND CREATIVE PHILOSOPHIES Introduction: Design-ing and Creative Philosophies ............................................................................................................................2757
Betti Marenko Probing the future by anticipative design acts ....................................................................................................................................2761
Annelies De Smet and Nel Janssens Making polychronic objects for a networked society ..........................................................................................................................2795
Jane Norris Responsibility in design: applying the philosophy of Gilbert Simondon ...............................................................................................2809
Sander Mulder Space as a Becoming: Fresh Water Expo Pavilion as a Creative Practice for an Architecture to Come ..................................................2825
Emine Görgül The Foam: a Possible Model for the Motion Graphic Design ...............................................................................................................2837
Anamaria Galeotti and Clice Mazzilli Experience – A Central Concept in Design and its Roots in the History of Science ................................................................................2869
Johannes Uhlmann, Christian Wölfel and Jens Krzywinski
SECTION 18 EMBODIED MAKING AND LEARNING Introduction: Embodied Making and Learning ....................................................................................................................................2889
Marte S. Gulliksen, Camilla Groth, Maarit Mäkelä and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen The role of sensory experiences and emotions in craft practice ..........................................................................................................2895
Camilla Groth Learning to learn: What can be learned from first-hand experience with materials? ...........................................................................2911
Biljana C. Fredriksen Why making matters—developing an interdisciplinary research project on how embodied making may contribute to learning ..........2925
Marte S. Gulliksen Physiological measurements of drawing and forming activities ..........................................................................................................2941
Marianne Leinikka, Minna Huotilainen, Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Camilla Groth, Mimmu Rankanen and Maarit Mäkelä Code, Decode, Recode: Constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing knowledge through making ................................................2959
Anna Piper Experience Labs: co-creating health and care innovations using design tools and artefacts .................................................................2965
Tara French, Gemma Teal and Sneha Raman – Volume 8 – SECTION 19 DESIGN FOR TANGIBLE, EMBEDDED AND NETWORKED TECHNOLOGIES Introduction: Design for Tangible, Embedded and Networked Technologies .......................................................................................2985
Sarah Kettley and Anne Cranny-Francis Designing from, with and by Data: Introducing the ablative framework..............................................................................................2991
Chris Speed and Jon Oberlander Feel it! See it! Hear it! Probing Tangible Interaction and Data Representational Modality ...................................................................3005
Trevor Hogan and Eva Hornecker Designing Information Feedback within Hybrid Physical/Digital Interactions ......................................................................................3019
David Gullick and Paul Coulton Harnessing the Digital Records of Everyday Things .............................................................................................................................3033
Dimitrios Darzentas, Adrian Hazzard, Michael Brown, Martin Flintham and Steve Benford A Toaster For Life: Using Design Fiction To Facilitate Discussion On The Creation Of A Sustainable Internet of Things .........................3049
Michael Stead Making Service Design in a Digital Business ........................................................................................................................................3069
Piia Rytilahti, Simo Rontti, Titta Jylkäs, Mira Alhonsuo, Hanna-Riina Vuontisjärvi and Laura Laivamaa Ad Hoc Pairings: Semantic Relationships and Mobile Devices .............................................................................................................3085
Jason O. Germany Serious Play Strategies in the Design of Kinetic and Wearable Devices................................................................................................3103
Lois Frankel and Ellen Hrinivich Tangibility in e-textile participatory service design with mental health participants............................................................................3121
Sarah Kettley, Anna Sadkowska and Rachel Lucas Wearable Sensory Devices for Children in Play Areas .........................................................................................................................3133
Cai-Ru Liao, Wen-Huei Chou and Chung-Wen Hung Intuitive Interaction in a Mixed Reality System ..................................................................................................................................3149
Shital Desai, Alethea Blackler and Vesna Popovic From nano to macro: material inspiration within ubiquitous computing research...............................................................................3165
Isabel Paiva SECTION 20 Experiential Knowledge Introduction: Experiential Knowledge ................................................................................................................................................3177
Nithikul Nimkulrat Double-loop reflective practice as an approach to understanding knowledge and experience.............................................................3181
John Gribbin, Mersha Aftab, Robert Young and Sumin Park Designing “little worlds” in Walnut Park: How architects adopted an ethnographic case study on living with dementia ......................3199
Valerie Van der Linden, Iris Van Steenwinkel, Hua Dong and Ann Heylighen Bonding through Designing; how a participatory approach to videography can catalyse an emotive and reflective dialogue with young people ...............................................................................................................................................................................................3213
Marianne McAra Capturing architects’ designerly ways of knowing about users: Exploring an ethnographic research approach ....................................3229
Valerie Van der Linden, Hua Dong and Ann Heylighen SECTION 21
INCLUSIVE DESIGN Introduction: Inclusive Design ............................................................................................................................................................3247
Hua Dong ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Designing for older people: But who is an older person? ....................................................................................................................3251
Raghavendra Reddy Gudur, Alethea Blackler, Vesna Popovic and Doug Mahar Towards designing inclusion: insights from a user data collection study in China ................................................................................3263
Weining Ning and Hua Dong ‘Difficult’ packaging for older Chinese adults ......................................................................................................................................3279
Xuezi Ma, Hua Dong Crafted with Care: Reflections from co-designing wearable technologies with care home residents....................................................3295
Christopher Sze Chong Lim and Sara Nevay To Shed Some Light on Empowerment: Towards Designing for Embodied Functionality .....................................................................3313
Jelle van Dijk and Fenne Verhoeven Measuring Product-Related Stigma in Design .....................................................................................................................................3329
Kristof Vaes, Pieter Jan Stappers and Achiel Standaert Towards more culturally inclusive communication design practices: exploring creative participation between non-Indigenous and Indigenous people in Australia ...........................................................................................................................................................3349
Nicola St John Designing meaningful vehicle for older users: culture, technology, and experience.............................................................................3373
Chao Zhao, Vesna Popovic and Xiaobo Lu Towards Innovative and Inclusive Architecture ..................................................................................................................................3393
Sidse Grangaard Hidden public spaces: when a university campus becomes a place for communities ...........................................................................3407
Davide Fassi, Laura Galluzzo and Liat Rogel – Volume 9 – SECTION 22 FOOD AND EATING DESIGN Introduction: Food and Eating Design.................................................................................................................................................3427
Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein Designing with Empathy: Implications for Food Design.......................................................................................................................3435
Hafdís Sunna Hermannsdóttir, Cecilie Dawes, Hanne Gideonsen and Eva De Moor Designing for sustainability: a dialogue-based approach to the design of food packaging experiences. ...............................................3449
Zoi Stergiadou, Jenny Darzentas and Spyros Bofylatos Towards a sensory congruent beer bottle: Consumer associations between beer brands, flavours, and bottle designs .......................3467
Anna Fenko, Sanne Heiltjes and Lianne van den Berg-Weitzel SECTION 23 OBJECTS, PRACTICES, EXPERIENCES AND NETWORKS Introduction: Objects, Practices, Experiences and Networks ...............................................................................................................3479
Tom Fisher and Lorraine Gamman Stories in a Beespoon: Exploring Future Folklore through Design ........................................................................................................3485
Deborah Maxwell, Liz Edwards, Toby Pillatt and Niamh Downing Uber and Language/Action Theory .....................................................................................................................................................3503
Michael Arnold Mages Emotional Fit: Developing a new fashion design methodology for mature women..............................................................................3521
Katherine Townsend, Ania Sadkowska and Juliana Sissons From Afterthought to Precondition: re-engaging Design Ethics from Technology, Sustainability, and Responsibility ...........................3539
Jeffrey Chan Design for Resourceful Ageing: Intervening in the Ethics of Gerontechnology .....................................................................................3553
Elisa Giaccardi, Lenneke Kuijer and Louis Neven SECTION 24 REFRAMING THE PARADOX – EXAMINING THE INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN AND DESIGN FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR Introduction: Reframing the Paradox – Evidence-based Design and Design for the Public Sector.........................................................3569
Luke Feast Open Practices: lessons from co-design of public services for behaviour change .................................................................................3573
Simon O’Rafferty, Adam DeEyto and Huw Lewis Capturing the “How”: Showing the value of co-design through creative evaluation ............................................................................3591
Arthi Kanchana Manohar, Madeline Smith and Mirian Calvo Design in the Time of Policy Problems ................................................................................................................................................3605
Lucy Kimbell The introduction of design to policymaking: Policy Lab and the UK government .................................................................................3619
Jocelyn Bailey and Peter Lloyd Problematizing Evidence-Based Design: A Case Study of Designing for Services in the Finnish Government ........................................3635
Helena Sustar and Luke Feast
Designed Engagement .......................................................................................................................................................................3653
Gemma Teal and Tara French Public design and social innovation: Learning from applied research ..................................................................................................3669
Caroline Gagnon and Valérie Côté Design as analysis: examining the use of precedents in parliamentary debate. ...................................................................................3687
Darren Umney, Christopher Earl and Peter Lloyd Exposing charities to design-led approaches through design research. ...............................................................................................3705
Laura Warwick and Robert Djaelani – Volume 10 – SECTION 25 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Introduction: Sustainable Design .......................................................................................................................................................3725
Rhoda Trimingham Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review ..............................................................................................................................3731
Fabrizio Ceschin and Idil Gaziulusoy Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, present and future...................................................................................................3755
Robin Roy Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘By-Products’? A Systems Thinking Approach ...................................................................3771
John Darzentas and Jenny Darzentas Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP: a strategic design tool ...............................3785
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges. ...........................................................................3815
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry ....................................................3831
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill Framing Complexity in Design through theories of Social Practice and Structuration: A comparative case study of urban cycling ........3847
Tobias Barnes Hofmeister and Martina Keitsch Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education ....................................................................................................................3861
Andrea Quam Design of resilient consumer products ...............................................................................................................................................3873
Anders Haug Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design ..................................................................................................3889
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools ............................................................................3913
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices ............................................................................................................3929
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services: diagnosis and conceptualisation ................................................3943
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework .......................................................3961
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability ...................................................................................3983
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima SECTION 26 THE POLITICS OF COMMONING AND DESIGN Introduction: The Politics of Commoning and Design ..........................................................................................................................4005
Bianca Elzenbaumer, Valeria Graziano and Kim Trogal Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice? .............................................................................4015
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence ..............................................................................................................................4029
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal ...........................................................4045
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota From Rules in Use to Culture in Use – Commoning and Infrastructuring Practices in an Open Cultural Movement ...............................4063
Sanna Marttila
Index of Authors ………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4080
This page is intentionally left blank
This page is intentionally left blank
Editorial DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.651
The 50th Anniversary conference of the Design Research Society is a special event at an interesting time for Design Research. The Design Research Society was formed in 1966 following the Conference on Design Methods held at Imperial College London in 1962. In the lead up to DRS2016 we contacted the secretary to the 1962 conference, Peter Slann, who now lives in Scotland, and who sent us the original reel-to-reel audio tape recordings of that conference. Listening to those tapes it is striking not only how similar some of the discussions are about design and design research, but also how much has changed. In 1962 every voice is a male British voice. One comment at the end of the conference stands out as significant. Thanking people for coming to the conference and looking towards the future at the end of the closing session, John Page, then Professor of Building Science at Sheffield University, asks the audience three questions (the quote is verbatim): “if one agrees that there are bodies of knowledge that have been raised here, which need further exploration – particularly a case in point would be the terminology of design – is there any point in trying to get some kind of inter-disciplinary working party going on these problems? In this question of disciplines, is there any machinery or any way of arranging for an interchange of information between specialists and people working at Universities? Lastly, is there any point in making the whole thing more of a formal entity, a society, or something of that kind?”
Fifty years later it is clear that there was a point. The DRS as it exists today can trace its origins to the affirmation of that last question in 1962, and the ‘some kind of interdisciplinary working party’ that Design Research has become owes its identity to that 1960’s future-focused thinking. Since the Conference on Design Methods in 1962 many Design Research conferences have been held, with the DRS often as a key organiser. Certainly in the earlier days, defined subfields of research originated from these conferences. Design Participation in 1971 started the participative design movement that has grown into present day co-design. Design for Need, held in 1976, and taking a global view of the population, started both sustainable and inclusive design, and Design Policy held in 1980 introduced a much needed social, political and international dimension to the design research field as Design itself lurched into the consumerist 80s. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Peter Lloyd
From almost every conference comes a thread that leads to the present day, so the fiftieth anniversary conference represents a point to gather these threads together, see how they complement and blend with one another, and consider what kind of textile they might weave in the coming years. Indeed, the early advice that many gave was not to spend too much time looking back and to concentrate on the future. For DRS2016, as well as the Design Research field more generally, the increasing number of PhD researchers is a sign that this future is set to be a healthy one. A significant number of papers in these proceedings are the result of doctoral research projects and organisations like PhD by Design, who had a strong presence at DRS2016, ensure that today’s PhD Researchers will become tomorrow’s Design Research leaders. The DRS Conferences have always looked to develop new formats for people to engage with one another, over and above the standard paper presentation. The 1973 Design Activities conference aimed at: “the provision of an extension of media forms beyond the normal ‘verbalized’ media of the average conference with the idea that such extensions were significant contributions to dialectical form, and not just ‘entertainments’.”
The 2014 DRS conference, in Sweden, continued that tradition by introducing ‘Conversations’ and ‘Debates’ alongside the more traditional academic paper presentation. It feels entirely appropriate that the field of Design Research is at the forefront of conference design, appropriating new technologies in developing more productive formats for discussion, networking, and presentation. And rightly so, because in an age when research papers and keynote presentations are available online we need to ask whether a conference, with all the travel, expense, and carbon involved, is still the most effective way of energizing and invigorating a research field. DRS2016 is no exception and continues this ongoing conference prototyping activity. We have tried to develop a discursive conference that leans both towards the academic, in research papers, but also towards the practical in Conversations and Workshops. So this is a conference that presents existing research, projects, and discussions not as fixed end points, but as ongoing dialogue. To do that we have tried to balance the online conference with the offline one, and the ephemeral with the enduring. Partly this approach helps to provide a continued legacy for the conference, but it also helps to include as many people as possible in (re)directing the dialogical flow of research activity. As an organising committee we met in January 2015 to talk about key questions, conference themes and conference design. From that discussion the three individual words of the DRS – Design, Research, and Society – were felt to define an interesting area for a conference; one that was about the practice and doing of design but also about design’s societal impact and the moderating role that research plays between the two. Design + Research + Society perhaps represents a larger area than that of the Design Research Society, but as these proceedings demonstrate the appetite is clearly apparent for Design Research to embrace ever-wider concerns.
ii
Editorial
The underlying premise, however, was that 50 years of design research has provided us with a sound understanding of design and a solid foundation upon which to build. The interesting questions, then, appeared to us as not so much how we do more of the same – though that of course has its place – but in how we use what we now know. Hence the three broad questions that the papers in these conference proceedings respond to: How can design research help frame and address the societal problems that face us? How can design research be a creative and active force for rethinking ideas about Design? How can design research shape our lives in more responsible, meaningful, and open ways? The DRS has a number of established Special Interest Groups (SIGs) which the organising committee thought important to prioritise but we also wanted to find a way to add additional emerging and complementary research themes to these. This resulted in a call for additional themes in June 2015 and a selection process that resulted in 15 further themes (from 25 proposals) alongside the 9 themes represented by the Special Interest Groups. The idea of a ‘conference of conferences’ began to emerge, with theme papers managed by subchairs, but consistency of peer-review overseen by a central review committee across all themes. The systems currently available for managing paper submission, in the case of DRS2016 the excellent ConfTool system, now provide comprehensive integrative platforms to conduct sophisticated submission, peer-review, rebuttal, discussion, communication, and programming of papers, which means we can be more confident than ever about the academic quality of the final papers accepted for DRS2016. In total we received just under 500 paper submissions all of which were reviewed by two, and sometimes three reviewers, as well as being managed by theme chairs. In total 939 reviews were written by 290 reviewers with 200 papers being accepted, and a further 40 accepted following revision. This represents an acceptance rate of 49%. The 240 papers in these proceedings have been grouped under 26 themes, 23 of which have been closely managed and developed by theme chairs (the other 3 themes derived from an Open Call). In these proceedings you will find an introduction to each theme by the relevant chair(s), outlining the background to the theme and putting the papers that were finally accepted and published into a wider context. Nine of the themes are the result of calls from the Design Research Society Special Interest Groups, which are active throughout the year and that report to the DRS council regularly. Many Special Interest Groups hold their own conferences, supported by the DRS, so the papers in these proceedings, responding to the overall theme of Future-focused Thinking, should be seen as a sample of those specialisms. Fittingly for a 50th Anniversary conference there is a strong historical thread of papers – the field of Design Research now becomes a subject of historical study in the themes of Histories for Future-focused Thinking, 50 Years of Design Research, and Design for Design: The
iii
Peter Lloyd
Influence and Legacy of John Heskett. This is a useful development, and shows the maturity of the field now, with early work not just a familiar citation in reference lists, but something that can be looked at in a wider cultural and historical context. Many of the new themes bring a more critical and speculative approach to Design Research, framing research questions and practices in ways other than what some see as more ‘traditional’ evidence-based approaches to research. These are papers that argue for a particular position or approach to understanding design or practice. Examples of these themes include Aesthetics, Cosmopolitics & Design; Design-ing and Creative Philosophies, and Reframing the Paradox: Evidence-based Design and Design for the Public Sector. The emerging area of Social Design is well represented in the areas of Design Innovation for Society and The Politics of Commoning and Design and shows the importance of Design Research to discussing and achieving concrete outcomes for social good. The idea and limits of Design and Design Research are explored in many themes, but in particular Objects, Experiences, Practices & Networks; Design and Translation; and Design for Tangible, Embedded and Networked Technologies take a more systemic view of design, placing it within a network of activities and technologies. In contrast to this other themes focus much more on the individual and collective experience of designers and others involved in the process of design, for example: Experiential Knowledge; Embodied Making and Learning; Aesthetic Pleasure in Design; and Food and Eating Design. Of course there are themes that have been ever-present in DRS, and in other Design Research, conferences – understanding design process and the nature of design knowledge are the subject of the Design Epistemology and Design Process themes. The practical impacts that design can have on all types of organisations are explored in Design Thinking, an area of continued and increasing interest, and Design Innovation Management. Design Education and Learning, now with its own large biennial conference series, was the most popular theme for DRS2016, with 28 papers accepted from 53 submissions. Finally, there are a set of well-developed themes, organised as part of DRS Special Interest Groups, that broadly explore the welfare of others both in a small and large sense embracing ideas of person-centredness, responsibility and ethics. These themes include Design for Health, Wellbeing, and Happiness; Inclusive Design; and finally Sustainable Design. As in any research field the definitions between sub-areas often blur and overlap, and there are themes that contradict and conflict with one another, strongly arguing against a particular approach or theoretical grounding of another area. The DRS2016 keynote debates were designed to explore some of these issues and fault lines but more generally this should be taken as a sign of health and maturity. For many years we have heard that Design Research is a new field, still finding its feet, but as an organising committee we think the definition and extent of the themes in these proceedings demonstrate precisely the opposite. In Fifty years we have built up a strong and diverse research field that is widely applicable, broadly inclusive and, in 2016, more relevant than ever.
iv
Editorial
There is a sense in which design research sits at the crux of a false dichotomy; between on the one hand research in a ‘pure’ form (which values objectivity, subjectivity, experiment, discourse, history, analysis) and on the other the active engagement in shaping future forms by suggestion, prototype, speculation, practice, and intervention at all levels, from the molecular to the political, from the anthropological to the computational. In an increasingly fragmented and atomised world Design Research is a field which reveals the falsehood of the dichotomy. It is a field that collectively links disciplines, audiences, and technologies in a critical but productive way. The design of a conference – with its implicit value systems, partiality to statistical analysis, but with an emergent structure and representation – is no bad example of a future-focused design research that shares what knowledge is known and explores what knowledge is possible. Finally, we would like to thank all people – the local organisation, the international programme and review committee, and all the reviewers – involved in organising DRS2016 and who have contributed to such a huge collective effort. The valuable time that has been given in helping to shape and deliver the conference has been very much appreciated. Thanks should also go to the Design Research Society, for supporting the conference so effectively; to the Royal College of Art and Imperial College London for providing time and resources as partner Universities; and to the University of Brighton, particularly the College of Arts and Humanities, for enabling the early vision of a 50 th Anniversary DRS conference to be fulfilled. Peter Lloyd DRS2016 Conference Chair Vice Chair of the DRS Brighton, UK
v
Peter Lloyd
Previous Design Research Society and Associated Conferences 1962 Conference on Design Methods, London, UK 1964 The Teaching of Engineering Design, Scarborough, UK 1965 The Design Method, Birmingham, UK 1967 Design Methods in Architecture, Portsmouth, UK 1971 Design Participation, Manchester, UK 1972 Design and Behaviour, Birmingham, UK 1973 The Design Activity, London, UK 1974 Problem Identification for Design, Manchester, UK 1976 Design for Need, London, UK 1976 Changing Design, Portsmouth, UK 1978 Architectural Design, Istanbul, Turkey 1980 Design Science Method, Portsmouth, UK 1982 Design Policy, London, UK 1984 The Role of the Designer, Bath, UK 1998 Quantum Leap, Birmingham, UK 1999 CoDesigning, Coventry, UK 2002 Common Ground, London, UK 2004 Futureground, Melbourne, Australia 2006 Wonderground, Lisbon, Portugal 2008 Undisciplined!, Sheffield, UK 2010 Design And Complexity, Montreal, Canada 2012 Uncertainty, Contradiction and Value, Bangkok, Thailand 2014 Design's Big Debates, Umea, Sweden
vi
Volume 5
This page is left intentionally blank
SECTION 11 DESIGN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
This page is left intentionally blank
Introduction: Design Innovation Management Rachel Coopera, Alex Williamsb, Qian Sunc and Erik Bohemiad a
Lancaster University Kingston University b Royal College of Art b Loughborough University, London DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.629 b
1. Introduction The aim of this section organised by the Design Innovation Management Special Interest Group with themed track on the Design Policy was to explore Changing Design Policies and Practices. Design has played a vital role in the development of economies, societies and cultures globally. Governments in nations – such as Korea, Denmark and the UK – have long recognised the contribution design makes towards success and have employed a wide variety of approaches to create environments conducive to design. Different national contexts have called for differing tactics to encourage companies to use design more strategically but have met barriers. Yet research into those policies (defined here as ‘political visions into programmes and actions to develop national design resources and encourage their effective use’ (Raulik-Murphy, 2014) and their ability to unlock the potential of the design industry to respond to social challenges is both recent and scant. This section starts by identifying and critically examining national and regional design policies, which guide the interaction of design capacities, seen as a stimulus for economic and social change. Looking to the future, there is significant interest in how design policies may be instrumental in catalysing national responses to global challenges re: poverty, ageing and health; conflict and security; climate change; and in the ‘movement of everything’ (Cooper, 2015). The section then moves on to consider how design approaches address this. One of the triggers for, and consequences of, this change is an incorporation of co-design as a process in which designers and users collaborate as ‘equals’ to develop innovative solutions. The UK Design Council is, for example, advocating the use of co-design methods to support the
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Rachel Cooper, Alex Williams, Qian Sun and Erik Bohemia
development of practical innovative solutions to social problems such as increased cost of elderly care or tackling child poverty (Design Council, n.d.). The involvement of users in developing solutions acknowledges that their take up is dependent on the ways users make and negotiate meanings of objects and services (Vossoughi, 2013). Research suggests that a move to incorporate co-design processes will have significant implications on future designers’ and researchers’ practices (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). So we proposed to explore the following question: how we design, what we design, and who designs? This leads to questions as to how we best facilitate, resource, and grow such cooperative practices, in both the cultural and organizational senses. This leads us consider issues of support, co-location and clustering, and ultimately back to consideration of policy, and the extent to which this is/should be top-down (market failure driven) or bottom-up (ecological). Authors contributing to this section consider points such as: Emergent trends in design policy Understanding how such policies might be embedded within the private, public and service sectors The value of design, its dimensions and influences, and how differing design approaches address this An exploration of sense-making and meaning within innovation Evaluations of participatory methods which facilitate co-design processes The challenges for stakeholders within co-design, and the support needs of local communities and start-ups The significance of resourcing and clustering, and the implications best practice has on policy formation. Unpacking this discourse in more detail, the papers are presented under four sub-themes: emergent thinking in design policy; the value of design and how design approaches might address this; the emergence of co-design in addressing social challenges; and the significance of resourcing and clustering.
2. Emergent Thinking in Design Policy: Wherefore Leadership? Sun in her paper titled ‘Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK’ investigates the key organisations involved in developing and delivering policies that impact on design in the UK by reviewing their missions and strategies; from these, she identifies opportunities, challenges and trends. She argues that the proliferation of national design promotion bodies has changed the landscape of design agendas at national, international and organizational levels, particularly where design is considered as an important tool for achieving competitive advantage. A lack of understanding as to how design adds value at both organisational and national levels has necessitated government interventions informing citizens, companies and public
1702
Introduction: Design Innovation Management
organisations about its benefits. However, her paper argues that these interventions should address systemic failures rather than market failures, and calls for a holistic approach to understanding the system of design policy to be adopted. With the shift away from a ‘design-centric’ approach, there is a need to integrate design into wider innovation systems. Moreover, with substantial growth in interest in design for social and public challenges, there needs to be stronger design leadership in central government. This can be seen in the UK in the increase in design capacity, and commissioning of further, across government through training, aggregation of quality information, and building of capabilities in the design sector itself to respond to such challenges. She cites the emergence of the UK’s Policy Lab as marking a fundamental shift from ‘policy for design’ to ’design of policy’, in which design principles and methods are piloted re improving the ‘pace, quality and deliverability of policy in the Civil Service’. Amongst the trends she identifies, three resonate with the discourse presented here – the importance of championing design; the need to integrate design within innovation (albeit not from a design-centric approach); and the growing significance of design for social challenges. Whicher and Swiatek paper ‘Past and Future of Design Policy’ develop this theme, identifying that Design is progressively moving up the policy agenda at all levels of governance – local, regional, national and European - with the integration of design into innovation policies and smart specialization strategies, whilst local government are building design capacity by appointing design managers to innovate public services. Terminology has evolved from ‘Design Infrastructures’ through ‘National Design Systems’ to ‘Design Ecosystems’, marking a shift from top-down regulatory environments to ones in which design-driven innovation is instigated from the bottom-up. They propose a Design Innovation Ecosystem construct to examine the interplay between the elements of the system and inform tangible policy action. They perceive design support programmes as becoming more specialised; but signal that design promotion needs to be recognised as a strategic investment, and design adopted as a method for inclusive policy-making. Nonetheless, they recognise that more needs to be done to capture the economic and social value of design, as the associated data is still limited and fragmented.
3. The Value of Design and How Design Processes Address This Bragain the paper titled ‘The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation’ seeks to clarify the value of design, its dimensions and its variables from a fragmented literature, which includes economics, marketing, business, management, value engineering, design domains, social and environmental sustainability. She identifies the difficulty in isolating design from other variables that impact firms’ performance, particularly as the measurable results of design only become more evident through time. Assuring the impact for innovative design is an incoherent approach, as is market behaviour forecasting, particularly for disruptive innovations unfamiliar to users. Given that Design Management seeks to identify patterns of ‘good’ design, past studies have explored organizational culture
1703
Rachel Cooper, Alex Williams, Qian Sun and Erik Bohemia
in design-centric firms and the cultural change in perspective as they climb the ‘design ladder’. However, it is not clear when and how a non-design-oriented company develops the capacity to absorb design. What are the preconditions/prior knowledge to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it? In addressing this, Braga identifies a need to deal with the creative process and tacit knowledge, rather than focusing solely on measurable and visible assets. Haug’s paper ‘Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes’ partially approaches this by focusing on the importance of coordinating product design with production and marketing processes. To this end, he offers a framework that connects product design to four central processes related to the production and consumption of products and their communication, through a study of 16 empirical examples of commercial failures caused by inadequate alignment of the design function. In a related approach Kim’s paper ‘How Companies adopt different Design approaches’ explores different types of combined design approach that companies adopt across industrial design and engineering design. He identifies the inherent conflicts between the two groups, due largely to the constraints they impose, and hypothesises the need for a cooperative approach. In contrast, Chatzakis et al’s paper ‘A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices’ introduce Activity Theory and propose a multilevel framework which aims to reveal obscure practices. Their premise is that organisations struggle to sustain an organic and long-term growth and resilience in increasingly hypercompetitive market conditions because they lack agile practices which better leverage their knowledge. Activity Theory provides a means of analysing social and contextual activities within practice; exploring the roles and activities of members within the NPD process identifies the key influencing factors, and hence where decision-making and value lie. Thurgood and Lulham in their paper ‘Exploring Framing and Meaning Making over the Design Innovation Process’ take an alternative, more-semantic approach, focusing on innovation within (or the initiation of new product) meaning and how this results in sustained changes in market behaviour. They articulate a framing model which provides insights into how understanding of problems emerges, meaning changes arise, and what experiences and forms they take. They speculate that the capacity to construct meaning creates new opportunities for a more integrated understanding of the whole innovation process. Knutz’s paper ‘Fiction as a Resource in Participatory Design’ reverses this association, exploring the relation between participation and fiction. Her study presents three case examples of participatory prototyping that make use of play or games as a means of engaging participants in make-believe to create a design space. Her case studies provide particular insight into areas where such fiction is invaluable: gaining more direct userinvolvement in product development; stimulating critical reflection; and in increasing multistakeholder collaboration.
1704
Introduction: Design Innovation Management
4. The Emergence of Collaboration and Co-Design (in addressing public and social challenges) Developing the participatory theme further, Broadley et al’s ‘From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas’ suggest that design-led innovation interventions are predicated on establishing complex disciplinary collaborations, and reflect on the effectiveness of different co-design methods to support knowledge exchange, drawing on data collected from sandpit style events. They propose that a more nuanced range of methods, tools and techniques can strengthen multidisciplinary engagement and participation, arguing that such approaches can be enhanced by designers and researchers’ shifting focus from co-design methods to supporting collaborative mind-sets in knowledge exchange. Sune Gudiksen et al‘s paper ‘Bridging Service Design with Integrated Co-design Decisionmaker Interventions’ presents a similar treaties, developing the idea of what co-design is capable of. This evolves into something that not only encompasses product and service design, but challenges organisational culture and the mind-set of decision-makers, resulting in more successful embedding of a project within the organisation. Their paper investigates how the development of a new service design project - through integrated co-design interventions - has created a shift in mind-set and viewpoints, enabling design to intervene in and, significantly, gain influence over differing organisational levels. Chun’s paper ‘Challenges in Co-designing a Building’ also explores the challenges faced in implementing co-design approaches, this time in relation to building design. However, Chun raises concerns as this radically changes how we design, what we design, and who designs. The paper compares participatory approaches to others, and identifies a number of challenges in co-designing a building, including: changes in the role of actors in the design process, and issues around managing conflicts between the interests of different users in a multi-user building project. If co-design approaches are to be successful, she argues that architects need to be able to effectively integrate users’ lived experience. Moreover, she questions what kind of skills architects need to successfully co-design a building with users and how that differs to that required in more traditional approaches. In contrast, Ksenija Kuzmina et al’s paper ‘An Exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social Enterprise’ investigate the use of (Service) Design Jams as a means of fostering Social Enterprise – recognised as the building blocks of local economies and communities within the UK. Whilst ‘jams’ (or co-creation sessions) typically enable individuals to free-think - in the case studied, these are used to identify socially and environmentally focused issues and formulate service solutions - there is a recognition that these solutions require significant nurturing and support. These are crucially reliant on individuals who are already willing to engage in entrepreneurial activity, but few approaches cultivate the willingness and motivation of these individuals to engage. Against this backdrop, the authors propose the combination of collaborative design activity with enterprise workshops as a means of inspiring entrepreneurship.
1705
Rachel Cooper, Alex Williams, Qian Sun and Erik Bohemia
This effectively leads our discourse to considerations of resourcing, support infrastructures, and ultimately, clustering.
5. The Significance of Resourcing and Clustering Ylirisku et al’s paper titled ‘Resourcing in Co-Design’ introduce the concept of ‘resourcing’ to describe the fundamental activity of negotiating the use of what is available for co-design, particularly in unfolding of co-design in complex responsive conversations. The authors focus on how co-designers make use of what is available, and hence, how these are turned into resources. They assert how integral design facilitation is to the unfolding action of codesigning, arguing that the quality of bringing together different stakeholders relies on both the facilitator’s and participants’ abilities to diversify resourcing - using different kinds of tools for guiding attention, attuning response-sensitivities, structuring presumptions and supporting the generation of ideas. The key issue here is how may facilitators prepare ‘greater relevance’ for an emerging topic? Storvang’s paper ‘Space as Organisational Strategy’ looks at this issue from a spatial perspective, identifying a strong link between physical space and its ability to enhance creativity, create change and stimulate interaction. Her investigation explores how space can support organisational strategy, particularly in terms of how space can influence people. The challenge in generating interaction and new relations is an interesting one - with implications for design, design management, management and organisational learning. The theme concludes with a paper by Tsang et al’s paper ‘The Making of a Sustainable Cultural and Creative Cluster in Hong Kong’, which reviews their experiences in clustering organisations rather than individuals. They consider the setup of creative clusters, against a backdrop in which governments often follow prescriptive models imitating successful practices in other regions, but failing to sustain these clusters. Their paper endeavours to identify the fundamental factors in developing a sustainable cluster in a densely populated city. Rather than considering spatial setting as the most significant factor, they argue that the formation of community and creative happening are integral factors for creative production. They develop a three factor model for the evaluation of sustainable clusters, evaluated through an empirical case study in Hong Kong. They conclude that clusters do not simply refer to the co-location of creative groups or solely describe the geographical location and proximity of similar businesses. Ultimately - in common with Stovang – the generation of synergies (based on cluster, community and creativity) must be the final goal, effectively bringing us back full circle to the consideration of policy, and as Whicher and Swiatek note, a shift the ‘Design Ecosystems’ in which the conditions for design-driven innovation are instigated from the bottom-up.
5. References Cooper R (2015) Future Cities and Design Imperatives, Keynote Address, International Design Congress, Gwangju, South Korea
1706
Introduction: Design Innovation Management
Design Council. (n.d.). The Knee High Design Challenge. Retrieved from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/knee-high-design-challenge Raulik-Murphy, G (2014). Design Policy into Practice, WDC Design Policy Conference, Cape Town Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068 Vossoughi, S. (2013). A Survival Guide for the Age of Meaning. In R. Martin & K. Christensen (Eds.), Rotman on Design: The Best on Design Thinking from Rotman Magazine (pp. 55–59). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
About the Authors: Rachael Cooper is Distinguished Professor of Design Management and Policy at Lancaster University. She is currently working with The Creative Exchange. She is a member of the FUSE board, a nonexecutive Director of the Future Cities Catapult, and a Lead Expert for the UK Government Foresight programme on the Future of Cities, and is on the Academy of Medical Sciences Working group addressing ‘the health of the public 2040’. Alex Williams is an Associate Dean of Enterprise at Kingston University. He is interested in Design Policy & its implications in: International Development, New Business Models for the Creative Economy, & Mechanisms for Knowledge Exchange. He is currently PI on an AHRC-funded mapping of Knowledge Exchange networks. Qian Sun is a senior tutor in Service Design at the Royal College of Art. Her research interests include Design Management, Design Policy, Design Thinking, and Service Design. She is the Principal Investigator of the ‘UK-China Design Policy Network’ project funded by the AHRC. Erik Bohemia is the Programme Director in the Institute for Design Innovation at Loughborough University, London. He is interested in Design as a cultural practice and the material effects of design. He is currently researching the ‘construction’ of the user and how this guides the design process.
1707
This page is left intentionally blank
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK Qian Sun Royal College of Art Qian.sun@rca.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.113
Abstract: This paper reviews design policy in the UK. As the UK does not currently have any written and acknowledged statement of cross-governmental design strategy, this article investigates the key organisations involved in developing and delivering policies that impact on design in the UK by reviewing their missions and strategies, thereby identifying opportunities, challenges and trends in British design policy. Keywords: Design Policy, Design Industry, UK, Innovation
1. Introduction Following the Second World War, many countries – including Great Britain, Germany, South Korea, and more recently Taiwan, Brazil, Finland, and China – have developed their own national design policies and design promotional organizations. The proliferation of national design promotion bodies has changed the landscape of design agendas at national, international and organizational levels. This dynamic, at least to some extent, also implies that national design policies have started to become popular across the world (Woodham, 2010). In these countries, design is considered as an important tool for achieving their competitive advantages. Therefore, governments actively seek to create an encouraging environment so that design may prosper. The need to develop national design policies is based on the rationale that a lack of understanding of how design adds value at both organisational and national levels requires government intervention to inform citizens, companies and public organisations about the benefits that design can offer and how to take full advantage of the latter (Raulik-Murphy et al., 2010). In some countries, government intervention has resulted in exceptionally positive outcomes. For example, the Korean government’s manifesto in 1988, which placed design at the centre of the national strategy, has been instrumental ine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Qian Sun
rise of Samsung and LG, while also boosting the national economy; meanwhile Denmark’s position as a creative country in the international market has been supported by an official government resolution passed in 2007. More recently, while China aims to transform its economy away from a reliance on low-skill and resource-intensive manufacturing, and via the accelerated formation of human capital and increased investment in science, technology and innovation, the central government has recognised the urgency of design innovation in terms of this transformation and has placed the highest priority on promoting and supporting design as shown in its 12th five-year-plan.
2. The Subject: Design Policy Design policy, a concept that has emerged in the recent academic literature, appeared as early as 1985 when the ‘Design and Innovation: Policy and Management’ conference was held at the Royal College of Art, London. At the conference, Aubert’s paper ‘A Review of Design Innovation Systems in the UK: The essentiality of design policy’ (1985) explicitly used the term to describe the systems and related policies that nourish design and innovation in the UK. The paper did not distinguish between design and innovation; as such, innovation policy and design policy were seen as interchangeable. In his contribution, the effort required to develop policies for technology innovation was used as a reference point. Aubert considered that innovation systems and related policies should fulfil the following three key functions: means of development; the establishment of an appropriate institutional and regulatory framework for innovators; and helping to formulate focal points or clear targets in order to structure technological efforts at a national level. Since then, design policy has become a distinct concept that concerns design professionals, the government and wider industries and societies. DeEP (2013) has defined design policy as the ‘sets of rules, activities, and processes to support design through the reinforcement of design capabilities at all levels of the policy cycle’ (p.4), while Murphy (2014) has characterised it as ‘The process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions in order to develop national design resources and encourage their effective use in the country’ (p.11). In the design policy literature, the most frequently debated questions are concerned with: (1) why governments should promote design; and (2) how governments best promote design (Swann, 2010). In relation to the first question, the issue has been why the design sector should receive preferential treatment over other sectors, just as Woodham (2010) has critically remarked that design policy emphasises the priorities of the design profession rather than those of society as a whole. Sun’s (2010, 2011b) design policy model conceptualises the dynamics between key stakeholders in a knowledge supply chain, and she underlines that those policies stressing the design sector as the key beneficiary (e.g. through subsidising design) would lead to a long term imbalance between design supply and demand, and further cultivate the design sector’s dependence on government subsidies, thereby placing the sector in a vulnerable position and subject to political changes. This in turn would mislead the design sector into developing certain capacities in order to meet the needs of this non-sustainable demand.
1710
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK
This aligns with a widely-shared view amongst political theorists (Lundvall, 2007, 2010) who have initiated a shift in the justification for policy intervention in favour of innovation away from neo-classical market failure theory, thereby embracing a broader systems failure theory. Design policy literature, e.g. Love (2007) and Swann (2010), also examines the rationale of design policy in terms of addressing ‘systems failure’ which seeks to identify failures or weaknesses in a particular innovation system, and corrects these via policy interventions. Swann’s report to the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2010), was aimed at ‘reviewing the market failure and other, cogent, rationales for a national design promotion policy and it scope of applicability, with some reference to the purpose and roles for a national design policy body’ (p.1), and concludes that there are many areas of design activity (e.g. creating national design assets, design for complex systems and standards for design, and strengthening the design profession) that are eminently worthy of support from public funding. Given that government intervention is needed in tackling system failures, the second question, namely, how government intervenes, has wider practical implications. The recent literature has observed a paradigm shift. For example, Amir (2004) has proposed transforming an industrially-oriented design policy into a human-centred design policy that takes into account the transformation of orientation, the users, and the initiators of design policy. This proposal is based on the premise that social and economic problems cannot be solved solely through the materiality of design, but a structural solution that involves political factors in its implementation is required. Similarly, Raulik-Murphy et al. (2010) suggest that the current most important shift is the integration of design policy into crossdisciplinary policies for innovation and sustainability involving social innovation rather than focusing solely on economic competitiveness while also moving towards a holistic approach addressing systemic failures rather than market failures. Along with this shift, scholars – e.g. Love (2007), Whicher et al. (2012), Raulik-Murphy et al. (2009), and Swann (2010) – have developed a range of models to indicate the form of policy intervention needed. Taking the model as a benchmark, Whicher et al. (2012) through the SEE (Sharing Experience Europe) platform have produced a number of reports profiling design policies in SEE network countries. However, it is arguable that if a systemic approach to design policy is the backbone, it is important to have a good understanding of the system prior to the identification and formation of policy interventions. There is a need for more research in this area of design policy in order to understand the scope of design promotion, to identify references, to question current practice and to develop new thinking that will help to advance the field (Raulik-Murphy, 2014). Meanwhile, it is also important to improve our knowledge of the systems where design policy is situated. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion by improving our understanding of the political context of design policy in the UK from a system perspective. In particular, this article attempts to understand who are the ‘policy makers’ in this context, what their political agendas are, and how they intervene in terms of the development and delivery of design policies.
1711
Qian Sun
3. The Context: Design Policy in the UK and The Design Council In the UK, design is considered an important and integral dimension of innovation policy (Hobday et al., 2012). The UK’s move from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy (evidenced by a fall in its share of manufacturing output and a shift towards higher-skilled professions) has reinforced the importance of innovation and value-added design. Historically, the British government was the first government in the world that recognised the power of design. The Design Council and its work over the past 70 years has played an important role in implementing the political vision of the UK government (the Council celebrated its 70th anniversary in 2015), and it has since pioneered a wide variety of approaches to create environments conducive to design, including design education, infrastructure, funding and IP exploitation. One of the most influential Design Council documents has been The Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’s strengths (2005), which investigates the contribution of design, innovation and creativity to the UK economy. It is considered the fundamental document that set out the agenda for UK design policy. In the report, Cox made a range of recommendations to central and regional government, businesses, broadcasters and educational institutions. These include: raising awareness and the profile of creativity; targeted support and incentive schemes; building capacity in higher education; and utilising the power of public procurement to encourage innovation. Following the review, a number of projects and programmes have been initiated in line with its recommendations, including, for example, ‘Designing Demand’ which was launched in 2006 to support SEMs’ use of design; the Arts and Humanities Research Council and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s £6.5 million investment in creating the ‘Designing for the 21st Century Initiative’ as a vehicle for supporting design research over a five-year period from 2005–2009; the Design Council’s Blueprint and Higher Skills/Higher Value review focusing on skills development; UKTI’s Strategy for Design Consultants on global promotion; and its ‘Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014’. As a result of the review, the Design Council also initiated pioneering new thinking about design-led solutions to social as well as economic problems, such as the initiation of the Designs of the Time project (Dott), the development of RED (an in-house research and development interdisciplinary team), and the launch of its ‘Design Challenges’ open competitions. Although partly as a result of the ‘austerity’ measures introduced following the credit crunch in 2007, the Design Council was reconstituted as a charity and merged with The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), while the vision and agenda set by the Cox Review is still fundamental to contemporary British design policy as reflected in the recent reports by the Design Commission: Restart Britain 2 (2014a), Design and Public Procurement (2010), and Design Research and Public Policy (2014b), all of which suggest pushing for much stronger design leadership in central government through increased design and commissioning capacity.
1712
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK
As remarked by Woodham (1995), in historical, national and international terms the Design Council was by far the most significant state organisation concerned with the promotion of design in industry. With the changing role of the Design Council in UK design policy, the leadership role that the Council used to perform has, seemingly, been distributed to various different organisations. As the UK does not currently have a written down and acknowledged statement of cross-governmental design strategy, this study aims to understand the landscape of UK design policy and its opportunities, challenges and trends by investigating the political system.
4. The Approach: Systemic Approaches and Stakeholder Analysis This paper argues that government interventions should aim to address systemic failures rather than market failures. Therefore, a holistic approach to understanding the system of design policy is adopted here. Lundvall (2010) believes that it is crucial to understand the specific systemic context in which a government intervenes, otherwise government policies might either reproduce systemic weaknesses or introduce mechanisms incompatible with the basic logic of the system. In particular, Swann (2010) suggests that ‘the systemic approach is based on a much richer interactive model where there are many channels from invention to wealth creation and many feedback channels too, and moreover where a wide variety of institutions, actors and intermediaries play an essential role’ (p.15). A range of tools are relevant to the analysis, including, for example, Porter’s Five-Forces model (Porter, 1998), the Triple Helix (Etzkowitz 1993), the National System of Innovation (Lundvall, 2010, Lundvall, 2007), and stakeholder analysis (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000). This study combines these tools with a particular focus on stakeholder analysis which has strong roots in the policy sciences. Stakeholder analysis was developed as a tool or set of tools to map stakeholder power, interest and influence around a policy issue. In turn it was also concerned with where the distribution of power and the role of interest groups in the decision-making and policy process was located. In this context, stakeholder analysis widens and shifts the attention of policy analysts away from a rational policy-making model and towards system-wide dynamics with multiple actors who try to influence policy by utilising multiple resources and venues (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000). The increasing popularity of stakeholder analysis reflects a recognition of the central role of stakeholders (individuals, groups and organizations) and the structure of power in decision making (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000). Instead of developing an overall stakeholder map to include individuals and policy beneficiaries, this study focuses on the political context of design policy in the UK. As the UK does not currently have any acknowledged statement of cross-governmental design strategy, this study looks at how key organisations and their missions and strategies are involved in developing and delivering policies that have substantial impact on design in the UK as well as examining key documents that mark certain milestones in the country’s design policy evolution. Based on a stakeholder analysis, it then discusses the trends, opportunities and challenges faced by the UK design industry and its policy makers.
1713
Qian Sun
The study started by identifying key organisations considered important in shaping and delivering design policy in the UK, based on reviewing their websites and relevant documents (including publicity, reports, and academic literature) in order to understand their missions, strategies, policies and actions in relation to design.
4.1 An Analysis Framework These key organisations are then mapped in a Triple Helix innovation map where three key stakeholder groups are identifiable: the government, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), and industry, as shown in Diagram 1. On the right-hand side of the diagram is industry. Here, industry comprises two key players in a knowledge supply chain: design supply and design demand, following Porter’s Five-Forces model. The supply can be considered as all forms of design capacity, from freelance designers to design consultancies and in-house teams; and demand as constituting all design clients in both the private and public sectors. On the lefthand side are HEIs, where research, teaching and learning, and knowledge transfer as three key pillars of academic activities. Diagram 1
In the UK, a number of public sector bodies are involved in promoting and developing design. The key governance departments relevant to design are: DBIS (the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and DCMS (the Department for Culture, Media and Sport). Other agencies include UKTI (UK Trade and Investment), NESTA, Innovate UK, AHRC (The Arts and Humanities Research Council), HEFCE (The Higher Education Funding Council for England), and the Design Commission. There are also trade associations and professional bodies, e.g. DBA (Design Business Association), D&AD (Global Association for Creative Advertising and Design), and the Chartered Society of Designers, all of whom play key roles
1714
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK
in the promotion of design in the UK. The organisations identified in this article are consistent with Swann’s list (2010). Although this is not an inclusive list of relevant organisations, it is representative of the landscape of UK design policy. The organisations that are considered relevant in informing and delivering design policy are mapped onto the diagram to see how they influence the formulation of design policy and to ascertain what impact their policies have on the landscape of the design industry. As illustrated in the diagram, these organisations have their own particular strategic foci placing them closer to some stakeholder groups within their areas of interest than others. At the top of the diagram are the two departments (DBIS and DCMS) representing the UK government. In the UK, design is classified as one of the 13 sectors composing the Creative Industries in the UK; whilst design seems to be more closely linked with business and innovation, and thus is more connected with DBIS – a ministerial department responsible for the UK’s economic growth. For DBIS, design is considered as part of the innovation infrastructure (together with IP rights), and also ‘a key UK strength with a vital role and driving business revenue’; whilst ‘there are parts of the economy where design awareness remains low, including amongst SMEs, and scientists seeking to commercialise new ideas’ (DBIS, 2014). On the right-hand side of the diagram is the design client, namely the wider industries that use design either through developing in-house capacity or commissioning. They can be from either the private or public sectors. We see that UKTI, Innovate UK and Nesta are amongst the most important organisations that influence how design is applied to innovation in wider industries. Innovate UK aims to ‘fund, support and connect innovative businesses to accelerate sustainable economic growth’. In its report Creative Industries Strategy (TSB, 2013), Innovate UK underlines that its support in design aims to: ‘(1) continue to encourage the use of design earlier in the R&D process; (2) build up a body of evidence and success stories in collaboration with the research councils and other bodies to demonstrate the value of the early use of design in the innovation process; and (3) support UK business innovation by building a community of designers and technology innovators to engage with “design in innovation” activities’ (p.11). UKTI, responsible for international trade and investment, considers design as a major and growing contributor to the UK economy and overseas market (UKTI, 2009); therefore UKTI focuses on helping designers discover new markets overseas (Runcie, 2015). Nesta is an independent charity sponsored by the Nesta Trust (transferred through the National Lottery endowment) which has a Protector appointed by Government. Nesta considers that design has always had a significant role in innovation as it can ‘help to better understand people's lives, to generate and visualise new ideas, and to test ideas in practice through a rapid process of trial and error’ (website). Nesta has been a major source of original and influential research and policy work in the field of innovation. In the centre of the diagram is the design sector comprised of design businesses, freelance designers, and in-house design teams. The latter two overlap with HEIs and client sectors, as indicated in the diagram. The Design Council used to be the sole organisation linking the
1715
Qian Sun
design sector with the government. When it was established, the government had a very clear vision of design in terms of economic recovery (in particular industrial design), and the Council was positioned to achieve this mission. Alongside the restructuring of the Design Council early on in this decade, the Design Commission was established in 2010 by the Associate Parliamentary Design and Innovation Group, to promote intelligent debate on design policy. It is endorsed by 13 government departments and composed of parliamentarians and leading representatives from business, industry and the public sector (Design Commission, 2015). It produces research papers and reports on important issues in relation to design. Within the sector there are a range of trade organisations, for example, the DBA, a trade association promoting design in the UK with a mission to ‘promote professional excellence through productive partnerships between commerce and the design industry [in order] to champion effective design which improves the quality of people's lives’. It is a membership organisation offering support to its affiliates, the majority of whom are design consultancies and freelance designers. The third area key to the design landscape is HEIs which supply the industry with skills and capabilities in design through teaching and learning, knowledge transfer and research activities. This is located at the right-hand side of the diagram. The AHRC and HEFCE are the two key organisations that link this sector with the government. Both are sponsored by DBIS. For the AHRC, design has been identified in its 2011-2015 delivery plan (AHRC, 2011) as one of the strategic priority areas (alongside language and heritage), and reiterated in its ‘Strategy 2013-2018’ (AHRC, 2013). In contrast, the HEFCE (the organisation that funds and regulates universities and colleges in England) has a strong focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (DBIS, 2010). Design, along with other humanities subjects, has been affected by the government’s reform of higher education finance (Business Innovation and Skills Committee, 2011). As described by Loveys (2011), the least popular non-academic courses – 'soft subjects' that offer poor employment prospects – have had to close down. Based on the findings of the analysis, this study reveals a range of trends, opportunities and challenges for UK design policy.
5. Discussion: Trends, Opportunities and Challenges 5.1 The importance of leadership in championing design nationwide The analysis reveals that the government and its intervention play a significant role in shaping the dynamic of the design landscape in the UK. The Design Council is viewed, especially in its early years, to have significantly altered how design is perceived nationwide, and has proved the value of design in boosting the economy and improving the quality of consumers’ lives. The UK currently enjoys a prestigious reputation internationally for its creativity and ability to innovate. The recent agenda in promoting design in public innovation has also started to show its impact – we have seen more and more projects set up to use design in developing and delivering policies and services in the public sector. This
1716
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK
will definitely lead design into a new area that will probably change the ‘professionalism’ of design and further the industry dynamic. Although the approach is still aligned with the historical development of design-oriented policies (which can be characterised by a movement from Europe and the US to the rest of the world, and from there up the “design ladder” (Bitard and Basset, 2008)), these examples imply the importance of leadership in championing design nationally. However, the nature of the Design Council has changed and it generates most of its funds through its advisory services. Its activities are increasingly involved in, for example, bidding for research funding and pitching for design projects (especially from the public sector). Although it still has influence over the UK’s political agenda in partnership with other organisations such as the Design Commission and Innovate UK, its role in policy has changed significantly. As a result, it is unclear what the leadership of design will be like in the UK and the potential impact on UK design in the future.
5.2 Moving away from a ‘design-centric’ model For the same reason that the government’s intervention is so powerful, how design policies are put forward and delivered is crucial. Many of the design policy proposals have been criticised for an exclusive emphasis on design professionals instead of on wider social and economic development. Over the past decades, the design sector in the UK seems to have expanded significantly. This leads us to questions as to, first, how design leadership should be positioned in relation to other stakeholders and, secondly, how government should best support the use of design in wider industries. The UK currently has the largest design sector in Europe. As discussed by Cooper et al. (2009), the design sector in the UK was a typical example of a saturated market where the supply of design services was significantly surplus to demand. The UK’s design industry was characterised as made up of: a majority of small consultancies (with less than five employees), a majority of whom work as freelancers; short lifespan of design businesses; a wide span of design services; and incredibly low entry barriers. On the other hand, Art and Design is the sixth largest educational subject with a total of 172,860 students registered on these courses in 2012-13. As Sun (2011a) states, a majority of design graduates often find it difficult to start their careers and take longer to establish themselves compared to students from other disciplines. They normally have complex career paths, managing several jobs in different fields, often simultaneously, with a trend for graduates to move towards selfemployment as their careers progress. They show high transfer rates to other disciplines (especially retail, marketing and advertising), and are more likely to work in a broad range of jobs. This partially explains why art and design-related subjects in particular lead to enterprise pathways (PACEC, 2015). The continuous cuts to HEIs’ funding (£150 million for 2014-15 and 2015-16) (Morgan, 2015) will unavoidably lead to a downsizing of the design sector in terms of student numbers. This, together with the withdrawal of financial support from the Design Council, to some extent indicates that the UK government has reflected on the previous model of delivery. As the
1717
Qian Sun
then Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted as saying, ‘… our challenge is not just to encourage creative industries, our priority is to encourage all industries to be creative…’ (DTI, 2005, p.44). To avoid developing ‘design-centric’ policies and programmes, it is important to acknowledge the supporting role of design in the wider economy. This allows the intention of any proposals to shift from ‘design professions’ to wider beneficiaries. As Swann (2010) suggests, design policy should use less intervention into market failures, as discussed earlier in this article, but needs instead to focus on those areas that are eminently worthy of support from public funding, such as creating national design assets, design used for complex systems and standards for design, and strengthening the design profession. As such, the mission of promoting design has been distributed into various public agencies, e.g. Innovate UK, UKTI, ESRC, instead of through the Design Council. Given that the strategic agenda of these organisations is to support DBIS, and hence economic development in the UK in general, the way design is positioned in relation to their strategic proprieties (e.g. innovation, research and international trade) is essential in establishing the integrity of design in this space. In this manner, design policies are not just those policies and programmes directly referring to or benefiting design, but also encompass those issues that influence the dynamic of the design sector through intervening in the system that design is part of. Thus, design policy concerns all policies shaping how design is perceived and engaged with at a national level.
5.3 A stronger need to integrate design with innovation policy With the shift away from the ‘design-centric’ approach, there is a need to integrate design into wider innovation systems. Therefore, the link between design and innovation is essential in this process (MacGregor et al., 2007). In the Cox Review (2005), innovation is defined as ‘the successful exploitation of new ideas’ and design as ‘what links creativity and innovation that shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users or customers and may be described as creativity deployed to a specific end’ (p.2). This view is widely shared in the literature, including Green et al. (2013) and Bitard and Basset (2008). Cunningham’s (2009) view has added a new dimension – namely the ‘user’ – and he sees design as the link between technology, creativity and the user, and thus an important tool to increase the scope of innovation. Similarly, both Innovate UK and Nesta consider the ‘people-centred’ approach as a key element in that design contributes to innovation practice. Innovate UK views design as ‘a way of thinking, that brings a people-centred approach to technology-based innovation which uses proven and replicable methods for solving problems and discovering new opportunities through creative enquiry’ (Innovate UK, 2015); thus design can be a key differentiator for businesses, effecting the desirability, usability and feasibility of systems, services and products. Nesta considers that design has always had a significant role in innovation, as it ‘helps to better understand people's lives, to generate and visualise new ideas, and to test ideas in practice through a rapid process of trial and error’. The UKTI’s view (DTI, 2005) emphasises the links between creativity and competitiveness and highlights the importance of creativity for increased business
1718
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK
performance. Given all these perspectives, in many countries design policies are put forward as part of wider innovation policies. However, innovation policy makers and analysts have traditionally paid little attention to design; as suggested by Hobday et al. (2012) ‘design has either been absent or a poor second cousin within the broader field of innovation policy which tends to privilege research and development (R&D).’ On the other hand, from outside of the design sector, the problem is that the sector itself is difficult to reach. For example, DBIS (2014) suggests that the reason for the low awareness of design especially amongst SMEs and scientists may be because ‘the UK design sector is difficult to navigate’; The Big Innovation Centre (2012) also considers that despite the importance of design to innovation, ‘the nature of design-intensive industries – the businesses that practice and sell design – is remarkably hard to pin down’ (p.1). Because of this ambiguity and uncertainty, it is challenging for the government to develop clear and consistent policies to support design.
5.4 A substantially growing interest in design for social and public challenges Along with the need to integrate design in innovation, design for social and public challenges has been a substantially growing interest in the UK. The Cox Review (Cox, 2005) has recommended (among other things) ‘utilising the power of public procurement to encourage innovation’. Following this, the Design Commission has produced a range of reports promoting the use of design in the public sector, for example, Design and Public Procurement (2010) and Restarting Britain: Design and Public Services (2014a). The later publication looks into design’s role in public service renewal. The report showcases examples of ‘good design thinking being applied, with positive results, to public or governmental challenges – often involved in reconfiguring public services in places where resources are diminishing, or need is growing, or both’ (p.1). The report suggests ways of ‘normalising design practice in public sector’. The recommendations included pushing for much stronger design leadership in central government; increasing design capacity (and commissioning further capacity) across government through training, aggregating good quality information, and building capacity in the design sector itself to respond to social and public challenges. In particular, it recommends that the Cabinet Office take responsibility for developing design capacity across government, specifically trialling a multi-disciplinary design studio method for originating policy, and calls for a wider drive to equip policymakers with design skills. As a result of this report, the UK’s first Policy Lab was launched at the beginning of April 2014. The Policy Lab is the first its kind in the UK and works with policy teams to test how design principles and methods can improve the ‘pace, quality and deliverability of policy in the Civil Service’ (Design Council, 2014). Similarly, local government appears more aware of the use of design in developing public services. Although it is too early to predict any increase in demand for design from the public sector over a longer term, what is certain is that this new development opens its door to design being used meant the area of public services, which will significantly change the dynamic of the design sector and its level of professionalism.
1719
Qian Sun
5.5 A need for an evidence-based approach to inform policy For the same reason, the urgent need to develop a clear evidence base to support design is widely shared. Whicher et al.’s (2012) report has identified a gap regarding ‘what data would best inform design policy-making and what is currently available and therefore attempts to encourage policy-makers to collect data on design, analyse their design systems, conduct a needs analysis of the sector and industry’s use of design, identify the barriers to the better use of design and develop policies and programmes that tackle the deficiencies’ (p.17). Following the Hargreaves Review (Hargreaves, 2011), which has recommended that more research is needed to develop a clear evidence base for improving the intellectual property system in terms of design, the Big Innovation Centre (2012) has developed a report forming part of the evidence base to examine how UK design figures in the global economy, and considers how the intellectual property system can best support its growth. Similarly, the Design Council’s new research The Design Economy assesses the contribution of design to the UK economy using a set of key measures, including gross value added, productivity, turnover, employment and exports of goods and services. The report shows that design contributes £71.7 billion to the UK economy (7.7% of GVA) and design as a discipline benefits and cuts across the whole UK economy, rather than a single industry (TBR, 2015). Putting the validity issue to one side, it could be argued that design has moved into new territories such as social innovation, which will generate a more tangible impact on society and the environment, as well as on the economy. In this sense, design’s economic value on its own probably has limited worth in terms of evidencing the value of design. A need to shift from evidencing economic benefits and to concentrate attention on the impact of design on wider societal and environmental issues is necessary.
6. Conclusion This paper investigates the political context of design policy in the UK. By mapping key organisations – including administrative departments, public organisations, and trade associations that influence the development and delivery of design policy – onto the national innovation system, the paper has identified five trends that have emerged in the design policy landscape. They are:
The importance of leadership in championing design nationwide Moving away from a ‘design-centric’ model A stronger need to integrate design with innovation policy A substantial and growing interest in design for social and public challenges A need for an evidence-based approach to inform policy
The analysis provides an updated review of the landscape of design policy in the UK. By mapping relevant organisations onto the national innovation landscape, the analysis has contextualised the practice of design policy in the UK and revealed a range of trends. It demonstrates the complexity and dynamics in the system where design policy is situated.
1720
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK
Each of these trends also implies a distinct area of research in design policy. Given that design policy is an important yet emerging field in the design research literature, this encourages the research community to explore gaps in our knowledge. It is recognised that the trends identified in the analysis are unique to the UK context. Because design policy is a highly contextual concept, it cannot be considered in isolation from economic, social, cultural and political conditions. It is suggested that future studies investigate the extent to which these trends are shared with other countries; what trends might be identified in other countries; and how differences related to individual conditions can be ascertained. These questions are important to evidence the essentiality of government intervention in terms of unpacking the relationship between how design is applied and promoted at a national level and its conditions. Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council [AH/L015676/1].
7. References AHRC (2011) Arts & Humanities Research Council: 2011-2015 delivery plan In: AHRC (ed.). London: AHRC. AHRC (2013) Arts & Humanities Rsearch Council: Annual Report & Accounts 2013-14. In: AHRC (ed.). London: AHRC. AMIR, S. (2004) Rethinking Design Policy in the Third World. Design Issues, 20, 68-75. AUBERT, J.-E. (1985) The Approach of Design and Concepts of Innovation Policy. In: LANGDON, R. & ROTHWELL, R. (eds.) Design and Innovation: Policy and Management. London: Frances Pinter. BITARD, P. & BASSET, J. (2008) Mini Study 05 – Design as a tool for Innovation: A Project for DG Enterprise and Industry. Global Review of Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies. Manchester: Pro Inno Europe: Inno-Grips. BRUGHA, R. & VARVASOVSZKY, Z. (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and planning, 15, 239-246. BUSINESS INNOVATION AND SKILLS COMMITTEE (2011) Government reform of Higher Education Twelfth Report of Session 2010–12 House of Commons. COOPER, R., WILLIAMS, A., EVANS, M. & SUN, Q. (2009) Design 2020 - The Future of the UK Design Industry. Salford: Lancaster University and the University of Salford. COX, G. (2005) Cox Review of Creativity in Business: building on the UK’s strengths. 2005 pre-Budget Report. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, . Cunningham, P. (2009) National and regional policies for design, creativity and user-driven innovation. Thematic Report. Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester. DBIS (2010) 2010 to 2015 government policy: public understanding of science and engineering. In: DBIS (ed.). London: Department for Business Innovation & Skills. DBIS (2014) Innovation Report 2014: Innovation, Research and Growth. In: DBIS (ed.). London: Department for Business Innovation & Skills. DESIGN COMMISSION (2010) Design and the Public Good: Creativity vs the Precurement Process? London: Associate Parliamentary Design & Innovation Group and Design Business Association.
1721
Qian Sun
DESIGN COMMISSION (2014a) Design and Public Services: Meeting Needs Saving Money Humanising Services Engaging Citizens. Restarting Britain London: Design Commission. DESIGN COMMISSION (2014b) Design Research and Public Policy: Current practice working to intersect with government. APDIG Term Paper London: All-Party parlimentary: Design & Innovation Group. DESIGN COMMISSION. (2015) About the Design Commission [Online]. Available: http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/about [Accessed 10 March 2016]. DESIGN COUNCIL. (2014) UK Cabinet Office Launches New Policy Design Lab [Online]. London: Design Council, . Available: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/uk-cabinet-office-launchesnew-policy-design-lab [Accessed 10 March 2016]. DTI (2005) DTI Economics Paper NO.15: Creativity, Design and Business Performance. In: DTI (ed.). London: Department for Trade & Industry. GREEN, L., COX, D. & BITARD, P. (2013) Innovation Policy and Design—Design as a Tool for Innovation In: COX, D. & RIGBY, J. (eds.) Innovation Policy Challenges for the 21st Century. New York, London: Routledge. HARGREAVES, I. (2011) Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. In: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (ed.). HOBDAY, M., BODDINGTON, A. & GRANTHAM, A. (2012) Policies for design and policies for innovation: Contrasting perspectives and remaining challenges. Technovation, 32, 272-281. INNOVATE UK. (2015) Our work so far [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/innovate-uk/about. LOVE, T. (2007) National design infrastructures: the key to design-driven socio-economic outcomes and innovative knowledge economies. IASDR. LOVEYS, K. (2011) Universities axe 5,000 'soft degree courses' as funding cuts sink in. Mail Online. LUNDVALL, B.-Å. 2010. National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning, Anthem Press. LUNDVALL, B. Å. (2007) National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14, 95-119. MACGREGOR, S. P., ESPINACH, X. & FONTRODONA, J. (2007) Social innovation: Using design to generate business value through corporate social responsibility. International Conference on Engineering Design, Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie, Paris, France, 2007. Citeseer. MAFFEI, S., ARQUILLA, V., MORTATI, M. & VILLARI, B. (2013) Embedding an evaluation approach within EU design Policies. Design Policy Issues (Design in Euripean Policy). Milano, Italy: Politecnico di Milano, Departement of Design. MORGAN, J. (2015) Hefce reveals £150m cut. Times. PACEC (2015) Research to Assess the Nature and Annual Value of Student Start-Ups. HEFCE. PORTER, M. E. (1998) Competitive strategy : techniques for analyzing industries and competitors, New York; London, Free Press. RAULIK-MURPHY, G. (2014) Make a Plan. Driving Design Strategies DUCO. Cape Town. RAULIK-MURPHY, G., CAWOOD, G. & LEWIS, A. (2010) Design Policy: An Introduction to What Matters. Design Management Review, 21, 52-59. RAULIKEMURPHY, G., CAWOOD, G., LARSEN, P. & LEWIS, A. (2009) A comparative analysis of strategies for design in Finland and Brazil. Design Research Society Biennial Conference. Sheffield.
1722
Emerging Trends of Design Policy in the UK
RUNCIE, E. (2015) Three ways UKTI can help designers discover new markets overseas [Online]. London: Design Council. Available: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/three-waysukti-can-help-designers-discover-new-markets-overseas [Accessed 10 March 2016]. SUN, Q. (2010) Design Industries and Policies in the UK and China: A Comparison. dmi Review. Boston: Design Management Institute. SUN, Q. (2011a) Embedding employability in the curriculum: A comparative study of employer engagement models adopted by design programmes in China and the UK. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3, 12. SUN, Q. (2011b) What Policies Matter to Design. SEE Bulletin June p.3. SWANN, G. M. P. (2010) The economic rationale for a national design policy. BIS Occasional Paper. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. TBR (2015) The role and value of design: Working paper: Measuring and defining design. London: economic research & business intelligence. THE BIG INNOVATION CENTRE (2012) UK design as a global industry: International trade and intellectual property. Intellectual Property Office. TSB (2013) Creative Industries Strategy 2013-2016. Technology Strategy Board, Driving Innovation. UKTI (2009) UK Design: Creative Industries export guide. UK Trade & Investment. VARVASOVSZKY, Z. & BRUGHA, R. (2000) A stakeholder analysis. Health policy and planning, 15, 338345. WHICHER, A., CAWOOD, G. & WLATERS, A. (2012) Research and Practice in Design and Innovation Policy in Europe, 2012 International Design Management Research Conference. Leading Innovation Through Design. Boston. WOODHAM, J. M. (1995) Redesigning a Chapter in the History of British Design: The Design Council Archive at the University of Brighton. Journal of Design History, 8, 225. WOODHAM, J. M. (2010) Formulating National Design Policies in the United States: Recycling the “Emperor's New Clothes�? Design Issues, 26, 27-46.
1723
Qian Sun
About the Author: Qian Sun is a senior tutor in Service Design at the Royal College of Art. Her research interests include Design Management, Design Policy, Design Thinking, and Service Design. She is the Principal Investigator of the ‘UK-China Design Policy Network’ project funded by the AHRC.
1724
Resourcing in Co-Design Salu Ylirisku*, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk University of Southern Denmark * ylirisku@mci.sdu.dk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.342
Abstract: This paper introduces the concept of ‘resourcing’ to describe the fundamental activity of negotiating the use of what is available for co-design. Even though resourcing is an ever-present undertaking in all co-designing, no theoretical concept has thus far addressed the constitutive practices in collaborative design processes. We define the concept of resourcing on the basis of pragmatist process theories and complexity theory perspectives of social life, which enable us to explicate the gap between managerial thinking that understands resources as objective entities to be planned and controlled, and the actual unfolding of co-design in complex responsive conversation. Through the analysis of three co-design events we illustrate how the different response sensitivities of co-designers can diversify and enrich resourcing. The analyses also reveal that resourcing is a dynamically evolving process that changes in response to what emerges in the complex interplay of intentions between people involved in co-design. Keywords: Resourcing; co-design; design facilitation; complex responsive processes
1. Introduction A deeply rooted belief in design management is that success is largely the result of managerial excellence in the planning and use of resources in productive and innovative ways, e.g. (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Traditionally, management literature has seen resources as objective entities, such as people, facilities, money, and materials, which can be used, mobilised, allocated, or deployed for some operative roles, (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989; Oakley, 1984). This thinking has led to a managerial practice where resources and capabilities are identified, developed, protected, and deployed “in a way that provides the firm with a sustainable competitive advantage and, thereby, a superior return on capital” (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993, p. 33). This form of thinking entails that resources exist independently of those who consider these as resources.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk
Co-design has a long-standing tradition of using a wide range of tools and materials to enable users and other stakeholders to collaborate with designers with the goal of creating new products and services that better fit user needs, e.g. (Agger Eriksen, 2012; Bødker & Buur, 2002; Sanders & Westerlund, 2011; Ylirisku & Vaajakallio, 2007). There is a significant uncertainty connected with ‘deploying’ resources (like field observations, user peronas, mockups) in collaborative endeavours, as materials prepared for an event may not come into play as expected, and conversations around them may shift in ways not anticipated. In co-design events the available materials are subject to processes of sensemaking and sensegiving (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). When the materials are adopted into these processes, their meanings and values are collaboratively negotiated, and they may be used as resources in unexpected ways. Therefore, we define resourcing as the negotiated use of what is available for co-design. This stands in contrast to the objectivist view of resources in which they are assumed to have an independent identity. According to G. H. Mead, “Although external objects are there independent of the experiencing individual, nevertheless they possess certain characteristics by virtue of their relations to his experiencing or to his mind, which they would not possess otherwise or apart from those relations. These characteristics are their meanings for him, or in general, for us.” (Mead, 1934:131n)
Whether something becomes ‘a resource’ is thus shaped by those relating to it. Materials, when applied for unexpected purposes, may reveal novel and valuable characteristics that are only revealed as new purposes emerge. For example, a potato can be used to replace a car’s condenser, which is not apparent until someone does it (www.mirror.co.uk, 2015). A potato is seen as a resource very differently by the chef and by the gifted electrician whose car fails to start. Different qualities of the potato are responded to, and thus signified-in-use differently by people with different professional sensitivities and expertise. The perception of the available potato therefore differs between the chef and the electrician, and the potato functions as a different resource for cooking than for car fixing. The potato is resourced differently by these different professionals, and once made visible to others, the novel view (of the potato) becomes available for everyone else as a possible way of making use of a potato, or of resourcing a potato. Resourcing reflects people’s ability to notice, to make use of, and thus to signify aspects of what is available to them in specific situations of creating, accomplishing, or constructing something (together with others). It hence reflects what we have termed people’s ‘response sensitivities’. Resourcing involves the act of signifying something that is available as useful, and it may happen through talk, bodily gesturing, and by taking something into use. For example, when participants in a co-design session are creating a mock-up of an idea, they resource the available materials in their construction, and by doing so, they signify these materials as resources. Resourcing also reflects the interplay of intentions (Stacey 2011) of those involved as they implicitly and simultaneously negotiate both their participation and the ‘what’ that they are creating together. The process is dynamically evolving, not only because of the emergent
1726
Resourcing in Co-Design
forms that are created, but because the back-talk of the materials (Schön, 1983) may cause co-designers to re-frame their intent and, therefore, re-shape what is resourced in some later incident. This has implications for how the facilitation of co-design, should be understood. We portray co-design facilitation as an enabling practice aimed at setting up proper conditions for co-designing and ensuring productive co-design processes. It is at the same time social, material, and conceptual, embedded in locally occurring and continuously negotiated resourcing happening in unfolding participation. Through the analysis of three co-design incidents, we explicate aspects that co-design facilitators need to attend to: 1) participants’ different response sensitivities matter for what they design and how they argue, 2) the dynamically evolving interplay of intentions between the participants changes (the identity) what is resourced, and 3) the physical materiality of resourcing can challenge the flow of ideation in the negotiation between participants.
2. From resources to resourcing Our argument to shift the vocabulary from ‘resources’ to ‘resourcing’ begins with a critique of the traditional resource-based view of management. Wernerfelt (1984, p. 172) defined resources in a very broad manner as “anything which could be thought of as a strength or weakness of a given firm.” He (ibid.) also proposed a more formal definition of resources, based on the work by Caves (1980), as “those (tangible and intangible) assets which are tied semi-permanently to the firm in a given moment.” Wernerfelt’s examples were brand names, in-house knowledge of technology, employment of skilled personnel, trade contacts, machinery, efficient procedures, and capital. Grant (1991), extending Wernerfelt’s concept, identified six categories of resources: “financial resources, physical resources, human resources, technological resources, reputation, and organizational resources.” For Grant (1991) resources were “the enablers of a firm’s capabilities, which in turn enable achieving a competitive advantage in the market”. This view underlines the role of management in recognising and exploiting resources as well as identifying resource gaps and then filling these. Seeing resources in an objective way was also adopted in design management vocabulary, and ‘resourcing’ was conceptualised as an activity for middle managers to ensure that necessary resources were available for designers to work with. Design management involves approving costs and providing designers with facilities, equipment, and environment to work in. It includes providing access to appropriate specialists in R&D and to external advisors and specialists. Contracting external consultants, agreeing on budget, and ensuring the appropriate individual and organisational facilities that would enable the consultants to undertake the work that they were contracted to do were also part of making the objective resources available (Davies-Cooper & Press, 1995). The concept of ‘resource’ has, nevertheless, turned increasingly ambiguous in design management literature. Lockwood (2004) recognised design as a resource, and identified
1727
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk
design as a strategic resource, meaning that design management is integrated with the corporate management, as well as a business resource, i.e. that design functions as a means of reaching business objectives. The proliferation of design thinking as a strategic asset sees design similarly as a resource (Brown, 2008, 2009; Cooper & Junginger, 2009). The notion of design thinking is a blurred concept, and it is sometimes associated closely with sensemaking (Rylander, 2009). According to Weick et al. (2005), sensemaking is about organising a flux of initially chaotic experiences, noticing and bracketing off those signs that matter, labelling these, and reflecting in retrospect as well as in prospect. The process is sociomaterial (Carlile, Nicolini, Langley, & Tsoukas, 2013), and its study needs to address context, flux, and temporality (Langley & Tsoukas, 2010). Guided by the theory of complex responsive processes of relating (Stacey, 2011), which accounts for the complex dynamics and emergence in organisations and portrays human interaction in its processual and responsive nature, we draw on the works of G.H. Mead (1934) as well as (Elias, 1991). They are both pivotal to Stacey’s (2011) account of complex responsive processes in collaboration. According to Mead (ibid.), any object gains its meaning from the response of the organism to the characteristics of the object. Hence, the response sensitivity of an individual towards an object and to his or her environment, based on his or her culturally-mediated and personal history of interactions, shapes the meaning of the object and the environment in the continual relationship to the individual: “What we term meaning of the object is found, specifically, in the organized attitude of response on the part of the organism to the characters and the things” (Mead 1934:131)
Mead’s (1934) process ontological worldview reminds us of the world-constituting dynamics of the relationship between the organism and its environment, which is what we here conceive of as the ‘response sensitivities’ of the involved. Our personal response sensitivities influence which aspects of a situation will appear significant, important, and interesting to us having bearing on what we choose to resource for what we are doing. And, in addition to individual response sensitivities, the dynamically evolving interplay of intentions (Elias, 1991; Stacey, 2011) influences what becomes resourced and how. When co-designing is seen as a complex process of relating, it makes sense to speak of resourcing as the negotiated use of what is available for co-design.
3. Resourcing in interaction We investigate resourcing in three co-design events facilitated by authors one and two. The events were documented on video during design workshops and later analysed using interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). We use the notion of response sensitivity to explain why different participants noticed different aspects of the available materials. The first example illustrates that response sensitivities are dynamic and develop during the course of involvement in co-designing. The second co-design example shows how the dynamically evolving interplay of intentions changes what the participants will resource. The
1728
Resourcing in Co-Design
last example depicts challenging subtleties related to the negotiation of resourcing with physical props in co-designing.
3.1 Response sensitivities in resourcing The first example investigates the role of a surprising field video in resourcing. It stems from a project on Sustainable Energy for De-Mining Operations in Angola. The project goal was to develop a sustainable energy generator that can replace noisy and fault-prone diesel units in camps in developing countries. The team brought together a relief aid coordinator from a non-governmental organisation (NGO), energy specialists from one university, designers from another (the second author’s) university, and engineers from four small manufacturers of alternative energy sources, like solar panels and fuel cells. The project was organised as a participatory innovation effort (Buur & Matthews, 2008), albeit with the core dilemma that the distance between de-miners (‘users’) in Angola and development engineers in Denmark was as large in kilometres as in perspective. The designers edited a set of eight short videos in the hope that they could facilitate a more grounded discussion of solutions, even before the team had the opportunity to do field studies in Africa. Each video provided concrete background for crucial requirements decisions: User operation, maintenance, transport, instructions, etc. They were compiled from footage shot by a TV photographer, who had visited demining camps in Congo a few years earlier. These were called ‘video specs’ to indicate to the engineering team members that they could be seen as ‘specs’, albeit presented as video rather than text (Buur et al., 2010). The designers then undertook to organise a co-design workshop. At this event, which was the second time the team met together, the company representatives each presented their technologies first. Then the designers organised two 1-hour design sessions where the participants worked in two groups to develop first ideas for the sustainable energy generator. Each group had 6-7 members in a mix of company engineers (PV, LN, MO, PH, JLB), energy researchers (LR) and designers (JP). The following conversation was recorded after the participants had watched a video called ‘Daily Struggle,’ where people were carrying packs on their heads: JP: Then a string of people could carry it. LR: So maybe we should include an indent in the bottom side of the box – to carry it on your head! PV: But then suddenly we are not talking about one big box with everything inside, but a number of smaller ones.
The surprising observation that people are transporting equipment to locations by carrying it on their head triggered this group to reconsider the concept of ‘one big box’ they initially preferred, and to think of a modular system instead, Figure 1. Similarly, the other group sketched an energy generator as a boat with wheels in response to having seen transport along flooded roads. And, after a motorbike transport and bicycle-packing video was shown, the group also sketched a portable motorcycle generator. We observe that the field video
1729
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk
challenged the response sensitivities of the members as it influenced what they began to work on, i.e. transport becomes an issue. They also resourced the video images into their design work.
Figure 1 Video is resourced in the co-design event: The participants sketch ideas and make scale models of a sustainable energy generator for de-mining camps after having seen surprising field videos. Rather than ‘one big box’ transported by truck, they start to consider small modules portable by people.
A later incident illustrates how such an observation from a video spec challenges the negotiation in a group. The video Pack me Up showed a range of scenes, bordering on the grotesque, of how much you can pack in a boat, on a truck, on a motorbike, or on a bicycle in a developing country (‘dimensional requirements’). In our recordings, this group discusses the dimensions of the solar panels with the marketing manager LN from the solar panel manufacturer – who incidentally arrives late and has not seen the videos: JP (while cutting a cardboard ‘solar panel’ in two pieces): Do you work with folded solar panels? LN: No, you can’t do that. It’s tempered glass. They are completely impossible to fold. LR: Yes, but can’t you break it down into smaller elements? For instance 0,5 x 1 meter? (…) LN: What is wrong with a 1 x 2 meter solar panel? How big is the container you've planned? PV: Well, maybe there isn't going to be a container... MO: We’ve seen examples where there are no roads!
LN’s assumption about a container for transport is challenged by the surprising observation that the team has made in the video spec. JP’s initial question about folded solar panels is triggered by the observation of the versatile packing styles, and PV and MO are using what
1730
Resourcing in Co-Design
they have learned from the video spec to develop an argument against the need for a container. In terms of resourcing the participants select particular surprising, yet recognizable, incidents in the video specs (i.e. people carrying things on their head, people packing simple means of transport), and then respond to these in what they produce. Their response sensitivities are influenced by what the participants already know and assume about the reality that their design addresses, and these assumptions are being informed, challenged and alternated by the activities displayed in the video specs.
3.2 Resourcing as continuous responding The second example illustrates resourcing as a process of constructing through negotiation where material traces of previous conversations play an important role. It stems from a twoyear project on the Future of Multi-Channel Map Services for Outdoor Use. The project team consists of 9 people with different professional backgrounds and roles. Our investigation covers the interactions between (GM) the responsible manager of the project and a geospatial information systems researcher, (DF) an interaction designer and concept design researcher (the first author), and (SE) a geo-spatial information systems researcher and software engineer. The project team is gathered to crystallise the ‘design concept’ for a multi-channel map service. The incident takes place one and a half year after project kick-off and the participants of the co-design event have worked together in the project for more than a year. The following incident takes DF and the SE into a disagreement about a notion of ‘core’. DF
‘Map service’ now means that we have one service. As we are now talking about the design of a multichannel service. I would see that in some way we have one core. (holds his hands up in a ball shape)
SE
Since this goes into web application and mobile phone application we cannot in any way use the same core.
GM
Let’s back up a little. This, well, the use of terminologies. This is totally terrible as depending on the point of view the exact same word may mean quite different things. But I think, what we may here adopt as a way to think about this map service is some kind of a service where the end user, in the same way as you buy the phone carrier plan. And then you also check (makes a gesture in the air as if to draw a check mark) which options you will turn on with it. Shall you turn the iPhone option on. Shall you take the web option. And shall you take the multitouch option. And shall you also take the map printing option. So in a way it is the service now what the end user in a way experiences in this connection.
SE
Yes.
DF’s statement on ‘one core’ can be interpreted as an intention to bring the team together around 'one service' concept, i.e. to simplify the concept. His intention seems in line with the aim of the project stated in the original project plan: To develop a new concept for a multi-
1731
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk
channel map service for outdoor use. SE, with his software background, cannot see how technically all the applications can be thought of as using the 'same core'. His intention seems focused on implementing a prototype. GM suggests seeing the service in terms of user experience, and this changes the conversation. As the responsible manager he is apparently working to keep the process productive. Introducing the idea of seeing the service in terms of user experience, GM refers to an understanding of mobile phone carrier plans. All the team members have mobile phones and they know how these plans work. GM also shares an understanding of the different technical parts of the planned service, namely the ‘iPhone option,’ ‘Web option,’ ‘Multitouch option,’ and ‘Map printing option,’ and he articulates these in terms of how the user experiences the service. By drawing the analogy GM relies on the participants’ abilities to associate with their own experiences and make these ‘resourceable’, i.e. noticed, articulated and relevant for further conversations. Later, DF writes on the flip chart: ‘visually same,’ ‘same data sets,’ ‘same symbols,’ and ‘map contents.’ This provokes a response from GM. GM
Visually same is actually nothing. Data sets, servers and interfaces clearly belong to the core. But visual appearance of contents and user interface are matters of implementing things in certain way. What do we mean by the word core?
DF
Well, one possible way to try to see the issue. So, well, we have here a user. We have here a computing engineer. Then we have this geoperson. (Draws three stick figures on the flip chart, see Figure 2)
Figure 2. DF draws three ‘stick figures’ on the flipchart with the labels ‘user,’ ‘software engineer,’ and ‘geoperson’ (left) and later points at the chart when asking GM to elaborate how he sees the service in terms of these figures (right).
In response to GM’s question, DF uses the person figures to explain the emerging conception of the multi-channel service now in terms of how someone experiences it. Later, when the team discusses the example of Google Maps as a multi-channel service, DF points
1732
Resourcing in Co-Design
at these figures on the flip chart, faces GM and asks him to describe how he would define the Google example through the perspectives of the stick figures. GM
Well, definitely you get, well, the same maps. And these maps have, um, partly the same appearance, partly the same interfaces back there. The same map projections are utilised through and through.
In this exchange, terms that refer to the perspectives (the three different ‘persons’) and the visualisations that have emerged before, are refined and resourced for further work. We observe a continuous process of responding, refining, and resourcing grounded in the initial articulation that make the intentions of the co-designers available to the others to interpret. In terms of co-design facilitation the active labelling of what is noticed, and the drawing on previous examples appear to serve the continuous attuning between the involved and the responsive progress of choosing what becomes resourced in the project.
3.3 The subtly negotiated nature of resourcing The last example will look at collaborative use of materials for mockup building. It will show how subtle negotiations between participants can make or break the resourcing of design materials. We are back in the workshop in the demining project case. During the sketching session it became clear that a major trade-off between power, size and weight of the sustainable energy generator was necessary: To design a combination of energy devices (like solar panels) of sufficient size to provide the required energy level, yet still easily transportable in difficult terrain. In planning the workshop the designers anticipated that the groups would want to discuss quantitative requirements: Dimensions, weight, etc. We had prepared cardboard pieces in scale 20:1 of solar panels, batteries, fuel cells etc. These materials were placed at the centre of each team table in what we thought would be easy reach for all, Figure 3.
Figure 3. Scale materials turn into resources in the co-design activity – albeit with some difficulties. PH (middle right) suggests an idea, but while JLB on the left tries to ‘build’ it, the other members move on to talk about different ideas, as talk is faster than building.
1733
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk
We then asked the two groups to build a model to scale of their favourite generator concept. While the video specs were resourced without the usefulness being questioned, the building material had a more troublesome resourcing trajectory with the members. We will use the following transcript to demonstrate the complex responsive nature of resourcing. PH: Would it make sense to combine the two ideas (points to board with sketches)… to… does the modular concept combine with the trailer concept? Meaning that you can somehow have a… a fixed platform, but you can transport it in modules? JLB: So your solar panel stack looks like this (picks up a stack of cardboard ‘solar panels’) PH: Yes JLB: and you make a… (starts spreading out the ‘panels’ in his hands, then pauses) PH: Just like a… kind of… PH: Have you seen the Donald Duck, where they flip out the eh… van … chk chk chk (gestures with his hands that something is unfolding) (laughter from others)
The participants talk about various ideas, until PH suggests that one might combine the ‘trailer’ (one box) concept with the ‘modular’ concept. JLB picks up on this idea and begins building, but then turns silent – most likely because of the Schönian (1983) ‘backtalk’: The physical material makes it clear that he hasn’t formed the idea sufficiently to demonstrate it with 3D materials just yet. PH fills in the break with another flash of inspiration from a cartoon movie that draws laughter from all (except JLB, who’s still struggling with his model). Other participants suggest other ideas, and soon JLB gives up on the building. We observe that talk is simply easier and less committal for suggesting ideas quickly. While JLB meets strong supportive response from PH when starting to build, the relations shift when he pauses to think, and conversation moves into other directions. The subtle local interactions between the participants seem to discourage JLB from completing his building intent. While the facilitators made the materials available to participants, in this instance they don’t seem to turn into resources, as they are too ‘slow’ to keep up with the shifting relations between the members. Later both groups do get down to building their concepts as 3D scale models, but in both groups we observe difficulties in transiting from talking to building. This example demonstrates that facilitation intentions will inevitably be met with responses from the participants in a way where resourcing cannot be fully planned or anticipated.
4. Discussion The three co-design incidents presented above illustrate resourcing from the point of view of co-design facilitation. The first incident showed how a field video challenged the presumptions of the co-designers. It involved “acts of noticing and bracketing” in “reliance on presumptions to guide action” that are characteristic to sensemaking (Weick et al., 2005, p. 413). When designers resource artefacts, such as field study videos, the meaning of the
1734
Resourcing in Co-Design
artefacts for the project is modified on the basis of how the artefacts are brought into the conversation, e.g. as examples of user practices that the design project should serve. Surprises turn into possible resources for design, once the co-designers articulate their responses triggered by the artefacts. The surprises happen only for the particular individuals involved in this process. If the co-design event would have involved the people displayed in the video, they most likely would not have experienced similar surprises, and thus, they would not be able to produce similar expressions upon their experienced surprise relating to the fact that people actually transport things by carrying them. Hence, it is the combination of the materials, the people, and the conversations grounded in the material that matter for the progress. The second incident showed how the interplay of intentions (Stacey, 2011) unfolded in interaction. The three different intentions of the co-designers could be interpreted on the basis of what they articulated as ‘to simplify the concept,’ ‘to implement a prototype,’ and ‘to keep the process productive.’ In addition to resolving the conflict, the active articulation of experiences, user perspectives, and images enabled others to express what they found related. In terms of co-design facilitation the active labelling of what was noticed, and the drawing in of previous examples, appeared to serve the progress as well as the continuous and responsive attuning between the involved. The incident also highlighted what happens when co-design brings people with different response sensitivities together. When they become exposed to what the others in the situation find relevant, it becomes possible for each of them to take the attitude of the others toward the collective doing (Mead, 1934). Hence, as a team, they are enabled by a wider range of response sensitivities (see also Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Barkema, 2012). The third incident showed interactions where the physical materials appeared to interfere with the flow of co-designing through talk. This appears to challenge the reliance on tangible materials for co-design facilitation – as tangibles are said to enable ‘everyday people’ to express their needs and thoughts (Sanders, 2006). Co-design facilitators often use different kinds of tools for guiding attention, structuring presumptions, supporting generation of ideas, etc. It could be argued that these models help design facilitators to attune codesigners’ response-sensitivities in project-relevant manner. However, the process of resourcing physical materials through tangible manipulation appears to develop slower than the resourcing of experiences and thoughts through talk. Nevertheless, the permanence of the physical material may be a key reason why the co-designers later overcome their initial hesitation and returned to expressing their thinking with the tangible materials.
5. Conclusions We introduced the concept of resourcing to deepen the analyses of co-design interactions. The focus was on how co-designers make use of what is available, and hence, how these are turned into resources. The analysed incidents showed how co-designers rely on their response sensitivities to select particular materials and experiences and then integrate these into their articulation while contributing to the ongoing co-designing. These sensitivities
1735
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk
appear to be partly based on the co-designers’ expectations to the project at hand, on what they already know and assume about the intended context of their designs. These assumptions may be challenged by the activities and negotiations that take place during codesigning. With the concept of resourcing we render design facilitation integral to the unfolding action of co-designing. Facilitation is not something that can be completely planned ahead outside of the interactions, and objectively implemented according to plan. Clearly it is impossible to foresee what will be used as resources in a co-design event due to the complex forms of collaborative response sensitivities and emergent materials. Perhaps the most important consequence of our concept of ‘resourcing’ is that facilitators need to reconsider their role in the co-design event – from one of managing to one of participating. “From a complex responsive processes perspective, the practice of effective leadership and management is that of participating skilfully in interaction with others in reflective and imaginative ways” (Stacey 2010:xi)
The concept of resourcing opens several important new research avenues. The quality of bringing together different stakeholders to co-design relies on the facilitator’s and participants’ ability to diversify the resourcing by drawing on the variation in response sensitivities of the different participants. Facilitators need to develop a sense of when to explore the diversity of resourcing and when to condense emergent issues, and they need sensitivity for both the inclusion and exclusion dynamics of the flux. Furthermore, the question of how facilitators can better prepare ‘better relevance’ for an emerging topic is an interesting research avenue to explore further. Acknowledgements We are indebted to our industrial partners in the two innovation projects for engaging with our co-design experiments and to colleagues at the Complexity and Management Group at Hertfordshire University (UK) who initially introduced us to the traditions of process theory.
6. References Agger Eriksen, M. (2012). Material Matters in Co-designing: Formatting & Staging with Participating Materials in Co-design Projects, Events & Situations (Doctoral dissertation in interaction design). Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46. Bødker, S., & Buur, J. (2002). The design collaboratorium: a place for usability design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 9(2), 152–169. Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, June, 1–10. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation (1st ed). New York: Harper Business. Buur, J., Fraser, E., Oinonen, S., & Rolfstam, M. (2010). Ethnographic video as design specs (pp. 49– 56). ACM Press. http://doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952235
1736
Resourcing in Co-Design
Buur, J., & Matthews, B. (2008). Participatory Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 255 – 273. Carlile, P. R., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2013). How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies. In P. R. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters (pp. 1–15). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671533.001.0001/acprof9780199671533-chapter-1 Caves, R. E. (1980). Industrial Organization, Corporate Strategy and Structure. Journal of Economic Literature, 18(1), 63. Cooper, R., & Junginger, S. (2009). The Evolution of Design Management. Design Management Journal, 4(1), 4 – 6. Cooper, R., Junginger, S., & Lockwood, T. (2009). Design Thinking and Design Management: A Research and Practice Perspective. Design Management Review, 20(2), 46 – 55. Davies-Cooper, R., & Press, M. (1995). The design agenda: a guide to successful design management. Chichester ; New York: Wiley. Elias, N. (1991). The society of individuals. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Grant, R. M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114 – 135. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3), 63 – 78. Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159 Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2010). Introducing “Perspectives on Process Organization Studies.” In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594566.001.0001/acprof9780199594566-chapter-1 Lockwood, T. (2004). Integrating design into organizational culture. Design Management Review, 15(2), 32 – 39. Oakley, M. (1984). Managing product design. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence of a Corporation. Harvard Business Review, (May-June), 79–90. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2006). Scaffolds for Building Everyday Creativity. In Design for Effective Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning. New York City, NY, USA: Allworth Press. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Westerlund, B. (2011). Experiencing, exploring and experimenting in and with codesign spaces. In Proceedings of the Nordic Design Research Conference, Nordes2011. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Stacey, R. (2011). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: the challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations (6th edition). New York: Prentice Hall. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
1737
Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur and Line Revsbæk
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171 – 180. www.mirror.co.uk. (2015, February 19). AA mechanic fixes car with a POTATO and the owner says it has “never driven so well.” Retrieved November 4, 2015, from http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/aa-mechanic-fixes-car-potato-5193266 Ylirisku, S., & Vaajakallio, K. (2007). Situated Make Tools for envisioning ICTs with ageing workers. In Proceedings of Include 2007: designing with people conference. London, UK: Royal College of Art. About the Authors: Salu Ylirisku is an associate professor at SDU Design where he theorises collaborative design practices. He has background in usercentred design, interaction analysis, and conceptual design. Jacob Buur is professor of User-Centred Design and directs SDU Design, a centre that brings together researchers from Humanities, Social Sciences, and Engineering. He has pioneered tangible methods and video techniques for involving users in design. Line Revsbæk is an assistant professor at SDU Design. With a background as an organizational psychologist her research is in social dynamics of co-creation and innovation, introducing the process theory turn to ontology in theorizing about co-design, organizational innovation and research methodology.
1738
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas Cara Broadleya, Katherine Championa, Michael Pierre Johnsonb and Lynn-Sayers McHattiea a
Glasgow School of Art University of Abertay * C.Broadley@gsa.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.191 b
Abstract: Design-led innovation interventions are predicated on the importance of establishing complex disciplinary collaborations. This paper reflects on the effects of different co-design methods to support knowledge exchange and the co-creation of new business ideas with multidisciplinary participants. It draws on data collected from sandpit style events entitled Chiasma, undertaken as part of the knowledge exchange hub, Design in Action (DiA) in which co-design methods were used to bring designers, entrepreneurs, and academics together to develop innovative business ideas in Scotland. Employing a thematic analysis of idea generation, team formation, and idea development, we suggest that a more nuanced range of methods, tools, and techniques can strengthen multidisciplinary engagement and participation. We argue that such approaches can be enhanced by designers and researchers’ shifting focus from co-design methods to supporting collaborative mindsets in knowledge exchange towards innovation. Keywords: co-design methods; knowledge exchange; collaboration; design-led innovation
1. Introduction The research presented in this paper is drawn from a case study of the Design in Action (DiA) knowledge exchange hub, which has been in operation since June 2012. DiA is one of four UK hubs, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and draws together six universities and art and design institutions across Scotland. The key focus of DiA is investigating design as a strategy for business growth in Scotland and the chosen approach is the Chiasma method, which is a sandpit-style event for open innovation (Kearney & McHattie, 2014). The term ‘Chiasma’ is taken from genetics meaning the exchange of information between two chromosome strands, which is here used analogously to mean the exchange of ideas at the point of creation (Ballie & Prior, 2014). Chiasma brings together This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
multidisciplinary teams, from a range of business, design, and academic backgrounds, to stimulate knowledge exchange and develop commercial ideas. At these 2–3 day residential events, participants form teams around ideas aimed at addressing particular societal issues and develop pitches for presentation before deciding to apply for up to £20,000 funding to prototype and take the idea to market. During the Chiasma participants are introduced to design-led thinking and provided with design methods, tools, and techniques, which aim to support the co-creation of innovative business ideas. The paper begins with a brief review of the literature regarding the growth of interest in design-led innovation activities and their strategic use by Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in the development of SMEs. Attention is then drawn to a range of co-design methods aimed at enhancing collaboration amongst multidisciplinary teams and supporting them in developing solutions to creatively address complex societal challenges. Following the presentation of a case study of the very first Chiasma event, a thematic analysis of the codesign methods used across the subsequent twelve Chiasma events is presented. The paper concludes with a summary of the initial research learnings, before highlighting limitations and making recommendations for future research.
2. Scope of Context 2.1 SMEs and Knowledge Exchange SMEs constitute more than 99 per cent of all private sector businesses, and, as well as making a disproportionately large contribution to job creation, play a key role in driving competition and stimulating innovation. They face considerable barriers to growth and sustainability, however, and these have been identified as particularly acute for smaller businesses as they have fewer resources available to overcome them (BIS, 2013). In recent years the role of universities in economic growth and innovation has been emphasised with increasing encouragement for them to become strategic actors in the knowledge economy (Deiaco, Hughes, & McKelvey, 2012). Despite this, it has been argued that the art, design, and humanities subjects have been somewhat neglected by formalised knowledge exchange programmes between higher education and industry, with their traditional focus being on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects (Comunian, Gilmore, & Jacobi, 2013; Crossick 2006). The very linear models of innovation which have emerged from models of technology transfer, associated with these subject areas, are also seen to neglect the reality of virtuous cycles of multiple engagements and new knowledge generated through the act of collaboration, often across disciplines (Davenport, 2013). Unsurprisingly, developing fruitful exchanges of knowledge between universities and industry is complex, and multiple barriers to engagement are apparent. Within the Dowling Review (2015) it was found that there is a degree of commonality in the barriers faced by both businesses and academia when becoming involved in knowledge exchange, but due to their operation in spheres with distinct financial and cultural pressures, there were
1740
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
differentiated attitudes towards collaboration (BIS, 2015: 28). Some of the common barriers related to a lack of mutual trust and understanding, different timescales and limited resources for collaboration (BIS, 2015, p.29). Further challenges can be seen around bringing together diverse teams; different languages; negotiating power relationships; promoting the exchange of tacit knowledge; balancing risk and trust. Although the nature of work within the design discipline is often naturally collaborative with an emphasis on interdiscipinarity, there has been limited progress in finding ways to capture methods, tools, and techniques for promoting good exchanges in order to replicate successful relationships (Cruickshank, Whitham & Morris, 2012). Comunian et al. (2015) advocate “third or shared spaces” as a crucial component for embedding people and knowledge from academia and specialist knowledge in particular places. One key example they give of such interventions was the 2011 Arts and Humanities Research Council funding of Knowledge Exchange Hubs for the Creative Economy, which included the DiA Hub, from which this paper’s focus is drawn.
2.2 Design-led Innovation In 2005, former chairman of the UK Design Council, Sir George Cox, underlined how designled creativity can propel business strategies and help to revive the British economy (Cox, 2005). To implement new ideas and bring about innovative change, Cox emphasised the social and commercial benefits of the design process, explaining that it “shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users or customers” (2005, p.2). Eleven years on from Cox’s assertions, the Design Council’s evaluations of the impact of design in a number of sectors across the UK (2015) propose that ongoing economic growth can be supported by integrating increasingly diverse perspectives and skills into design processes (2015, p.4). Design-led Innovation establishes creative coalitions of design practitioners, design researchers, multidisciplinary experts, entrepreneurs, users, and communities (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Drawing from the democratic, inclusive, and creative principles of codesign, participatory design, and design thinking (Ehn, 1989, 1993; Sanders & Stappers, 2008), groups of people with a shared interest or collective motivation to address a complex set of challenges collaborate together through stages of exploration, ideation, and iteration. In their recent reflections, Sanders and Stappers assert that these practices allow for teams to share and develop insights and ideas, which in turn can enable collective creativity to inform innovative products, services, and systems (2014). In unpacking design-led innovation in its introductory phase, Sanders and Stappers visualise the fuzzy front end as an entanglement of complex, spontaneous, and iterative activities (2008, p.6). They recognise that this broad and open-ended phase offers an exploratory space for scoping the design context and clarifying research aims and questions. The fuzzy front end supports designers in aligning their project with the needs of prospective end users and thus frames and directs the process towards increasingly defined co-design stages of concept development, testing, and production (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p.6–7).
1741
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
2.3 Supporting Collaboration: Methods, Tools, and Techniques From these perspectives on the design process, success depends on the team’s capacity to approach the problem from a user perspective (looking), visualise information (make things visible), and rapidly evaluate ideas (prototyping) (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, & Winhall, 2006, p.18–19). Grounded in design practice, these approaches have spawned a wealth of creative and generative methods constituting drawing, illustration, and three-dimensional making to enhance communication and strategic idea generation within multidisciplinary teams and render the design process more open to participation and development from a range of stakeholders (Hanington & Martin, 2012; Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren (2012) cite various designed artefacts including prototypes, mock-ups, and models as stimulating shared understandings between designers and prospective end-users, and providing a route towards their framing of responsive design solutions. This notion of collective knowledge is framed methodologically and materially by Lucero, Vaajakallio, and Dalsgaard in their dialogue-labs studies (2012). Here, the designers appropriate Eriksen's participatory design tools as basic materials (paper, clay, and pens) and pre-designed images and artefacts (printed cards and models) (2009). Lucero et al. observe that a diverse array of materials with varying levels of specificity and provocation gave way to “a relaxed atmosphere since participants are not forced into activities they are not comfortable with”, and stimulated “a structured but flexible way in order to spark dialogue between the co-design participants and thus support idea generation” (2012, p.19–20). Investigating participatory design games, Vaajakallio notes that the ambiguity of her codesign workshop tools allowed their seamless adaptation in future sessions with diverse participant groups (2012, p.83). Following these distinctions, tools and techniques can be generic and transferable to subsequent design projects, or actively designed as field/project specific (Eriksen, 2009; Lucero et al., 2012, p.6). With these design-led innovation principles, practices, and methods in mind, we go on to set out the methodological underpinnings of our approach.
3. Methodology in Practice As shown in the diagram presented in Figure 1, this paper draws on data gathered from multiple Chiasma events, thirteen in total, in order to reflect on the co-design methods created for and used in the process. For the purposes of this paper a case study is applied to the first Chiasma, as it can deal with multiple causation and complexity (Bell, 2005). A further twelve Chiasma were delivered by DiA’s institutional partners according to their agreed sectors: one in the sport sector, three in the food sector, three in the ICT sector, three in the rural economies sector, and two additional in the wellbeing sector. The methods, tools, and techniques used within these later events are used as subsequent ‘case examples’ and provide material from which to carry out a thematic analysis on their effects within Chiasma. This follows the distinction drawn by Yee (2010) who argues that such snapshots can provide examples to help find underlying principles of the research methods being used.
1742
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
Our methodology concurs with Biggs' views of the case study as bridging creative practice and research (2004). Building on concepts of experiential knowledge and the role of the artefact in practice-based research, Biggs deconstructs this iterative interplay of research approach and research context, and values generalisations derived from artists' and designers' experiences of practice (2007, p.184). Advocating the case study method, Breslin and Buchanan encourage design researchers to carefully and critically evaluate their practice in order for “universal ideas to be extracted� (2008, p.38).
Figure 1 Methodology in Practice: drawing on data gathered from thirteen Chiasma in order to reflect on the co-design methods created for and used in the process. Diagram by DiA (2016).
3.1 Data Gathering The first event was held in February 2013 in Glasgow, and targeted the wellbeing sector, focusing on the topic of type 2 diabetes. As part of designing this initial Chiasma, methods of data capture were also prepared to best support the understanding and delivery of future Chiasma. These included methods of observation by facilitators, providing each participant with stickers identifying them by a colour and number, which participants attached to the tools they had used during the Chiasma. The Chiasma Moodwall shown in Figure 2 was employed to document participants’ emotional responses to each stage in relation to the accompanying tools and techniques. This was supported by Exit Polls taken at the end of each day on which participants wrote reflections on their high point, low point, most valuable and most challenging moments they had experienced.
1743
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
Figure 2 Chiasma Moodwall: timeline of activities, emotional scale, and colour-coded stickers used to track participants experiences across the Chiasma. Photograph by DiA (2013).
The model of activities for the initial Chiasma was designed to take the participants through three key stages, largely based on the Design Council’s model of the stages of the design process, The Double Diamond (2007): 1) idea generation (discover/define), 2) team formation, 3) idea development (develop/deliver). These provided the initial themes from which to perform thematic analysis of the tools and techniques used in subsequent Chiasma. Thematic analysis is particularly useful for researchers as it is a flexible method well suited to large data sets and allows categories to emerge from the data collected (Creswell, 1994; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Our reflections on the tools and techniques applied across the Chiasma allow us to identify emergent themes that evaluate the impact of different codesign methods in supporting collaboration for innovative business development.
4. Chiasma 1.1 For Chiasma 1.1, part of this process involved scoping the context of type 2 diabetes and finding ways for activities to best represent these issues to the participants, who had a mix
1744
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
of understanding and experience on the topic. As this was the first iteration of a Chiasma, a variation of co-design methods were prepared and brought together to establish an initial model.
4.1 Idea Generation In the discover/define stage, participants were split into four rooms for an activity called Design Whispers. Each room had a theme – learning, eating, living, treating – around which participants were encouraged to discuss and map facts and statements in the context of type 2 diabetes, develop user personas representing key issues, explore their hopes and fears of living with diabetes, then brainstorm ideas on sticky notes responding to these motivations. Participants moved between rooms for each of these stages to contribute to each theme. In the Exit Polls carried out, many participants cited the intensity of these activities and the idea generation that followed as a high point of the first day of the Chiasma. Among participants’ comments was recognition of a “positive atmosphere”, enjoying “learning about how diabetes can affect people” (Chiasma 1.1 Participants, 2013), and valuing the mapping and development of ideas from a person with diabetes’ perspective. Difficulties were cited by participants in being able to focus during ideation, just when ideas were flowing, as well as lacking the understanding of diabetes to fully represent people with the condition. The key concerns of the co-design methods at this stage of the Chiasma consisted of representing issues around type 2 diabetes for discussion whilst allowing participants to build relationships and generate ideas. The considerations designed into the activities aimed to reinforce a visual flow from engaging with the topic of type 2 diabetes, to setting user-centred briefs and opportunities that the ideas generated would address. As the ideas were only briefly formed and written on sticky notes, they only provided a divergent process of rapid idea generation.
4.2 Team Formation The ideas were taken from each of the rooms and clustered into new emerging themes for plenary discussion and team formation. Facilitators from each room presented the themes, highlighting key ideas constituting potential briefs, before participants were asked to vote for the most inspiring ideas with stickers. After protracted group discussion, the lead facilitators asked for explicit teams to be set out by encouraging participants to commit to headline themes; ensuring a designer was present in each emerging team. The teams were then designated a separate room each and continued to develop the idea together. Many participants cited this activity as a low point in the day as it was seen as “lacking structure” (Chiasma 1.1 Participants, 2013), moved away from the previous activity’s focus on core problems and needs around diabetes care, and was underpinned by a sense of disparity amongst participants’ knowledge of the surrounding issues. This led to clashing views within teams, overlaps of expertise in some teams, and gaps in skills for others, all of
1745
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
which could be argued to have disrupted each team. Dividing the group into individual rooms also had mixed effects. Some participants identified this separation as creating a competitive dynamic between teams, inhibiting knowledge exchange, yet others felt that the opportunity to focus on a specific idea was the most productive point in the day. Aiming to stimulate connections and inspire team formation, the key concerns of the codesign methods at this stage of the Chiasma were to expose participants to a range of themes, support them to identify their own key areas of interest, and enhance their awareness of participants with a common interest. Whilst the facilitators provided sticky notes to cluster ideas and the participants voted with stickers in an attempt to demonstrate visual thinking and democratic decision-making, participants commented that teams formed without a useful understanding of the individual areas of expertise comprised by their members, or their shared interest in the theme.
4.3 Idea Development Following their formation, teams were encouraged to expand on their ideas and consider their potential impact in contributing to diabetes care. The progress of idea development differed greatly across the teams, but a suite of design tools – including storyboards, network mapping exercises, and user personas – were provided on the second day as printed templates, with instructions provided within a slideshow on a monitor. During idea development, facilitators visited the teams for critical feedback and support in preparing their final presentations. A proportion of designers and participants demonstrated their familiarity with the tools and completed the templates provided, applying their own methods in tandem. Other participants were less confident when using the tools, often struggling to complete them or to recognise their value in relation to their own expertise. These tools were largely used for refining the teams’ concepts, but only partly informed how each team chose to present. Participants also reflected that tools were introduced at too late a stage in the activities; teams desired early idea refinement from which more considered business proposals could be presented. The key concerns with the co-design methods at this stage of the Chiasma were to enable teams to explore, refine, and model aspects of their concepts. Having simple pre-designed templates for complex activities allowed participants familiar with design tools to use them with relative confidence, however those unfamiliar with them needed tutorials, and this turned out to be a protracted process for facilitators. The focus of activity for these teams appeared to be on questioning the rationale of co-design methods, tools, and techniques, rather than developing the idea according to their own expertise. The variety of progress made from team to team in their final presentations heightened a sense of skill gaps and the lack of attention paid to the capabilities of the design participants.
1746
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
5. Cross-Chiasma Reflections on Co-design Methods An overview of the subsequent twelve Chiasma in chronological order of their delivery is presented below in Table 1. The table lists the key co-design methods used within the previously identified stages of idea generation, team formation, and idea development in order to provide a consistent framework for comparison during thematic analysis. Table 1 Co-design methods used across stages in subsequent twelve Chiasma. Chiasma
Co-design methods within Chiasma Stages Idea Generation
Team Formation
Idea Development
1.2 Food: Building Opportunity Without Losing Sight – April 2013
Film clips to represent issues. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Drawing and pitching ideas.
Paper prototyping materials.
1.3 Rural: Made in Scotland – June 2013
Likert scale provocations. Card prompts and statements. Future headlines. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
About.me profiles. Clustering themes.
Paper prototyping materials.
1.4 Sport: Inclusion Outdoors – September 2013
Video animation to represent issues. Card prompts and statements. User personas. Future headlines. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards.
Paper prototyping materials. Knowledge exchange cards. Assigned design tools.
1.5 ICT: Beyond Mobile – February 2014
Likert Scale provocations. Floppy disk prompts. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards.
Assigned design tools. Knowledge exchange cards.
2.1 Food: The Canny Consumer – April 2014
Card prompts and statements. User personas. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards.
Business model canvas. Paper prototyping materials.
2.2 Wellbeing: Ageing Well – June 2014
Likert scale Provocations. Narrative drawing. Card prompts and statements.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards. Participant avatar groupings.
Paper prototyping materials. Assigned Design tools.
1747
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
Flag ideas over narratives. 2.3 Rural: Sustaining Rural Scotland – October 2014
Likert scale provocations. Knowledge bank. Inspiration cards. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards. Team roles.
Hat critical personas. Idea library card. Design tools.
2.4 ICT: Technology Accelerator Chiasma – January 2015
Likert scale provocations. Knowledge bank. Fast idea generator. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards. Team roles cards.
Participant feedback cards. Assigned Design tools.
3.1 ICT: Creative Currencies – February 2015
Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards.
Participant feedback cards. Paper prototyping materials.
3.2 Rural: Zero Waste Scotland – March 2015
Likert scale provocations. Knowledge bank. Inspiration cards. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards. Team roles cards.
Critical hat personas. Idea library card. Assigned Design tools.
3.3 Food: Food Futures – October 2015
Likert scale provocations. Knowledge bank. Inspiration cards. Fast idea generator. Brainstorming on sticky notes.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards.
Critical hat personas. Idea library card. Assigned Design tools.
3.4 Wellbeing: Surviving and Thriving – November 2015
Likert scale provocations. Knowledge bank cards. Fast idea generator. Brainstorming on black canvas.
Clustering themes. Participant profile cards. Knowledge bank cards.
Paper prototyping materials. Assigned Design tools.
The following section summarises the methodological decisions and alterations made across the subsequent twelve Chiasma. Reflecting on the information presented in Table 1, we articulate three key findings – revealing participant insights and concerns, aligning interests and expertise, and sharing the vision – that demonstrate the value of iteratively and responsively developing co-design methods.
1748
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
5.1 Revealing Participant Insights and Concerns From the first Chiasma presented above, there was a key shift in approach in how the contextual challenges were represented to participants. Prior to each Chiasma, the DiA team carried out an intensive scoping period to gather key facts, trends, issues, and organisations relevant to the chosen theme. Applying their design skills, the DiA team then represented these through animated videos, fact cards, posters, and other tools, such as the Sports Chiasma Fact Cards shown in Figure 3, and explored user perspectives within these issues. This focus on explicating defined contextual issues surrounding each Chiasma theme became less important to the wider process due to the DiA teams’ recognition that participants often had strong associations, experience, or expertise in relation to the sectors and issues.
Figure 3 Sports Chiasma Fact Cards: artefacts created by DiA team to represent key issues around the Chiasma theme, and encourage participants’ insights in response. Photograph by DiA (2013).
Representing the issues dynamically and authentically, expert speakers were also invited to present at all Chiasma. As a result, later Chiasma activities focused on drawing out the knowledge of participants through Likert Scale Provocations and discussions. Represented by signage and printed statements, this activity, shown in Figure 4, allowed participants to reflect in action on contextual issues and reveal their insights and concerns to the wider group through physical movement. The dynamics of this activity provided participants with an overview of the knowledge and expertise in the room, the positions of participants in relation to the context, and skill sets that could be useful for developing ideas.
1749
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
Figure 4 Likert Scale Provocations: activity designed to stimulate participants’ discussions around contextual issues. The DiA team printed textual provocations and read these aloud, before encouraging participants to move to the corner of the room that best represented their response – strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree – and engaging the group in a collective discussion on their varying perspectives. Photograph by DiA (2015).
5.2 Aligning Interests and Expertise One of the major challenges within Chiasma was learning how to support effective team formation towards successful funding applications for business development. In early Chiasma, team formation was driven by issues expressed through service design tools and techniques, which often led to service design solutions within teams that contained disciplines unable to deliver such concepts. By introducing Participant Profile Cards and Knowledge Bank Cards shown in Figure 5, the DiA team shifted the approach to render participants’ knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, and interests more visible and tangible. These tools aimed to reveal participants’ assets and empower them to strategically construct their team to converge on a defined idea. As the Chiasma presented limited time or scope for prototyping or testing ideas, facilitators commented on how the co-design methods applied were often more effective in supporting participants to think divergently rather than focusing on convergent processes. The challenge for teams in Chiasma was therefore to demonstrate the potential for convergence in their final presentations. The onus moved from facilitating activities for individual participants to engage with, to providing the space and materials for participants to become active collaborators. While this has not been uniformly successful across all the teams and presentations within Chiasma, it is expressed here as a learning from DiA in delivering effective facilitation.
1750
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
Figure 5 Participant Profile Cards and Knowledge Bank Cards: tools given to participants during day 01 and day 02 of Chiasma to assist in introductions, knowledge exchange, and making connections. Photograph by DiA (2015).
5.3 Sharing the Vision One of the major aims within Chiasma was to integrate designers into the process from the start of idea generation to enhance design-led innovation throughout. Designers have accounted for at least a third of all participants within each Chiasma. Prior to the event, they are provided with a distinct brief to lead creative activities and distribute themselves between the teams formed. Upon reflection, the dispersal of designers allowed for some bespoke methods to be created within Chiasma, such as the Narrative Drawing activity shown in Figure 6, as it was felt the design participants would be comfortable to visually engage in drawing. Tools and techniques for idea development were provided within each Chiasma, but whereas in the first few cases these were introduced as ways of developing ideas, they were backgrounded in later Chiasma as potential methods to introduce if needed, according to the design capabilities within each team. As in the first Chiasma, some design participants demonstrated a familiarity and capacity to use the tools, others struggled to appreciate their value, and a limited number sought to actively learn about and apply the tools presented. Later Chiasma would replicate and repeat tools and techniques that were intended to represent an identifiable DiA Chiasma toolkit, which focused on the emerging importance of Participant Profile Cards and Knowledge Bank Cards.
1751
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
Figure 6 Narrative Drawing: black paper table cloths, white marker pens, and flags used to stimulate participants’ collective responses to contextual issues and represent their shared perspectives. Photograph by DiA (2014).
Figure 7 Floppy Disk Prompt Cards: bespoke cards designed for ICT Chiasma to metaphorically connect Chiasma tools and techniques to Chiasma theme. Photograph by DiA (2014).
These bespoke methods, such as the visual Narrative Drawing activities, Floppy Disk Prompt Cards used in the first ICT Chiasma (Figure 7), and a range of playful icebreaker activities
1752
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
were often differentiated as resonating activities within each Chiasma. Whilst this learning was not explicitly applied across later Chiasma, the experiential differentiation from simply completing sticky notes is seen as a valuable asset to co-design methods. The caution is that this highlights a need for careful facilitation, such as demonstrating the activity beforehand, allowing an iterative understanding of the purpose and effect of such visual methods. This also brings the design and preparation of such methods into play, rather than rolling out a prescriptive toolkit. The design and facilitation of such co-design methods brings much more of a performative dimension (Johnson, 2016), tuning into more suitable appropriations of such methods according to, not just participation, but active associations of interest, collaboration and, ultimately, enrolment towards new business development.
6. Learnings on Knowledge Exchange within Design-led Innovation From our case study descriptions and thematic analysis we have attempted to demonstrate the conceptual and material nuances of the co-design methods applied across the thirteen Chiasma held by DiA. Reflecting on the potential value of these tools and techniques for participants and facilitators of knowledge exchange events, we go on to discuss the key learnings gleaned from this research.
6.1 From Participation to Collaboration Participants were encouraged to tailor their experience by integrating their skills, techniques, and knowledge; therefore an ethos of openness was essential for the Chiasma process. Set out in our presentation of Chiasma 1.1, the introduction of user-centred design tools exposed the participants’ varying levels of familiarity with such methods, which reinforced disciplinary boundaries and disrupted team collaboration. Critiquing the proliferation of a range of toolkit resources that prescribe the use of creative methods within defined stages of the design process (Aldersey-Williams, Bound, & Coleman, 1999; Hanington & Martin, 2012; Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design, 2013; IDEO, 2002; Tassi, 2009), we believe that participants’ sustained engagement is predicated on their ability to identify with the aims of the process, interpreting and adapting each method in ways that are meaningful for them. Returning to Sanders and Stappers’ conceptualisation of the complexity and ambiguity characterised by the fuzzy front end (2008) and Comunian et al.’s emphasis on the need for shared spaces for knowledge exchange (2015), the openness of the Chiasma process sets the scene for participants to jointly explore contextual challenges. As Chiasma coordination and delivery progressed, the visual, material, and performative dimensions of the co-design methods blurred the boundaries between the idea generation and team formation stages by providing participants with opportunities to build relationships and articulate ideas through iterative dialogue and reflection (Sanders & Stappers, 2014, p.6). For idea development to take place as a largely autonomous process, participants need to discover a clear rationale for each stage and activity, integrate their own perspectives from the offset of the design process, and draw from the shared reflections of the wider group gleaned from enacting design as a collective activity (Vaajakallio, 2009, p.8). The iterative
1753
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
development of accessible and inspiring co-design methods contributes to empowering participants to form teams and work as collaborative partners.
6.2 From Generic to Bespoke Techniques Varying levels of specificity and provocation embodied the co-design methods used across the thirteen Chiasma. Recalling Eriksen’s distinctions of basic and pre-designed materials (2009) and Lucero et al.’s discussions of methodological transferability (2012, p.6), we propose an additional distinction of resonant materials – those in which the content and format are intrinsically entwined with elements of the innovation context. Exemplifying the bespoke qualities of resonant materials, the Floppy Disk Prompt Cards’ symbolic connections to technological innovation in the first ICT Chiasma, and the Visual Narrative Drawing activity, created in anticipation of the number of designers attending the second Wellbeing Chiasma both sparked participants’ engagement in idea generation stages and functioned as artefacts to relay stories of their ideas in development. Accounting for both transparency and readability in participatory design processes, Schoffelen, Claes, Huybrechts, Martens, Chua, and Moere (2015) affirm that visual representations engage people to interact with complex issues, and aid both sense-making and reflection. In turn, they propose that “representations of an issue are never finished and should allow for unforeseen and unpredictable uses by unknown users, and be flexible to evolve over time in asynchronous participative processes separated in time and space” (Schoffelen et al., 2015, p.12). The presence of designers within the participant groups and the DiA delivery team enabled design expertise to be embedded within the teams that formed. Dorst voices concern that desires to rationalise design processes have overshadowed designerly skill and agency and dismiss the practitioner as the “missing person in design research” (2008, p.8). We do not put forward the methods applied in the Chiasma as a dogma of design-led innovation efficacy. Instead, we oppose the view of the seemingly impartial facilitator as a trainer, rather than a player, a social connector, and an agent of change (Julier, 2007, p.208; Manzini, 2009, p.11; Morelli, 2007, p.6; Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p.13–14). We argue that facilitators are immersed, relational, non-neutral collaborators in the innovation process, denoting Steen’s notions of reflexivity as a means of “constructively combin[ing] practice and analysis” (2008, p.69; Broadley, 2013). This dual role is invaluable within fostering effective knowledge exchange and echoes Press, Bruce, Chow, and White’s proposition that a liberation from methodological constraints enables our “valuing of the sensuous and creative qualities of design knowledge and the confidence to use this in new and appropriate ways to develop new solutions” (2011, p.9).
7. Conclusion: From Methods to Mindsets In this paper we have acknowledged the growth of interest in design-led innovation activities for the development of SMEs through knowledge exchange between HEIs and industry. Design in Action’s Chiasma method was presented, firstly through a case study of
1754
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
delivering the very first Chiasma process, followed by a thematic analysis of the co-design methods used across the subsequent twelve Chiasma events. Key concerns, reflections, and learnings were then presented around how co-design methods can reveal participant insights and concerns and align their interests and expertise, towards sharing their visions of innovation in ways that could engender meaningful collaboration. This paper has argued for the recognition of more nuanced, resonant materials in co-design methods, and proposes these as opportunities for translating design knowledge to a wider range of stakeholders. From our perspective of delivering and reviewing co-design methods to support collaboration, stronger resonance came from establishing a constructive platform for participants to identify and engage their knowledge and skills in line with the chosen context (Sanders & Stappers, 2014; Vaajakallio and Mattelmäki, 2014). The balancing act rests on the ability for such co-design methods to serve the purpose of activity, yet prove bespoke and creative enough to facilitate new connections between participants. Concurring with Acklin, Cruickshank, and Evans (2013), we recognise through the development of Chiasma that a shift in focus from co-design methods to the role of the designer in supporting collaborative mindsets was critical. Acknowledging the paper’s limitations, we point out that without being directly involved in the coordination and delivery all thirteen Chiasma, we are unable to reflect fully on the rationale underpinning each activity or the participants’ interactions with the corresponding co-design methods. In future similar processes, we would recommend the integration of methods to actively capture participants’ experiential accounts to more fully evaluate the impact of co-design methods. As we embark on an extensive phase of evaluation, we point out that our accounts of Chiasma in this paper provide only a snapshot of the breadth and depth of activity carried out across the hub. There is limited evidence at this stage of Chiasma’s impact in delivering economic growth through design-led innovation, yet as Chiasma is an innovative concept, we feel these learnings around co-design methods and knowledge exchange are of interest to the design community. Acknowledgements: We thank all our collaborators from Design in Action, and the participants who attended the thirteen Chiasma. Design in Action is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). We gratefully acknowledge their ongoing support.
8. References Aldersey-Williams, H., Bound, J., and Coleman, R. (1999) The Methods Lab: User Research for Design, London: Design for Ageing Network; Helen Hamlyn Research Centre. Acklin, C., Cruickshank, L., and Evans, M. (2013) Challenges of introducing new design and design management knowledge into the innovation activities of SMEs with little or no prior design activities. European Academy of Design – Crafting the Future, Gothenburg, April 2013, http://tinyurl.com/hndrah2, (Accessed 9 March, 2016). Ballie, J., and Prior, S. (2014) The Strategic Role of Design in Supporting Knowledge Exchange, ServDes 2014 – Service Future, Lancaster, April 2014, http://tinyurl.com/zvu569a, (Accessed 7 March, 2016).
1755
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
Bell, J. (2005) Doing Your Research Project, Buckingham: Open University Press. Biggs, M. (2004) Learning from Experience: approaches to the experiential component of practicebased research, Karlsson H., ed. Forskning, Reflektion, Utveckling, Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet, pp 6–21. Biggs, M. (2007) Modelling Experiential Knowledge for Research, Mäkelä, M., and Routarinne, S., eds, The Art of Research: Research Practices in Art and Design, Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki (UIAH), pp 180–204. Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., and Hillgren, P.A. (2012) Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges, Design Issues, 28.3, pp 101–116. Breslin, M., and Buchanan, R. (2008) On the Case Study Method of Research and Teaching in Design, Design Issues, 24.1, pp 36–40. Broadley, C. (2013) Visualising human-centred design relationships: a toolkit for participation, PhD Thesis and Portfolio submitted to the Glasgow School of Art, September 2013. Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., and Winhall, J. (2006) Red Paper 02, Transformation Design, http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/red-paper-02-transformation-design, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Chiasma 1.1 Participants (2013) Quotes taken directly from responses in the exit polls submitted to participants at the end of each day of Chiasma 1.1. 28 February, 2013. Comunian, R., Gilmore, A., and Jacobi, S. (2015) Higher Education and the Creative Economy: Creative Graduates, Knowledge Transfer and Regional Impact Debates, Geography Compass, 9.7, pp 371–383. Cox, G. (2005) The Cox Review of Creativity in Business: building on the UK's strengths, London: HM Treasury, http://tinyurl.com/hqfbgtr, (Accessed 10 August, 2011). Creswell, J. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage. Crossick, G. (2006) Knowledge transfer without widgets: the challenge of the creative economy, London: Goldsmiths, University of London. Cruickshank, L., Whitham, R., and Morris, L. (2012) Innovation Through the Design of Knowledge Exchange and The Design of Knowledge Exchange Design, Leading Innovation Through Design: 2012 International Design Management and Research Conference, pp 453–460, http://tinyurl.com/guw7rys, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Davenport, J. (2013) Technology Transfer, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Exchange in the Historical Context of Innovation Theory and Practice, The Knowledge Exchange, An Interactive Conference, September 2013, Lancaster University Deiaco, E., Hughes, A., and McKelvey, M. (2012) Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, pp 525–541. Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2013) SMEs: The Key Enablers of Business Success and the Economic Rationale for Government Intervention, http://tinyurl.com/nebzrh6, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2015) The Dowling Review of Business-University Research Collaborations, http://tinyurl.com/nm32hsq, (Accessed 7 March, 2016). Design Council (2007) Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global brands, A study of the design process, http://tinyurl.com/h5tru2v, (Accessed 7 March 2016). Design Council (2015) The Design Economy 2015: The Value of Design to the UK, London: Design Council. Dorst, K. (2008) Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen, Design Studies, 29, 1, pp 4–11.
1756
From Participation to Collaboration: Reflections on the co-creation of innovative business ideas
Ehn, P. (1989) The art and science of designing computer artifacts, Scandinavian journal of information systems, 1.1, pp 21–42. Ehn, P. (1993) Scandinavian design: on participation and skill, Schuler, D., and Namioka, A., eds, Participatory design: principles and practices, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 41– 77. Eriksen, A. (2009) Engaging design materials, formats and framings in specific, situated codesigning – A Micro-material perspective, Nordes 2009 – Engaging Artefacts, Oslo, September 2009, http://tinyurl.com/jt9ut7z, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Hanington, B., and Martin, B. (2012) Universal Methods of Design: 100 ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions, Massachusetts: Rockport. Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art (2013) designingwithpeople.org: Methods, http://tinyurl.com/gruz549, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). IDEO (2002) IDEO Method Cards, http://tinyurl.com/opwo3k9, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Johnson, M.P. (2016) Mapping Design Things: making design explicit in the discourse of change, PhD Thesis submitted to the Glasgow School of Art, March 2016. Julier, G. (2007) The Culture of Design, London: Sage. Kearney, G., and McHattie, L. (2014) Supporting the open innovation process in small and medium enterprises, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 23.4, pp 552–557. Lucero, A., Vaajakallio, K., and Dalsgaard, P. (2012) The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events, CoDesign, 8.1, pp 1–23. Manzini, E. (2009) New Design Knowledge, Design Studies, 30.1, pp 4–12. Miles, M., and Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edn). London: Sage. Morelli, N. (2007) Social Innovation and New Industrial Contexts: Can Designers “Industrialize” Socially Responsible Solutions?, Design Issues, 23.4, pp 3–21. Norman, D.A., Verganti, R. (2014) Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change, Design Issues, 30.1, pp 78–96. Press, M., Bruce, F., Chow, R., and White, H. (2011) Rip + Mix: Developing and Evaluating a New Design Method in Which the Designer Becomes a DJ, The Endless End – The 9th International European Academy of Design Conference, Porto, May 2011, http://tinyurl.com/ztn3mkq, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Sanders, E.B.N., and Stappers, P.J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, CoDesign, 4.1, pp 5–18. Sanders, E.B.N., and Stappers, P.J. (2014) Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning, CoDesign, 10.1, pp 5–14. Schoffelen, J., Claes, S., Huybrechts, L., Martens, S., Chua, A., and Moere, A. V. (2015) Visualising things. Perspectives on how to make things public through visualisation, CoDesign, 11.3–4, pp 1– 14. Steen, M. (2008) The fragility of human-centred design, Amsterdam: IOS Press. Tassi, R. (2009) Service Design Tools: communicating methods supporting design processes, http://tinyurl.com/kk52xz, (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Vaajakallio, K. (2009) Enacting Design: understanding co-design as embodied practice, Nordes 2009 – Engaging Artefacts, Oslo, September 2009, http://tinyurl.com/hxb5g3p, (Accessed 20 October, 2015).
1757
Cara Broadley, Katherine Champion, Michael Pierre Johnson and Lynn-Sayers McHattie
Vaajakallio, K. (2012) Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure, manuscript for PhD dissertation, submitted to Aalto University, August 2012, http://www.uiah.fi/publications, (Accessed 30 May, 2012). Vaajakallio, K., and Mattelmäki, T. (2014) Design games in codesign: as a tool, a mindset and a structure, CoDesign, 10.1, pp 63–77. Yee, J.S.R. (2010) Methodological Innovation in Practice-Based Design Doctorates, Journal of Research Practice, 6.2, pp 1–23.
About the Authors: Cara Broadley Dr Cara Broadley is a Research Fellow at The Glasgow School of Art. In 2013 she completed her practice-based AHRCfunded PhD exploring the role of participatory design approaches, visual methods, and reflexivity in engaging with organisations and communities. Katherine Champion Dr Katherine Champion is a multidisciplinary researcher currently employed as a Research Fellow within the AHRC-funded Knowledge Exchange Hub ‘Design in Action’ (KEHDiA) programme. She holds a PhD from the Urban Studies Department at the University of Glasgow. Michael Pierre Johnson Dr Michael Pierre Johnson is a post-doctoral design researcher interested in the effects and viability of design innovation approaches. His AHRC-funded PhD was awarded in 2016 at The Glasgow School of Art as part of the Knowledge Exchange Hub ‘Design in Action’. Lynn-Sayers McHattie Dr Lynn-Sayers McHattie is Programme Director at the Institute of Design Innovation at The Glasgow School of Art. Her research focuses on multidisciplinary practice-based inquiry towards exploring complex socio-cultural challenges, which enhance collective wellbeing and can inform policy.
1758
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions Sune Gudiksen*, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen Aalborg University * sunekg@hum.aau.dk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.475
Abstract: In recent years, co-design research has moved into the heart of business and organisational matters of concern. As a consequence of that fact, the idea of what design is capable of evolves into something that does not only encompass product and service design, but also at the same time changes organisations’ way of doing things – or in other words, it challenges the organisational culture and the mindset of the decision-makers as a way towards the successful embedding of a project within the organisation. This paper investigates how the development of a new service design project together with integrated co-design interventions might raise the chances for creating a shift in decision-maker mindset and viewpoints. Additionally, we take a closer look at what consequence this has for the structure of the design process and the investigations and actions taken. Drawing on the empirical data from a three-month-long collaborations between students and companies, this paper presents the findings on ways to elicit decision-maker codesign interventions that enable and sustain the necessary support for a specific service design concept. In the end, we argue that, as a matter of course, a new service design will lead to significant organisational changes; therefore, this might as well be addressed from the very beginning. This creates a path for design to intervene in and gain influence over various organisational levels in support of a specific service design project, hence becoming a stronger interventionist force. Keywords: Service design; Co-design; Design intervention; Design games
1. Introduction Over the years, we have experimented with several course set-ups in which master’s students collaborate with companies on a specific business service design case problem or opportunity. This has resulted in – at least at the outset and based on feedback – successful service design concepts that the decision makers could bring into the organisation. Based on
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
these courses, we observed the tendency that those groups who took into consideration the decision-makers’ viewpoint and attitude, as well as challenged them even in the fuzzy front end of the project, were most successful; at least this was the case for those groups that went for a new, radical service design rather than optimisation. In various other company collaboration projects, we have demonstrated how co-design interventions can be fairly strong as an enabler of shared communication, mutual understandings and initiate reframing (Buur & Gudiksen 2012; Gudiksen 2014). Based on these initial observations and the co-design research conducted, we wanted to further explore how to assist students in raising the odds for a successful organisational decision-maker’s adoption of a new service design. It seems that we are not alone in having this promising agenda. In a recent article, influential design thinkers Tim Brown and Roger Martin discussed the importance of design interventions within organisations as part of the development of new product-service design projects. They particularly expressed the need to initiate ‘iterative interaction with the decision maker’. They further elaborate by calling these interventions with the decision makers ‘more critical to success than the design of the artefacts themselves’ (Brown & Martin 2015, pp. 58–61). Also, in Dorst’s seminal work on designers’ frame creation process, he notes that a key issue is to ‘crack open and investigate assumptions’ of stakeholders (Dorst 2015, p. 52). However, Brown, Martin and Dorst provide few concrete examples of how and when to approach this, and, in earlier books by IDEO-related authors, this was not an explicit concern (See Kelley & Littman 2006; Brown 2009; Kelley & Kelley 2013). Additionally, dealing with the viewpoint of the decision-makers and taking into consideration the organisational change perspective have, in design research over the years, been an afterthought that is first addressed when a new service design concept is presented, or it has simply been dealt with separately. This might leave it up to the service design concept itself to create all the changes in the final delivery to the company. However, it is emphasized from various organisational change researchers that to create a successful transformative organisational change involves challenging fundamental assumptions, beliefs and values as part of the organisational culture (Argyris et al. 1985; Rosseau 1995; Argyris 2010). According to Junginger and Sangiorgi service designers’ need ‘to re-think the organisation elements around the new service experience’ (Junginger & Sangiorgi 2009, p.8). As a consequence of the underexplored intersection between service design and organisational change, we developed an ambitious three-month-long master’s student collaboration with companies in which we relied on both service design approaches and codesign interventions. Each group was assigned a service business case. The collaboration included three co-design intervention hubs with the decision-maker. With point of departure in these collaborations we explore the research question: How can the development of a new service project together with integrated co-design interventions in organisational change raise the chances for creating a shift in decisionmaker mindset and viewpoints?
1760
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
As part of this, we also take a more concrete look at the co-design interventions in the development hubs and investigate whether they trigger a new framing or investigative action and why this might happen. The paper is structured as follows: We begin with a theoretical outline of the similarities and differences between service design and co-design in relation to the specific field of concern. The research method is then presented in detail before we turn to the two cases. Lastly, the two service business cases are compared, and we conclude with the initial findings.
2. Service design & Co-design In order to understand why we took this point of departure in the course, we first need to investigate the research fields of service design and co-design, which currently have begun to overlap and intersect with one another.
2.1 Service design A major difference between service design and, for instance, product design is whether one is designing for a single interaction with one product, object or digital device or if a series of events, cues, interactions or touchpoints take place, leading to interactions across time and space. For instance, Shostack introduced the notion of touchpoint thinking by stating that ‘the design of service should therefore incorporate the orchestration of tangible evidence – everything the consumer uses to verify the service’s effectiveness’ (Shostack 1984, p. 136). Carbone and Hackel (1994) likewise argue that the role of the service provider, producer or designer is to orchestrate ‘clues’. Several subsequent articles echo this aspect of service design, sometimes calling it ‘service encounters’, ‘experience points’ or ‘cues’ as synonyms for the popular, broadly used term ‘touchpoint’ (Bitner et al. 2008; Chesbrough 2010; Zomerdijk & Voss 2010). The service design begins at the moment a customer comes in contact with the organisation and continues until the customer ends contact. A specific service design, with its many touchpoints, involves many stakeholders – management, research and development employees, marketers, partners and customers/end-users. It seems that, inevitably, introducing a new service design project requires the support of many stakeholders and, in particular, the management; otherwise, it will probably be short-lived. This adds to the increased need to iteratively work with the various stakeholder viewpoints, the current organisational culture and the decision-makers’ willingness to support a new service design perspective. However, as of yet, a great deal of the service design research has focused on the relationship between company and customers.
2.2 Co-design In co-design and in the overlapping field of participatory design, users have been important partners in this area of the design process for decades (Simonsen & Robertson 2012). Specifically, participatory design began as a political response to the then-current system
1761
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
design approach where researchers or engineers created the system, but the workers were not included before the system was launched. The resulting design solutions were thus not ideal for the workers. As the use of co-design and participatory design spreads through service, business models and organisational change, and is integrated into the general innovation agenda (Buur & Matthews 2008), the technology perspective might remain implicit, but it is only a part of a broader agenda. In a complex meeting of many professionals’ expertise, a central aspect of co-design projects is the creation and application of tools and techniques for stakeholders to collaboratively experiment with reframing and design directions (Gudiksen 2015) as well as create space for collective creativity and surfacing tacit knowledge (Sanders & Stappers 2012; Polanyi 1962). In these new co-design application areas the assumption is that tools and techniques must be designed with specific stakeholders in mind and thus can differ from previous co-design and participatory design mock-ups, design games, participatory sketches and prototypes. Moreover, these co-design interventions might incorporate principles from organisational change theory, which deal with the history of the organisation, the various stakeholders’ viewpoints and the previous attempts to solve a particular problem (Kotter 1995). Additionally, key attention is given to creating a linkage between the present system and the future system (Maurer 2010). In light of this, it can be argued that one must return to first principles in crafting these co-design tools and techniques.
3. Research method This work is based on design-based action research – that is, intervention experiments in design workshops in which students, through guiding principles, engaged participants in dealing with the potential decision-maker mindset shift and organisational change consequences of the service design initiative. This type of intervention experiment is in the same family as Schön’s notion of exploratory experiments, in which an action is undertaken only to see what follows, as well as move-testing experiments, in which there is a possible end in mind (Schön 1983). The results are further based on research-through-design (Frayling 1993; Archer 1995) and an experiential inquiry cycle composed of four steps (Kolb 1984): (1) designing the interventions, (2) conducting design interventions through design tools in the hubs, (3) observing the action and (4) reflecting based on relevant theory with the purpose of extracting design intervention principles and propositional knowledge. We report from experiments with two service business cases. They were chosen for deeper analysis partly because they moved beyond the optimisation of an existing service design and, in part, they showed the potential to move discussions in radical new directions. Therefore, the cases function as design exemplars (Binder & Redström 2006). The analysis is based on empirical materials, such as notes and observations from the interventions days, as well as video recordings of the entire activity. Video can be considered a vital addition to the direction of research-through-design, because it helps document and communicate the results, thus preventing the results from being a mere gathering of
1762
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
reference materials (Frayling 1993). The video recordings were transcribed and analysed through the use of interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson 1995). In the cases, we go directly to the crucial and decisive moments in the design intervention sessions. By comparing incidents across the sessions, we are able to propose how the design intervention scaffolds the discussions of decision-maker change issues related to the service design initiative.
4. Course set-up The three-month-long collaboration between the students and the companies was divided into three hubs with time to investigate in-between them, to both develop the service design concept and the supporting change actions. 4.1 Hub 1 – Mutual understanding & Shared communication The first hub focused on the first meeting between the service business company owner and the students. The students were presented with various communication and mapping tools that they could use to help move along the first dialogue. The first meeting is central to reach shared communication and create an initial framing of both the service design initiative and the past and current organisational business aspects and culture. 4.2 Hub 2 – Framing & Reframing In the second hub, the students were introduced to co-design tools that are vital for reframing a specific design and for exploring and explicating otherwise tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1962). The co-design subfield of design games was used at this point as inspiration, as these games have proved useful in challenging a specific frame and in initiating reframing in previous research (Brandt 2006; Author 2015). Still, the students had to take into consideration the decision-maker, other stakeholders and the organisational culture. 4.3 Hub 3 – Conceptualising & Sustaining In the last hub, the students used digital platforms and mediums, which can showcase concepts and establish a strong frame as well as argumentative points. In this hub, the focus was more on sustaining and furthering the work through ‘sense-giving’ than through ‘sensemaking’ so that the company owner could understand the service design concept and the underlying organisational consequences.
1763
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
Hub 1
Hub 2
Hub 3
Mutual Understanding Shared communication
Framing Reframing
Conceptualising Sustaining
Service design problem
Business model and organisational culture issues
Understanding decision maker
Investigative service actions
Service design (re)framing
Investigative service actions
Service design concept
Investigative organisational actions
Business model and organisational culture changes
Investigative organisational actions
Investigative decision maker practises
Challeging decision maker
Investigative decision maker practises
Business model and organisational culture changes
Surprising decision maker
Figure 1 Illustration of the course set-up with the three hubs and the investigations and actions in-between these.
5. Case one – Gourmet Tea Company In the first case, a student group dealt with a small Danish business that sells gourmet teas and tea accessories online. The company's values included trust, authenticity and joy, and its vision was to provide pauses for relaxation and joy for its customers. The company's owner had a wish to reach a younger target group in the 20–30-year-old age range through the digital platforms already used: Facebook, Instagram and a website. After conducting research on the different platforms, it became clear for the student group that the company's website (which also is the only place customers can buy the products) was fairly anonymous and had a classic 'sales-website' feeling to it. Since the number of online stores is exponentially rising, this lack of appeal was clearly an unsuitable and unfavourable situation for the company. From the perspective of experiential service design (Zomerdijk & Voss 2010), a company should pay close attention to the ways by which a brand image can be differentiated and create cues through which the customers can interact with the brand identity. Thus, this became the initial focus for the student group working with this case – that is, how a redesign of the website could create user experiences that could potentially convey the company's values to its customers.
5.1 Hub 1 – Mutual understanding & Shared communication In the first meeting with the company owner (abbreviated to CO), the group decided to take a more in-depth look at the current business model of the company, since there was a lack of information on the value delivery (internal value chain) and value capture part (revenues) in the company – that is, the internal value chain and the current revenues. Furthermore, creating a shared understanding of the business model was a prerequisite in dealing with the case, as the group anticipated that they would possibly have to change aspects of this.
1764
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
To involve the CO in dialogue about the business model, the group used Osterwalder and Pigneur's (2010) Business Model Canvas as a mapping tool. The group found it useful since it gives a good overview of the structures that exist in a business model in general, and further it functions as a concrete framework for the CO to relate to. In this way, the group tried to avoid a situation in which the first meeting would become merely unfocused, rather 'loose talk' about her business; however, the group also bore in mind that the canvas might only work as an initial frame-setter and not as tool for reframing. During the meeting, the CO was to map the nine sectors of the Business Model Canvas (see Fig. 2). Through the first meeting, it became clear to the group that the CO had much ambition for the company, especially related to value propositions she could offer customers. The group noticed that she found it difficult to commit to a concrete value proposition strategy. Another observation the group noticed as part of the dialogue was that she had an incredible amount of tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1962) about tea and the values she attributes to it. The first meeting had two main outputs that triggered two actions for further work with the case.
Figure 2 The tea company's business model canvas
The first was that the group had to investigate more into 'the world of tea', which they did by preparing a questionnaire that was distributed to potential tea-drinkers. The focus of the questionnaire was the values which the respondents connected with tea, allowing the group to gain deeper insights into the values associated with this phenomenon. In total, the group received approximately 300 responses within a week. The values in relation to tea drinking from the questionnaire were categorised into nine themes in affinity diagrams (Kolko 2011), from which the group could see that there was greatest consensus on the following values:
1765
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
the flavour of the tea itself, the social aspect, the ‘coziness’ and the relaxation – all of which the group indirectly tried to support through the new website. The second action was related to the company owner’s reluctance to make concrete choices about the company's future, why the group discussed how to reduce the many options she would continuously bring into play. As we shall see in the next hub, the group took this into consideration as they prepared the next co-design decision-maker intervention.
5.2 Hub 2 – Framing & Reframing The second development hub was based on a design game that the group developed for the CO. The reason the group chose to develop a game was so that they would have an element of play – what Huizinga (1949) defines as 'not serious' – since it stands outside of the ordinary world. As well, design games are a way to create a partly open structure for the dialogue through the procedures, rules and materials (Author 2015). The group found this to be ideal because, by creating a game, they could get the CO to 'play' her way through choices, thereby dealing openly and creatively with the challenge as well as enabling an alternative way to reach controlled convergence (Pugh 1991) – that is, creating a decision route. The game involved a fictional journey, which was dubbed 'from passion to vision' by the group. The game comprised four main areas that, in short, represented the segments which the CO had employed to build the company from scratch and in which she regularly had to make specific choices. The first area was the 'tea-fields', through which the CO was to talk about how her passion for tea started. The reason for doing so was to allow the group to obtain elements of the storytelling that could later be applied in the design of the website. In the second area, she had to choose between a selection of various personas (Goodwin 2011), which the group had developed beforehand, and place them in a hierarchical triangle with the main persona on top. This was again to get the CO to make a definite choice and so that they could target the terms of the website to the selected personas. In the third area, the CO was to connect her products with different value words. The reason for this was so that the group could identify the values behind the products so the website could make use of these indirectly. The last area was the most interesting. Here, the representative was to make an important choice: whether she would walk the same path as her competitors in relation to marketing and branding or whether she would take a chance and go a radically different way. Student: ‘the choice is whether you will go, somewhat, the same way as your competitors, or whether you want to take a chance, and go a little more in an uncertain direction – try something new in relation to your company's image’. Company owner: ‘I have to come down here (in the uncertain road, ed.), because up here (at the competitors, ed.), there are some very different means and knowledge about the tea business. So I have to differentiate my business in some way’. Student: ‘Do you have any idea how to differentiate your business?’
1766
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
Company owner: ‘That is the big question I have been thinking a lot about. But I want to do it a bit different than the others. I am thinking about the visual and personal aspects of my business. I can do it a lot more personally than the competitors’.
Through the design game, the main finding was that CO was motivated to do something different from her competitors and thereby try to differentiate the company in the market. Also, the design game led to several decisions and directions for the upcoming service design concept.
Figure 3 The company owner playing the design game – making decisions on how to differentiate.
5.3 Hub 3 – Conceptualising & Sustaining After the second development hub, the group had enough data to begin the redesign of the website. The collected data from the questionnaire was sorted with an affinity diagram (Kolko 2011) by the group, so they could see the patterns of which value words most respondents related to drinking tea. After the affinity diagram, the tool insight combination (Kolko 2011) was applied to explore ideas for the website design. Here, the data from both the design game and the questionnaire were used to initiate ideas and for the qualitative judgment of these ideas (Nelson & Stolterman 2003). The idea which was found to be most suitable through the data and the abductions was that the website should be designed as a planet with four sub-sites, each with its own world (see Fig. 4). Rapid-prototyping was used (Cao et al. 2014) to develop the website continuously so that the group could quickly make additions and corrections as they analysed the data. Therefore, the third development hub was a presentation of a more or less functional version of a final website that differed significantly from other tea-websites, although in a less detailed form. The prototype was posted online on a test site so that the CO had the opportunity to explore it further. The group found it useful to have a prototype with actual
1767
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
interaction opportunities so that the CO could provide feedback on these. Moreover, the CO could provide the group with more constructive feedback, as she had a clear picture of what the student group thoughts behind the design were.
Figure 4 The final redesign of the website. Centre: The main site. Corners: The four sub-sites.
5.4 Company owner feedback and what happened next The CO was, in general, positive about the design, because she could relate it to her own 'tea universe'. After the third development hub, the group held user tests of the website using the DECIDE-method (Preece et al. 2002), since the focus in their case was on branding through user experiences. Overall, the CO was pleased with the redesign of the website. However, she stated that it would not be used in its full form since it would be costly to implement. She said, however, that the group had given her an eye-opener in terms of what one might do to differentiate a brand. In relation to the interventions, she particularly credited the design game from hub 2, since she could see the value in the structure it provided, resulting in concrete choices in relation to the company's future.
5. Case two – Art supplies company The second case concerned a Danish company that develops, produces and sells high-quality office and art supplies with some of the products being well known for decades. The company had 25 employees and a turnover of 25 million Dkr. annually. The initial contact for the group was with the CEO and owner of the company. The initial description of the
1768
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
problem as perceived by the CO pointed to problem areas concerned with the establishment and maintenance of a relationship with the customers of the future, defined as people under 30, who did not grow up with pen and paper the same way their parents did due to the technological evolution of information technology.
6.1 Hub 1 – Mutual understanding & Shared communication The student group prepared a structured interview in two rounds, first using the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010) and secondly using The Strategic Pyramid (Neumeier 2012). As communicative tools, these models provided a common context for the group and the CO to speak about his business and gave insights into both the organisational structures and strategies of the company. The strategic pyramid was added to touch upon strategic elements rather than merely the business model issues. As the interview progressed, it became clear to the group that CO had much to say and that he had trouble sticking to simple, clear answers – which was a similar issue for the group in the first case. This made it difficult to work through the proposed models, and it seemed to require stronger facilitation to conduct the interview. Even with structured questions, the CO told many elaborate stories, and the interview shifted into a more narrative interview form (Mishler 1986). Despite a lack of overview, the interview yielded much data, which, given the narrative interview form, would require structuring before further analysis. Among the insights the group noticed an expression from the CO that seemed very central to his strategic way of dealing with new ideas: Company owner: ‘In my drawer, I have many ideas that lie far above and beyond ... but yes, I really do my best to not think about it, because when I do, I get all confused’
As we shall see, this was later used in the next co-design intervention. Through the analysis of the interview data and subsequent affinity mapping – in this case, the KJ-method (Kawakita 1975) and a modified Business Model Canvas for structure – the student group achieved a more nuanced understanding of the company. Both its internal structure and processes had become discernible, and it became clear to the group that the company was at the beginning of a greater organisational change. Within the last year they had replaced all their IT systems with open-source systems, they had built an in-house storage facility with a shipping area and they were also in the process of changing both business name and business identity. Meanwhile, there was an on-going increase in customers. The on-going changes and increase in orders created problems in terms of keeping up with orders and at the same time dealing with the changes the company was undergoing. Furthermore, the interview provided insights into the mindset and attitude of the CO and what impact he had on the company. After the initial interview, the group decided to step back, disregard the initial problem as perceived by the CO and move forward with uncovering the multifaceted problem area.
1769
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
6.2 Hub 2 – Framing & Reframing To explore the now-identified problem areas and to identify others, the student group created a design game with offset in the expression used by CO in the first intervention: ‘the drawer where future projects are kept’. The game was inspired by the ‘negotiation & workflow oriented design game’. Brandt uses this type of design game to identify and develop new work processes (Brandt 2006), though here it was used for exploring the company’s strategies with the drawer metaphor as an opener. With this type of design game, the group sought to establish a common language to talk about the existing tasks as well as future developments. The group also constructed the game as a framework with artefacts to promote facilitation in order to prevent the CO from deviating onto other topics, as experienced in the initial interview. Although the group considered other stakeholders at this stage, the CO was the only participant since he was responsible for the business strategy and had the primary decision-making authority. By applying his own metaphor of ‘the drawer’, the group aimed to invite the CO into the design game to generate co-decisions on which route to follow. The game materials comprised a game board with a drawer placed on top and tokens in the shape of Popsicle sticks to be written on with a sharpie as the projects in the drawer were identified. On the game board, three rings marked the steps leading to the implementation area, which was regarded as the goal zone. The first round of the game was for the CO to move tokens from the drawer through the rings on the game board to the goal zone (Fig. 5).
Figure 5 The ‘drawer’ with the three circles
The second round of the game was to capture that which had come to light during the first round of the game. For this, the students created a second game board constructed as an
1770
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
oversized coordinate table with the axes Interest and Time. By having the CO prioritise the Popsicle sticks by placing them in the table, the group expected to see a visual representation of the problem areas through a time-interest perspective. When it was disclosed to the CO that he had to write out the future projects he had in the drawer, he had an unexpected reaction. He expressed feeling both uncomfortable and anxious talking about future projects: CO: ‘It is a little anxiety-provoking sort of….I’m I suppose to stand here or what?’ Student: ‘Yes, you can stand wherever you like’. CO: ‘It is anxiety-provoking in the sense that I have made an effort to put away (ed. in the metaphorical drawer) ideas that surface yet have no relevance within three years. Those ideas will be put in the drawer because they could disturb. I should not talk to my employees about them as they will just get confused. I should also be very careful about what I might think of … because … but … what is it called … I would like to talk about it, it is exciting’. Student: ‘But that is actually not the point. How should I explain this … we will have to figure out what it is … what the three most important issues are for something to come out of the drawer. The things you have written here (student points to the drawer) define what will be written here (students points to the three circles)’.
This caused the group to immediately adjust the game in order to make the CO feel safe by changing focus to the ‘existing projects underway’ instead of ‘future projects’. After adjusting the game to better accommodate the CO it progressed as planned. A few times he darted off into non-relevant anecdotes, but he willingly complied with efforts to bring him back into the game by use of the artefacts. It can be proposed that the reason these moments of anxiety occurred was the inquisitive attention from the group; however, the group might also have needed to partake actively in the process instead of passively watching the CO, which was what happened next. The second course of the game offered a breakthrough – not just for the group but for the CO as well. The finished visual representation on the second game board was an external snapshot of his company’s current strategies as he saw them in his head. He expressed surprise at seeing it outside his head – his tacit knowledge had surfaced (Polanyi 1962). The second course of the game also made it clear to the group which problem areas required attention, as observed in the company’s time-interest game board (Fig. 6).
1771
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
Customization
Values
Figure 6 Analysis of the priorities in the second game board: interest vs time. The focus on customization and co-creation.
Based on these findings, the group explored the processes of B2B and B2C orders by conducting a go-along (Kusenbach 2003) – collecting data regarding stakeholders and touch points in the value chain. A modified ‘service blue print’ was applied (Bitner et al. 2008) for analysing the data collected in the go-along.
6.3 Hub 3 – Conceptualising & Sustaining The solution developed was an interactive digital concept for optimising and simplifying the customised order flow for the B2B segment – the internal part of the value chain. The objective was to uncover the internal handling of both B2B and B2C customizing orders. In a typical service blueprint both customer actions and front-end has high priority since the way in which Bitner et al. (2008) defines services revolves around the customer. The group considered the video recordings from the go-along as physical evidence and the basis for the following analysis. Therefore physical evidence was not included in the visual representation, as it was the empirical data for analysis. Since the group point of interest was in identifying the actual order flow with the order in focus, they modified the visual representation to accommodate this point of view. The customer then became a stakeholder in the order flow along with the internal stakeholders, and the group could visually monitor and log how orders moved through the company, as documented in the recordings (see service blueprint Fig. 7).
1772
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
Figure 7 The Status quo in the company (top). The new edition from the group with the co-created meeting through a new plugin (bottom).
The group decided to present the identified problem, the status quo and the new solution in a short animated video, creating a narrative to convey the full concept and to highlight by comparison how the solution differed from the status quo in the company – and how these changes could benefit the company. The video medium has several characteristics that the group found useful in communicating the concept – one of which is the ability to tell complex stories in a simple and fast manner (Berger 2012). By using whiteboard animation, music, sound effects and speech, the group created a short video with a high impact.
1773
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
Figure 8 Screenshot from the final video presentation in which the group demonstrated the new service blueprint
The solution was designed to increase value for both company and customer by customising through co-creation, where the company and the customer design a product in a mutual collaborative process around a virtual table. With reference to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), the group focused their solution on co-creating unique experiences with customers through the new service design concept.
6.4 Company owner feedback and what happened next The video was well received by the CO. In the feedback he expressed excitement and verbalised high interest in the solution. In the following in-depth discussion with the group, he however expressed a reluctance to fully give up decision-making authority in the design process, objecting to the very core element of co-creation.
7. Comparison & Conclusions In both cases the student groups succeed in provoking a new mindset and viewpoint from the CO’s that they accept to a large extent. Even though the CO’s choose not to proceed with the full solutions they value parts of them, and use them for further inspiration. They also note that the process proves just as important as the final solution because it helps them to think differently about their own practices – one could call this a collaborative reflective practice session (adding to Schön 1983). In both cases the groups could have paid even more attention to the concerns of the decision-maker, or benefitted from further design interventions with the CO’s. For instance, the first group could have investigated budget and cost, and the second group could have included the stakeholders. However, it also comes down to deliberate choices from the groups to showcase the experience potential in a website and demonstrate the effects of a major change in the service value
1774
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
chain, thus the intention was not necessarily for the company owners to take everything from the proposed solutions. Both groups indicated that it in future work it would be interesting to involve the decision makers a higher number of times during the design process. We are keen on creating collaboration that are even better at challenging the mindset of the decision maker and creating effective interventions. For this to happen, we learned several things to consider in future endeavours from these two cases: (1) In both cases the groups pay attention to the decision makers’ attitude and practices that triggers actions and investigations that designers in the past usually paid little attention to – for instance ‘the unique website differentiator’ based on decision makers knowledge. Dealing with both past, present and the future state of a company is a complex matter, and contemporary design thinking and co-design might have to be inspired from research within organisational change. Understanding the practices of the decision makers and the organisational culture becomes a key point of attention as design breakthroughs might be found here as well as in the specific service design. We see an enormous potential in bringing co-design and organisational change theory closer together to create strong, vital and decisive design interventions – interventions that elicit change in decision makers and the organisational culture, and create the necessary support for a service design concept, or any other artefact, to be accepted and adopted. (2) Brown and Martin (2015) emphasise that iterative interaction with the decision maker is important, however this may not be enough and in so far it might be possible a project could benefit from inviting other stakeholders as well to gain support and joint ownership of the project from the very beginning. In case two the CO was aware that the project had taken the direction of an internal process optimization. However, the group could see from the feedback that although he was positive during the presentation, which may be due to a video with high impact and a surprising solution, he still found it difficult to accept the complete change in the company's operation, which was reflected in the oral feedback. In reflection, the group saw this as a trait for the CO that could have been taken more into account. The challenge here lies in convincing the decision maker that this is important both in student-company collaborations and in other cases so that access to stakeholders can be given. We know from co-design interventions in other projects that inviting diverse stakeholders as well as outside experts into the co-design interventions can challenge decision maker viewpoints and create the space for positive conflicts (Buur & Larsen 2010; Author 2015). However, positive conflicts and reframing in co-design interventions is only fruitful if it triggers actions and investigation – for this to happen, someone has to become form-shaper in transition between interventions, a role suitable for the designer. We suggest that the ‘classic’ designer role becomes more integrated with co-design interventionist activities. With continuously more complex artefacts they are better off with an integrated relationship with a focus on both the designer as a shaper of co-design interventions and shaper of form in transitions.
1775
Sune Gudiksen, Anders Christensen and Pernille Henriksen
8. References Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2(11), 6-13. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (2010). Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. OUP Oxford. Berger, A. A. (2012). Seeing is Believing: An Introduction to Visual Communications. McGraw-Hill Binder, T., & Redstrรถm, J. (2006). Exemplary design research. Design Research Society Wonderground International Conference 2006, 1-4 Nov 2006, Lisbon, Portugal. Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66. Brandt, E. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games a framework for participation in participatory design? Proceedings Participatory Design Conference, 57-66. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. HarperBusiness. Brown, T., & Martin, R. (2015). Design for Action. Harward business review Sep2015, 93(9), 56-64. Buur, J., & Gudiksen, S. (2012). Interactive pinball business. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (pp. 129-138). ACM. Buur, J., & Matthews, B. (2008). Participatory innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 255-273. Buur, J., & Larsen, H. (2010). The quality of conversations in participatory innovation. CoDesign, 6(3), 121-138. Cao, J., Zieba, K., Ellis, M. (2014). The Ultimate guide to prototyping. UXPin. Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Management, 3(3), 8-19. Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, 81-110. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Open services innovation: Rethinking your business to grow and compete in a new era. John Wiley & Sons. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation. MIT Press. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. London: Royal College of Art. Goodwin, K. (2011). Designing for the digital age: How to create human-centered products and services. John Wiley & Sons. Gudiksen, S. (2015). Co-designing business models: Engaging emergence through design games. PhD dissertation. Aalborg University. Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens. UK: Redwood Burn Ltd. Trowbridge & Esher. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103. Junginger, S., & Sangiorgi, D. (2009. Service design and organizational change: Bridging the gap between rigour and relevance. In Proceedings of the 3rd IASDR Conference on Design Research (pp. 4339-4348). Seoul, South Korea: Korean Society of Design Science. Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2006). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for defeating the devil's advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. Crown Business. Kelley, T. & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Crown business.
1776
Bridging service design with integrated co-design decision maker interventions
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kolko, J. (2011). Exposing the magic of design: A practitioner's guide to the methods and theory of synthesis. New York: Oxford University Press. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business review, 73(2), 59-67. Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street Phenomenology: The Go-Along As Ethnographic Research Tool. Ethnography, 455-485. Maurer, R. (2010). Beyond the wall of resistance: Unconventional strategies that build support for change. Bard. Mishler, E. G., (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Harvard University Press Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Educational Technology. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Clark, T. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press. Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation Experiences: The Next Practice In Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14. Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. AddisonWesley. Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications. Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial design toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. BIS. Schรถn, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shostack, G. L. (1984). Service design in the operating environment. Developing new services, 27-43. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge. Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67-82. About the Authors: Sune Gudiksen has worked with co-design and especially design games as a medium for initiating development, change and reflection in organisations and businesses. He has written several conference and journal papers, as well as a Ph.D. on the co-design of business models. Anders Christensen has a focus on service experience design and tools and techniques for this area of study. Through several projects he has worked with this agenda and continue to explore it. Pernille Henriksen has a focus on co-design and participatory design in relation to digital media and technology, as well as organisational change.
1777
This page is left intentionally blank
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process Clementine Thurgood* and Rohan Lulham University of Technology Sydney * clementinethurgood@uts.edu.au DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.218
Abstract: It is well established that key to achieving innovations is to innovate on meaning; however, most discussion is limited to the meaning of the end product to the user. We argue that meaning changes should be explored throughout the design process. We contend that framing is intrinsically related to the creation of new meaning due to its capacity to provide a new standpoint from which to approach problems and subsequently direct novel solutions. We provide an analysis of framing and meaning making by studying three design innovation methods that span social, product, and business design. We arrive at a common model of framing in which we explore how meaning changes are initiated and in what form they manifest. We contend that the act of framing creates new meaning by providing a new interpretation of the problem (to the designer) and/or an interpretation of the solution to the user. Keywords: design innovation methods; meaning; framing; design process
1. Introduction It is increasingly recognized that design can be used to achieve innovations through creating a change in (product) meaning (Verganti, 2008, 2011). By innovation we refer to the introduction of a new product or service into the market that results in sustained changes in behaviour of that market (Dong, 2013). Meaning within the design literature is often considered broadly as the purpose of the product1 or service as held by the user (Verganti, 2011; Verganti & Öberg, 2013). Meaning can include both technical or utilitarian intents, and other more experiential characteristics or qualities, and, likewise, a change in meaning can refer to the product having a different use-scenario or a different perception, or 1
We will refer to “products”, “solutions”, or “situations” throughout this paper to include any type of outcome of the design process including physical products, but also services, experiences, and so on.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
interpretation, by the user. Design is particularly suited to creating innovations of meaning because its methods and practices of finding new approaches to problems or opportunities enables the generation of novel solutions. The creation of these new approaches, or perspectives, in a design task constitutes the design activity of (re-) framing and is seen as an integral part of the practice of expert designers (Cross, 2007; Dorst, 2011; Schö n, 1983). We argue that the act of (re-) framing supports changes in meaning because taking a new approach to a problem inevitably changes the qualities of both the problem itself and the types of solutions that are subsequently generated. Most academic discussion concerning meaning and innovation is restricted to that focusing on the end product of framing – the final design and its meaning to the user. In this paper we seek to examine how these meaning changes occur, specifically, we examine meaning changes both in terms of the value of the end product to the user, but also in regards to the meaning changes during the problem re-formulation stages for the designer. Thus, we explore the role of framing in creating changes of meaning over the design process. We examine three design innovation methods that share in common this act of (re-) framing and cover a broad range of case studies and applications within the domains of social, product, and business design, namely, Frame Creation (Dorst, 2015), Vision in Design (Hekkert & van Dijk, 2011), and Design Led Innovation (Bucolo, 2015), respectively. We studied example projects from each method in order to ascertain a common model of framing in which we can study meaning creation from the problem conceptualisation through to solutions. Our common model of framing enables the exploration of both how meaning changes are initiated (what we term, “meaning prompts”) and in what form they manifest (“meaning attributes”). The paper proceeds as follows: We present a brief overview and exploration of the concept of meaning, offering our own articulation of what meaning could be throughout the design process (section 1.1 Meaning). We then begin our analysis of framing and meaning change by introducing each of the three (re-) framing methods and our approach to analysis (section 2. Methodology). We then present our common model of framing and meaning making in which we compare and contrast the three methods (section 3. Analysis). Within this, we articulate the steps of framing common to each method, and we present an abstracted model of these steps in which we identify and describe specific instances of meaning change. We finish with a discussion where we reflect on interesting insights derived from analysing the three innovation methods with the common model of framing, and then conclude with suggestions for future research (section 4. Discussion).
1.1 Meaning Meaning as understood in the literature The idea of innovation of meaning is well established and numerous accounts abound. For instance, the leading Italian product design firm, Alessi, created their “Family Follows Fiction” line of kitchen products whereby the visual appearance of common kitchen items was modified to appeal to the user’s inner sense of child. Similarly, Artemide’s Metamorfosi
1780
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process
lamp took the concept of lighting from lamps as merely beautifully designed objects, to lamps that create atmosphere and ambience. These examples, and others, clearly illustrate how a product (or service) can have a change in meaning, or value, that goes beyond a simple change in function or technological improvement. However, this notion of meaning, or creation of new meaning, within the domain of design is ill-defined. Several different attempts at creating taxonomies of meaning have already been put forth (e.g. Crilly, 2010; Fournier, 1991; Krippendorff, 1989). Here, meaning is discussed (for example) in relation to purpose, function, symbolism, emotional associations, and so on, both at the personal and the shared social cultural level. Further, meaning can relate to perceptions, feelings, thoughts, or actions. As can be seen, no consistent conceptualization of meaning exists, and most discussion is limited to end user value, with meaning changes during the design process relatively overlooked. An account of meaning as an interpretation of a situation For sake of simplicity, here we offer a broad conceptualization of meaning as an interpretation of a situation, whereby this can be an interpretation of the problem (to the designer) and/or an interpretation of the solution to the user. Changes in meaning in the first instance – the problem – could manifest as a new understanding of the problem, and a new way of looking at the problem; while changes in the second instance – the solution – can manifest as a new experience of a product/situation in its context. We can label these interpretations, or manifestations of meaning change, as “meaning attributes”; that is, what form or quality the meaning change possesses. We can also label how these meaning changes manifest as “meaning prompts” – the activity that sparked or initiated the change in interpretation of a situation. We will explore the nature of these attributes and prompts and their relationship to the framing process throughout the remainder of the paper.
2. Methodology In order to understand meaning changes over the design process, we need to clearly understand the nature of framing, as we believe it is the act of framing that is central to meaning creation and is a key feature common to most design innovation methods. We analysed three current design methods, namely, Frame Creation (Dorst, 2015), Vision in Design (Hekkert & van Dijk, 2011), and Design Led Innovation (Bucolo, 2015). We explored several example projects of each method that span the domains of social, product, and business design. By studying multiple example projects we could abstract from them specific qualities and steps involved in framing which allows us to build a general model of the framing process, shared across methods. This approach builds upon that described in Vermaas, Dorst, and Thurgood (2015) in which different forms of framing (framing, reframing, and goal-reformulation) were described in order to determine instances in which framing can go wrong. Within our own broad model of framing presented here, we also interject our analysis of meaning making: its prompts and attributes. In the remainder of this section, we introduce each method with a brief background and then an example
1781
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
project of each.1 We then will begin our detailed analysis of these examples in the section to follow (section 3. Analysis).
2.1 Frame Creation Method The Frame Creation (from now on, FC) method was developed by Dorst (2015) as a means to address complex problems that involve many different participants with often conflicting values and needs. These tensions make the problem hard to solve; it cannot move forward in its original terms because it is seemingly stuck in a deadlock. The designer seeks to abstract the deeper underlying values and themes governing human behavior (in the problem field) in order to open up the problem space and find new approaches for solving it. Comparisons are drawn with existing situations in which these themes and values are realised. These situations, or frames, provide a new way of looking at the problem, and therefore open up a range of new potential solution directions beyond what the original situation presented. Next we present an example project of a re-design of a dangerous nightspot, Sydney’s Kings Cross. The full description of the project and the method can be found in Dorst (2015). Example project: Kings Cross nightspot We describe a night-time entertainment district in Sydney Australia that became a setting for antisocial behaviours and escalating crime. High volumes of young people attend on Friday and Saturday nights, and activities were predominantly concentrated into only a small stretch of nightclubs. Some of the problems that occurred include drunkenness, violence, petty theft, and drug dealing. Previous attempts at solving the problem included the implementation of strong-arm tactics aimed at increasing police presence; however, the additional security measures only served to reinforce the grim atmosphere. The designers involved were called in to find alternative approaches to solve this problem. After extensive interviewing of people involved, they realised that the situation had previously been treated as a law-and-order problem requiring law-and-order solutions; however, the people involved were not actually criminals. Instead, they were just young people looking to have a good time. The unpleasant events that occurred were likely due to boredom and frustration resulting from the lack of structure of the nightspot together with the sheer volume of young people. The designers proposed a simple analogy in which large volumes of people already successfully come together and interact in a harmonious fashion: a music festival. They then took the analogy further and approached the problem as if they were dealing with a well-organised music festival. By reframing the problem in this way the designers stepped away from law-and-order solutions and asked themselves what they would do if they were organizing a music festival and this triggered new scenarios for action, as a well-organised music festival offers many facilities that are not currently available in the Kings Cross district 1
We analysed three example projects of each method, but due to constraints of the length of this paper, we present here one example each. We did, however, find very similar patterns across projects for each method.
1782
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process
but could easily be designed in. The designers worked in conjunction with the local government authority for Sydney to execute a variety of solution directions. Some examples included extra transport options to get people home after the usual train services end, chillout spaces to break up the crowd, mobile public toilet blocks, friendly guides, and so on. Since the project in Kings Cross, the local government authority for Sydney has implemented similar changes in other areas of the city, thus reinventing itself as an active conductor of life in the city.
2.2 Vision in Product Design Method The Vision in Design (from now on, ViP) method was developed by Hekkert and van Dijk (2011) as a means to develop innovative products and services that have a meaningful reason for existing. By drawing upon techniques from the social sciences, the designer can create a future context in which to situate their design based on an analysis of trends, developments, states, and principles. The designer then decides what value they want to offer the world, and what interaction qualities they want people to have with their design within their proposed context. Products and services are then designed to realise these goals accordingly. We now describe a ViP project involving a re-design of a retail store from Dutch Railways. A more detailed account can be found in Hekkert and van Dijk (2011). Example project: Dutch Railways (Servex) retail system Dutch Railways (Servex) contacted the design firm KVD for a re-design of their old-fashioned “office window” type of convenience store. The original shop had been showing a decrease in sales and consequently Dutch Railways wanted to see how a new real, walk-in shop would fare in its place, while keeping traffic-flow in mind. Through analysing the context it was discovered that the shop itself was not the central component of this task; people want to have a relationship with the products they are buying, but not necessarily the shop they are buying them from. The design task, therefore, was rephrased in terms of what product portfolio the store could offer. It was further found that people in semi-public environments behave differently at different times; that is, they play different roles depending on their current concerns. They might want to do things with other people at one time, and distance themselves at another time, and so on. Thus, Dutch Railways claimed that they wanted to enable people on the railway platform to be supported in the behaviour they wish to embody as a means to attain their current social goals. Four groups of product categories were envisaged to support the following different social roles: enjoyment in a group (called “bond”), entertaining oneself (“disconnect”), identification with socially accepted behaviour (“role play”), and imitating other people on the platform (“flow”). To readily distinguish between categories and facilitate fulfilment of the appropriate social role, the railway travellers need to be instantly directed towards the appropriate product category. Drawing upon analogy, the designers proposed that the shop should function as a typecasting coach: a kiosk with a corridor created by two walls of products leads the shopper through a transition from self- to full-service (the “coach”). The products are clearly grouped into their
1783
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
respective social categories and each category contains items that emphasise different social roles: for example, a six-pack of beer was placed in the “bond” category to reinforce connection to others, while magazines were placed in the “disconnect” category to allow people to entertain themselves. Thus, while the final design deliberately facilitates platform traffic-flow as requested in the initial brief, it also realises a completely different goal, namely, to support people’s behaviour in addressing their different social concerns.
2.3 Design Led Innovation Method The design led innovation (from now on, DLI) method was developed by Bucolo (2015) as a means to create strategic advantage for organizations over their competitors. It involves innovating across the entire business model rather than simply at the product level. This is achieved by developing value propositions based on deep customer insights and then aligning strategy and branding to these accordingly. These value propositions are devised by envisaging future states or experiences that the business could one day strive to offer. These futures are tested with customers until an accurate representation of their true needs is obtained. Then, using these refined insights, new, risk-mitigated solution directions are used to bridge the current towards the desired state. We now describe an example of a manufacturing company, Centor, that participated in a design-led innovation program. More information on their development can be found on their website (Centor, 2015) and in Bucolo (2015). Example project: Centor windows and doors Centor started out as a manufacturer of high-quality hardware components for the door and window industry. After the global financial crisis hit they realised they needed to reinvent themselves in order to grow and compete in the new economic climate. Through a designled program, they were encouraged to find new opportunities through envisaging an alternative future their business could strive to provide. The idea of moving into designing and manufacturing the full production of windows and doors provided this opportunity to scale up and make much larger sales. Importantly, they realised they needed to correctly identify a new customer, and, similarly, to make sure they deliver a product that is relevant to them. Thus, they set out to identify their purpose and their new customer, and therefore the right sort of product for that customer. They converged on a persona of a new customer, “Wendy”; a homeowner looking to do a new build, the decision-maker in her house. They embarked on interviews with potential customers around the world to learn about Wendy’s potential expectations and motivations. The interviews revealed that people want to be connected to the outside world; they love inside-outside living, in every season. Thus, rather than focusing on selling windows and doors per se, Centor turned their attention towards bringing the outdoors inside to expand and improve living spaces. This was afforded by the full production of bi-fold, screen, and sliding doors that slide back completely to reveal the outdoors. The structure and culture of the workplace also changed. As an example, they reinvented their business model to accommodate moving from the
1784
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process
manufacturing of components towards an entire system – the components and the windows and doors. They used the business model as a common communication platform in the workplace to deliver quality products. Furthermore, the CEO recognized the importance of empowering staff. Through surveying staff regarding behaviours that had impressed them and that had upset them, they managed to distill their company values. These values were published in a book that is used among existing and future staff as a means to reinforce and impart their values and to keep up morale. Centor are now the recipients of numerous awards and are on a continual design-led journey.
3. Analysis 3.1 A model of framing: Analysing meaning changes across methods Now that the three design innovation methods are described, in this section we use the example projects to deduce specific steps of framing in order to arrive at a common model shared between methods (displayed in Figure 1). Within this, we analyse how and what changes in meaning occurred for each method at each step. The section concludes with a table (Table 1) that presents an abstracted overview of this analysis, thus allowing direct comparisons between framing and meaning making across methods.
Figure 1 Common model of the framing process from problem through to solutions.
Start frame By start frame we refer to the start-point of the project: the current situation, either in the form of a problem or an opportunity. The description might be articulated by the client, e.g. in the case of FC’s King’s Cross, the situation was described as one of a “crime scene.” In the ViP Dutch Railways example, the start-point was a failing window-style shopfront serving as a convenience store. And in the case of DLI’s Centor, the starting position was as a manufacturer of components for windows and doors. Alternatively, the designer themselves might already have labelled the situation as being of a particular “type” (of frame) based on their experience and knowledge. Furthermore, the start frame might fit into any number of domains; for instance, a social problem (e.g. the Kings Cross situation in FC), a business problem or opportunity (e.g. Centor in DLI), or a new, or updated product (e.g. the kiosk in ViP). Inherent in the start frame are particular meanings about the situation that determine how the problem or opportunity is currently being approached. Goal The goal is the initial aim or purpose, or state of affairs to be achieved. In the case of, for example, social problems, the goal might be expressed as a value to be realised, rather than as an exact product or service. For instance, it could be a negative behaviour to be
1785
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
diminished, and/or a positive behaviour or effect to be achieved. In these instances it is likely to be formulated by the client as it is related to the problem as they have presented it. In the case of FC and Kings Cross, the initial aim was to reduce the antisocial behaviours. In the case of business model transformation, the goal is the purpose or offering the business serves to the customer. The start frame and goal here could be combined to form the value proposition – or the promise of value to the customer that sets it apart from competitors. For DLI’s Centor, the initial offering was to provide high quality hardware components to manufacturers of windows and doors. For product design it might be the intention to create an entirely new product that improves the current situation, or an improved version of the current product. In the ViP Dutch railways example, the aim was to create a real shop in place of the existing old-fashioned window-style store that takes traffic flow on the platform into account.1 Re-frame During the re-frame, the problem-solver attempts to reconsider the problem at hand by delving deeply into the problem situation. It involves a process of broadening out of the problem-space to go beyond the current understanding of the problem as new information is acquired. This can be achieved by abstracting or deducing true, or core underlying values or needs, as in the case of FC’s Kings Cross. Through techniques such as thematic analysis, the designers realised that the “criminals” were in fact just young people who were bored and looking for a good time. The new frame conveyed new meanings about the personal and social intentions of the young people attending Kings Cross. Another approach is through creating a new future context or proposing a future need as in the examples of both ViP’s Dutch Railways, and DLI’s Centor. The designers associated with Dutch Railways borrowed techniques from the social sciences to understand the “factors” (principles, trends, and developments) governing human behaviour. With this new information, they were able to build a new future context with new embedded meanings and thus propose a different problem than the one initially at hand: they observed that people’s concerns and needs change throughout the course of the day and they want this to be reflected in the products that they buy. Centor, on the other hand, sought to create a new future context by considering the potential needs of a future customer, namely, they considered the possibility of selling directly to a homeowner. When considering the needs of a homeowner, it could be imagined that they want to purchase the full system of windows and doors, and that they want these to afford the feeling of being seamlessly connected to the outside world. This was a new meaning, essentially social in nature, that provided Centor with a way of reconsidering how they relate to their customers. In all these instances, the meaning 1
In each of these examples, while the goals might seem reasonable and straightforward, they cannot be realised in their original form; hence the need to re-frame. In each instance there is a state of deadlock or tension. Competing tensions keep the problem from moving forward (see Dorst, 2011, for a discussion of paradoxes). In FC’s Kings Cross, previous law-andorder solutions had failed to reduce violence (and in the re-frame step it will be revealed that it is because this was not actually a law-and-order problem). In DLI’s Centor example, external pressures from the global financial crisis meant that they would have to find a new goal and scale-up in order to stay competitive. Similarly, in ViP’s Dutch Railways example, it would become apparent the shop should not actually be central to the project, but that the relationships people want with their products should instead take centre stage.
1786
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process
change in reference to the start frame manifests in the form of a new understanding, or a revision, of the problem. Re-formulated goal With the problem space now opened up beyond that presented in the initial start frame, a new, refined goal, or value to attain, is proposed. In the case of FC’s Kings Cross, the new goal was to occupy and entertain the young people. For ViP’s Dutch Railways, the new goal was to create a store that supports people’s behaviour in realising their social goals. And for DLI’s Centor, they sought to create customer experiences of connection to the outside world. Adequate resolution of the new goals should in effect subsume the original goals as well, whether deliberately or incidentally, and will be discussed further in the solutions section. End frame After this new understanding of the problem has been established, the next step in moving forward is to find a new approach, or new way of looking at the problem (a “frame”). This might be achieved through drawing upon metaphors in order to comprehend the less welldefined problem situation. By considering the desirable values and needs identified in the preceding re-frame step, it is possible to look for similar situations in which these values and meanings are realised. For example, in FC’s Kings Cross, the designers compared the troubled nightspot to a musical festival. A musical festival shares in common many elements with the troubled nightspot (large volumes of young people, alcohol consumption, and so on), yet they seem to function relatively harmoniously, conveying different social and cultural meanings, such that it can be used as a source of new ideas. Similarly, in ViP’s Dutch Railways, the designers knew the type of future shop they wanted to create – namely one that assists people in realising their current social goals – so they drew upon a metaphor of a shop as a typecasting coach for facilitating appropriate interactions. A typecasting coach would serve the role of directing people around a shop. In the case of both the FC and ViP examples, the meaning change here (from the start and re- frames) is essentially initiated by seeing or looking at the problem in a different way. The form in which the changes manifest is that of a new perspective on a problem that creates new meanings about how participants could experience the context. A new frame might also take the form of a new value proposition as in the case of DLI’s Centor. Here, the re-formulated goal could be combined with the end frame to provide a value or offering to the customer, in this instance, integrated indoor-outdoor living that joins indoor and outdoor worlds to expand and improve living spaces. Again, like FC and ViP, the meaning change here is initiated by seeing the problem in a different way, but instead of drawing upon metaphor, the new value or perspective is established and confirmed by proposing and testing it against customers until an accurate representation of true needs is obtained. In all instances, the development of the end frame involves narrowing back in and defining the problem in a new way so opportunities for making new meanings emerge. Solution
1787
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
The solutions refer to the products and/or services that should realise the initial goal as a consequence of addressing the re-formulated goal. The end frame directs solutions by drawing upon their working principles (in the case of the FC and ViP examples) or comparing and bridging future desired and current states (as in DLI). In FC’s Kings Cross, an array of solutions was put into place, including extra public toilets, extra entertainment, extra transport, and so on, that changed the meanings associated with the precinct. These solutions were designed to occupy, entertain, and assist the young people (re-formulated goal) so that they do not get into trouble in the first place (initial goal). In ViP’s Dutch Railways, a shop was created with embedded meaning that directs people to different zones (addressing an initial goal of controlling traffic flow), containing different types of products corresponding with their current social concerns (re-formulated goal). In DLI’s Centor example, the company extended their offering from the simple production of door and window hardware components (initial goal) to the full production of window and door systems that fold away completely to reveal the outdoors and expand living spaces (reformulated goal). In all instances, the solution is intended to manifest as a new user interpretation, or experience, of the product, situation or service.1 This new meaning might be implicit or explicit, and can fall into any of the categories of individual (personal), social (cultural), or utilitarian (literal). For instance, in Kings Cross the solutions directed by the musical festival frame hold personal significance in terms of creating a sense of identity, and they also clearly have social meaning in that the solutions change people’s interactions and relationships with others. The Dutch Railways example can be seen particularly as creating new social meanings in the store environment by providing product portfolios that deliberately support the type of interaction-style people want to have with others. Lastly, Centor’s integrated indoor-outdoor living could be considered as influencing users’ personal and social meanings related to how they can use and experience the home environment.
3.2 Framing and meaning making over the design process Following this analysis, Table 1 provides a general overview of our assessment of how, using each of three design innovation methods, new meaning is typically created and the nature of the new meaning. Shaded in grey in the table is the analysis of the new meanings at the reframe, end frame, and solution steps of the framing model. In the first re-frame step, our analysis indicates that although each method uses different processes to prompt the new frame or meaning, the attribute of the new meaning across methods is generally in the form of a new understanding about the problem context. At the end frame step both the FC and ViP methods appear to restructure how they see the problem through the use of analogy and metaphor, while in DLI the view of the problem is changed by proposing and testing assumptions about new future customers. The new meaning created through the end frame 1
Here we are discussing the prompts of the designer (e.g. using working principles of the frame) and its intended effect on the perception of the solution to the user (the attributes perceived by the user). We are particularly interested in the design process here; however, we acknowledge that the actual user would likely have their own set of prompts in experiencing a new change in meaning – for example, e.g. detecting a difference between old and new meaning in terms of a new set of qualities or use-scenario.
1788
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process
in both FC and ViP is generally a new transformative perspective on the problem, whereas in DLI it is a new validated business proposition. At the solution stage, again there are similarities with how the FC and ViP methods create solutions with new meaning (e.g. using working principles to deliberately convey meanings of the new frame), while DLI seeks to create strategies to bridge current and future states. In each method the key meaning attribute of the solution is a new relationship or experience with the situation/product in its context.
1789
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
1790
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process
4. Discussion 4.1 Overview of aims and findings It is widely recognised that a key feature of achieving innovations is to innovate on meaning; however, most academic discussion focuses on the value of the end product to the user, with little discussion regarding how the creation of new meaning is initiated. In this paper we sought to examine meaning creation over the design process – both in the problem and solution spaces. We examined three design innovation methods in which framing plays a central role. We reasoned that framing is intrinsically related to the creation of new meaning due to its capacity to provide a new standpoint from which to approach problems and subsequently direct novel solutions. From observing patterns across methods and example projects, we were able to articulate a common model of framing which revealed important insights regarding how meaning changes arise (“meaning prompts”), and in what form, or quality, they take (“meaning attributes”). We found that meaning changes did occur both within the design process (during the re-frame and end frame) and in the solution stage. This capacity to investigate the nature of both the design process and the end solution using the common construct of meaning creates new opportunities for a more integrated understanding of the whole innovation process – from framing through to the successful implementation and use of the product. We will now briefly discuss these changes of meaning in turn, situating them in a discussion of more general human “ways of knowing”, or thought processes and activities, that align with the design processes outlined in our framing model.
4.2 Reflecting on the analysis We have broadly conceptualised meaning in this paper as being the interpretation of a situation. We argued that this can be an interpretation of the problem (to the designer) and/or an interpretation of the solution (to the user). We have examined the relationship between innovation processes, framing, and meaning to identify how meaning is made throughout the innovation process, and in what forms it manifests. While we found the methods to differ in their procedural steps and in the individual nuances by which meaning changes are initiated or prompted, we observed some commonalities in the broad representation or form in which these changes manifested (or in the “interpretations” of meaning at each stage in the design process). In the problem space, we argued that meaning change manifests firstly as a new understanding of the problem (during the reframe stage), and then as a new perspective on the problem (during the end frame stage). In the solution space, to the designer, meaning change first manifests as the designing of new product-context relationships (drawing from the meanings in the end frame). Then once the solution space is designed or prototyped, there is the user’s experience of the product (solution stage) as having new meaning (presumably) consistent with achieving the initial and reformulated goals.
1791
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
In reflecting further on the nature of meaning change at each step of the design process, it appears there is a logical purpose underlying each interpretation of transformed meaning that can be explained in more everyday, non design-specific language. That is, the steps of the design process and their associated representations of meanings can be mapped to more general human thought processes or behaviours; or, “ways of knowing” (as presented in Table 2). Broadly, we suggest that new meaning is created in the design process by firstly forming a new understanding of the problem, and then subsequently seeing it in a new way. Then, new meaning is further developed by acting in such a way to direct the creation of novel solutions. Finally, new meaning is then appreciated through the user experiencing these new products/situations. Table 2 Framing, meaning, and human ways of knowing. Human Process
Design Process
Nature of the Interpretation
Understanding
Re-Frame
New meaning as an understanding of the problem that provokes reconceptualization
Seeing
End Frame
New meaning as a way of seeing the problem that opens up opportunities for resolution
Acting
Solution-Design
New meaning as a way of articulating the solutions drawn from approaching the problem in a new way
Experiencing
Solution-Product
New meaning as the user’s experience of the innovative product in its context
4.3 Directions for future research Although there is a general recognition within the design innovation literature that the creation of new meaning is fundamental to innovation, there are still many issues requiring clarification. We have provided an analysis of framing and meaning making across three prominent design innovation methods, and argued that implicit in a new frame is new meaning. Our reflections suggest creating new meaning is a feature throughout the design innovation process often leading, at different stages, to changes in understanding, seeing, acting, and experiencing. The research presented in this paper, while promising, is, however, initial and exploratory. Questions remain regarding aspects of the individual nature of both framing and meaning, and the generalizability of how they interrelate. Future research will extend to a greater number of research projects from these and other design innovation methods to further develop and establish the nature of the relationships between framing, meaning, and innovation. In this paper we described some of the mechanisms regarding how meaning changes occur across three design methods (the “meaning prompts”). There are likely to be other prompts that deserve attention, and questions remain regarding which prompts lead to the most
1792
Exploring framing and meaning making over the design innovation process
innovative and/or successful solutions; the two might not be the same thing. Furthermore, we have assumed the designer’s intentions are successfully realised by the end user in terms of the desired meaning that is conveyed. However, questions remain regarding whether the intended frame is always successfully embodied in the solutions as perceived by the end user (e.g. see Vermaas et al., 2015). Last of all, we call into question the exact nature of meaning. We have offered a broad conceptualisation of meaning as the interpretation of a situation whereby this interpretation can be in the problem space (a new way of understanding and seeing) and in the solution space (a new way of acting and a new way of experiencing). The qualities of these interpretations need to be examined further. Within each level of interpretation, there are likely to be further subcategories for more intricately understanding the nature of meaning. For instance, at any of the levels of processing, meaning might be further classified as utilitarian-literal (the technical function that something is produced and reproduced for), individual-personal (the locus of meaning pertains to personal experiences such as emotions, and aesthetics), and social-cultural (meanings are embedded within interpersonal relationships with others such as through expression of identities, statuses, and values). These, or other potential subcategories will need to be further explored. In conclusion, it is intended that this paper opens up the scope for further research into studying framing and meaning making and that it may be useful in creating a better understanding of innovation processes generally. We have taken a purposefully structured approach in this study by using our common model of framing to identify similarities and differences between innovation methods. We believe this structured approach has considerable potential for further research by providing a means of comparison across design innovation methods and projects that will help elucidate the relationships between framing, meaning, and innovation. As such, we believe this approach also has utility for education and training purposes and has practical implications for guiding designers in achieving innovations. Acknowledgements: We wish to thank Kees Dorst, Sam Bucolo, and Paul Hekkert for many helpful discussions regarding their methods and for general advice on framing and meaning. We also thank Patrick Forrest for his assistance with the visual images in this paper. And we thank the reviewers for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript.
5. References Bucolo, S. (2015) Are we there yet? Insights on how to lead by design, BIS Publishers. Crilly, N. (2010) The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions, Design Studies, 31, pp. 311-344. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing, Birkhauser. Dong, A. (2013) Design x Innovation, Consilience and Innovation in Design: Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR), Tokyo, Japan, pp. 0234-0245. Dorst, K. (2011) The core of 'design thinking' and its application, Design Studies, 32, pp. 521-532.
1793
Clementine Thurgood and Rohan Lulham
Dorst, K. (2015) Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design, MA: MIT Press. Fournier, S. (1991) A Meaning-Based Framework for the Study of Consumer-Object Relations, Advances in Consumer Research, 18, pp. 736-742. Hekkert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2011) Vision in design: A guidebook for innovators, BIS Publishers. Krippendorff, K. (1989) On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition That "Design Is Making Sense (Of Things)", Design Issues, 5, pp. 9-39. Schö n, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, Inc. Verganti, R. (2008) Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, pp. 436-456. Verganti, R. (2011) Radical Design and Technology Epiphanies: A New Focus for Research on Design Management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, pp. 384-388. Verganti, R., & Öberg, Å. (2013) Interpreting and envisioning—A hermeneutic framework to look at radical innovation of meanings, Industrial Marketing Management, 42, pp. 86-95. Vermaas, P., Dorst, K., & Thurgood, C. (2015) Framing in design: A formal analysis and failure modes, Design for Life: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15), Milan, Italy, pp. 133-142.
About the Authors: Clementine Thurgood is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Technology Sydney. Her research interests include design innovation, design methods, design aesthetics, psychology, psychophysiology, and visual perception. She is currently investigating how framing supports changes in product meaning. Rohan Lulham is a Research Fellow at the University of Technology Sydney. His research interests include design for social innovation, design innovation methods, design and affect, environmental psychology and design innovation in justice contexts.
1794
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong Kaman Ka Man Tsang* and Kin Wai Michael Siu The Hong Kong Polytechnic University * kamansd@gmail.com DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.202
Abstract: The setup of cultural and creative cluster became a trendy practice for generating economic revenue in the post-industrial era. Many state governments imitates those successful prescription in the setup of cluster, however, it could not guarantee the sustainable development of the cluster. This paper endeavors to identify the fundamental factors in developing a sustainable cluster in a densely populated city. Rather than considering the spatial setting as the most important factor for cluster, this paper argues that the formation of community and happening of creativity are the integral factors for creative production. A three factors model has been generated for the evaluation of a sustainable cluster. The applicability of model was examined through an empirical case, Easy-Pack Creative Precinct, in Hong Kong. Data were drawn through direct observation and semi-structured interviews. The result reviews the meaning of cultural and creative cluster in the highly condensed city. Keywords: creative industry; cultural and creative cluster; creative community; creativity
1. Introduction In the post-industrial era, the rises of Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs) become a key factor to profit making and a new convention for bringing urban viability. Creative industries situated in a physical space and formed geographical cluster (Lazzeretti, Boix & Capone 2008; Scott 2005; Siu 2012). Basically, cluster refers to “geographically defined space where cultural activities occur or where businesses assemble to produce products and services for domestic or international consumption.� (Keane, 2013, p.3) Setting up of creative clusters becomes a trendy practice to support the creative industries agenda in the restructuring economic condition of cities in worldwide context. Especially after the influential geographic economists Alfred Marshall (1975) and Michael Porter (1998) established the cluster theory
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu
on highlighting the profit generation of cluster, a strong momentum of clusters was found in different counties; various forms and scales of creative clusters have been erected across the globe. In order to guarantee the successful ‘making’ of these sites, different governments make reference to the successful cases and recite similar formula in setting up the sites i.e. providing space with cheap rent for the start-up creative practitioners. Such formula is assumed as an uncritical strategy in sustaining the creative industries. However, the complexities of cultural and creative clusters were largely overlooked in both theoretical and empirical manner. Cultural and creative cluster had its own logic in operation; the homogenous practice in running the industrial clusters does not ensure the sustainable development of creative clusters (Kong 2009; Mommaas 2009). However, the highly condensed cities like Hong Kong where land is the most valuable and expensive resource, the Western operation mode may be inapplicable due to the lack of space and the skyrocketing rents. This research aims to explore the essential factors for a sustainable cultural and creative cluster in the highly dense city. Theoretically, the emerging concern on cultural and creative cluster gained scholarly concern. Issues like profit generation and product innovation system (Lazzeretti, Boix & Capone 2008) are still the main focuses of researches. Apart from concentrating the nature and function of creative cluster, growing number of literatures concerning the relationship between cluster and other attributes were found e.g. relation between cluster and network formation were the key concerns for the works of Harvey, Hawkins & Thomas (2012) and Kong (2009). Another group of scholars focused on the relationship between cluster development and creativity (Drake 2003), while scholars Adler (2012) & Capaldo (2007) highlighted the close relationship between community and creativity. Definitely, it was fruitful to see the connection of cluster with creativity and community. However, the dualistic preposition towards the cluster development could not totally explain the complexity of operation, function and meaning of clustering. Emphasis on the relationship between community formation and spatial quality of cluster might lighten the unique mode of creative production; these studies would be similar to those researches on other industrial clusters. While those stressed on the relationship between cluster development and creativity, the mutual support generated within the creative community might be overlooked. For those who focused on community formation and happening of creativity might neglect the qualities of place for creative production. Thus, this paper hypothesizes the importance of co-existence of three factors i.e. (a) Spatial quality of cluster, (b) formation of community and (c) happening of creativity for a sustainable cultural and creative cluster. The three factors should be regarded as the fundamental components as they are interrelated. Healthy and sustainable development of the cluster requires an intricate and complex mixing of all three factors. In order to demonstrate the importance of three factors for a sustainable cluster and its applicability in the highly dense city, one creative cluster from Hong Kong, the Easy-Pack Creative Precinct had been examined under the three factors framework. The case was selected because it was a typical as well as special cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong.
1796
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong
Similar to other clusters formed in an organic way, Easy-pack Creative Precinct is located at the old industrial area where it provides large studio space with reasonable rent. However, in order to maintain the rent at an affordable level, the spatial setting of cluster is in the form of subdivided flat, which is a new form of housing residence in Hong Kong due to the high-priced rent in the highly dense city.
2. Sustainable cultural and creative cluster Among the studies of cultural and creative cluster, Kong (2009, 2012) conducted detail studies on the sustainability of clusters in Asian context and she defined sustainability in terms of cultural, social and economic aspects. According to Kong (2012), cultural sustainability refers to “the continued ability for cultural workers to engage in their cultural work, and the conditions that support the specific nature of that cultural work.”(p.186) This paper basically agrees with the Kong’s understandings, but as her research target was more about artists while this study focus on the creative practitioners i.e. designer. So the cultural sustainability refers to the continuous ability to produce new creative works. For the social sustainability, Kong related it to “the sense of support that derives from social interaction within the space” (p.187). This paper will echo the importance of community and regarded it as one of the fundamental factors of sustainable cluster. To reveal the effectiveness of formation of community, the dropout rate under affordable rent is an important indicator. The economic sustainability could be understood as the happening of commercialization from Kong‘s sense, this study therefore pinpoints the commercial activities found in the cluster. Thus, sustainability of cultural and creative cluster could be reflected from two areas :( 1) dropout rate and (2) collaboration and production of new works.
3. Cultural and creative clusters in Hong Kong Hong Kong government had realized the economic potential of Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs) since 2005. A number of measures had been suggested to develop Cultural and Creative industries, which was regarded as one of the ‘Six industries’ of the city. (Policy Address 2009-10, 2009) An official body Create HK was established in 2009 to drive the development of creative industries with clear vision to build Hong Kong into ‘Asia’s Creative Capital’ (Create HK 2009). To realize such vision, the official body Create HK drove the creative industries in different approaches. Apart from providing $300 million financial support to develop the creative industries in Hong Kong, one of its major directions is to “develop creative clusters in the territory to generate synergy and facilitate exchanges” (Create HK 2009). In such a small city, there are seven planned clusters supported by Government, NGO and education institutions. However, negative feedbacks and complaints had been resulted even the official bodies had poured huge resources in constructing the clusters and providing rent subsidy to tenants. Those instituted clusters neither attained popularity nor were welcomed by the creative practitioners. Complaints and negative feedbacks had been frequently voiced out from tenants of different sites (CNN Go, 14/01/2010; SCMP, 18/04/2014). For example, many practitioners complained that the
1797
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu
operation of the clusters did not match well with the working pattern and lifestyle of creative groups; and the space did not encourage communication and interaction between tenants. Agglomeration of creative practitioners was able to promise the vibrancy cultural and creative clusters. Therefore, lots of creative practitioners prefer to set up their studio outside the subsidized cluster even they have to pay for high rent with similar or even poorer environment/ facilities. The old industrial areas normally become the alternative for them to set up their studio; different cultural and creative cluster has generally formed in such an organic way.
4. Easy-Pack Creative Precinct Easy-Pack Creative Precinct locates at a 40 years old industrial building in Kwun Tong district. With the busy traffic, air pollution and messy alleys of Kwun Tong district, the surrounding environment of Easy-pack Creative Precinct does not provide delighting atmosphere. In 2011, the landlord renovated the upper three floors and turned it into the Easy-Pack Creative Precinct. In order to remain an affordable rent for the practitioners, the gross floor area was divided into small premises with shared toilets and pantries; the format of the cluster was in the style of subdivided units. Size of each premise is different, ranging from 200 to 1200 sq. ft., for meeting the affordability of tenants. Currently there are 16 creative groups from various disciplines of creative industries.
Fig. 1. Location of Easy –Pack Creative Precinct Image source: Google map
1798
Fig. 2. Façade of Easy –Pack Creative Precinct.
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong
Fig. 3. The surrounding environment of EasyPack Creative Precinct.
Fig. 4. The main entrance of Easy –Pack industrial building is located at the back alley. ( Day and Night )
5. Research methods Data of this paper emerged from the research conducted from October 2012 to January 2015. Direct observation and semi-structured interview had been applied as the research methods. This research agreed with Berger (1998) “observation finds out what goes on in the subcultures or organizations being studied and to gain some insight into their operations (especially hidden aspects not easily recognized) and how they function” (p.105). This study made reference to the work of Hall (1966), Alexander (1977) and Zeisel (2006) on observation, focus was placed on three aspects i.e. (i) physical setting, (ii) social setting and (iii) cultural setting for examining the physical traces and social behaviour in the site. Observation at Easy-Pack Creative Precinct was conducted at different timeslots on both weekends and weekdays. Observation was also carried out for activities outside the site like visiting the music shows organized by tenants. Semi-structured interview was selected in this research because it “allows the respondent to develop and qualify his or her ideas in the interview setting and in addition allows for the introduction of contradictions which in them can provide valuable insights into consciousness” (Hobbs & May, 1993, p.102). The data was derived from the semi-structured interview with 10 creative groups who work in different disciplines (i.e. product design, furniture design, graphic design, music production, leather workshop, design services, multimedia art/design) at Easy-Pack Creative Precinct. Also, additional interview with landlord and the caretaker of the site had been conducted. All interviews were undertaken in a face-to-face format at the studio of interviewees. Each interview lasted for approximately one and half hour. The interview was aimed to collect primary data on (i) usage and expectation of cluster (ii) social interaction between the creative practitioners, and (iii) happening of creativity within the cluster
1799
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu
6. Findings: Three factors for the making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster Based on theoretical discussion and empirical study, this paper proposes three factors (i.e. Quality of cluster, formation of community and happening of creativity) are the integral elements for building a sustainable cluster fulfilling the economic, cultural and social aspects (Kong 2009). These three factors do not function independently but they are interwoven to support the creative practitioners (Refer to fig 5). In the first place, cluster is not only a physical site; it also refers to the spatial settings that support the special nature of creative production. It is important to concern the quality of cluster in terms of its basic needs, disciplinary needs and even the psychological needs, so that it could support the wellbeing of the practitioners. Formation of community among the practitioners is very critical that it allows frequent interaction and information exchange of the practitioners. Especially for the nature of creative production, which often highlights teamwork and collaboration, the cultivated sense of belonging and mutual trust among the creative practitioners help the creative work in a positive way. While creativity is the core for cultural and creative production, generation of inspirations, stimulation and diversified idea are expected to produce in the cultural and creative cluster. In order to make the requirements of a sustainable cluster explicit, further details of the three factors are listed as follows:
6.1. Quality of Cluster A breath of academic literatures have pinpointed the spatial setting of cluster is influential to the practice of creative users .The scholars have stated the importance of geography or spatial setting of the cluster (Cunningham 2002; Scott 2006; Kong and O’Connor 2009). To most of the creative practitioners, the studio in the cluster is more than a purely working space for temporary stay; it is essential to see how the cluster could meet the needs as well as the wellbeing of users. As reference to the classic theory Hierarchy of need by Maslow (1943), there are different levels of attainment in order to support the wellbeing of people. Similarly, the quality of cluster could be evaluated in different levels as (a) Basic need, (b) Specific need based on design disciplines and (c) psychological need. Basic need refers to the basic condition and amenities that retain the stay of creative practitioners. Specific needs are about different needs relating to design disciplines like the requirement on the ceiling height for photographic shooting. If the cluster could not provide certain freedom and amenities, it limits the variation of creative domains found in the site. The psychological level is more than supplying the primary conditions, it is about the fulfilment of psychological needs like the sense of security, sense of belonging and sense of community, it may largely raise the level of satisfaction that support the creative production. Empirically, the existing spatial quality of cluster was examined through direct observation. Through the question ‘What are the requirements for the selection of cluster?’ and ‘What are the expectations on the cluster?’ in the semi-structured interview, the interviewees
1800
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong
listed down all their needs and expectations of the cluster. They commented on different needs and data had been categorized based on the mentioned three levels.
6.2 Formation of Community This paper sees the importance of the spatiality-defined communities is important due to the practice of the creative job. Project-based, freelance or contracted works normally require last-minute workers with instantaneous access to skill sets. Job referral through the established social network is a win-win situation that helps the collaborative nature of creation works. Without prolong socialization at the physical location, the network of trust is difficult to develop. Sources of support, comments and collaboration would only happen after the development of mutual trust. As mentioned by Belussi & Staber (2012), “spontaneous & informal networks are the central organizational form in the arts domain, and formal project-based research networks are the locus of creative activity in science.”(p. xvii) Only with the presence of creative people in the same place, the spontaneous and informal interaction will be possible. This research would further highlight the importance of face-to-face interaction which is the truly way for long-term relationship and trust building. In the operation of the community, Brint (2001) came up with the concept of community through the study of Durkheim and identified the (a) structural variables and (b) cultural variables for examining the formation of community. Structural variables are about the dense social tie, the social attachments to and involvements in institutions and the group size, while the cultural variables refer to the similarity with the way of life and common beliefs in an idea system. In this research, the structural variable could be evaluated through the interview question ‘What kind of activities you will have with creative practitioners in this site?’ Besides the interview, the tenants often upload the photos of the joint activities with other tenants to the social media i.e. Facebook or Instagram, it could also evident their social attachments to and involvements in the cluster. The similarity with the way of life could also be revealed in the semi-structured interview on the everyday life pattern.
6.3 Happening of Creativity Clustering of Motley crew, as stated by Cave (2002), diversity of different people has positive effect as the creative industries need each other’s support for survival, from the idea generation to the product valorisation. This research adopts the sociocultural approach towards the creativity by Amabile (1983) that creativity includes two key factors :(a) Novelty and (b) appropriate to some domain of human activities (Sawyer, 2012, p. 214) In the empirical study, the number of domain of creative industries in cluster could reflect novelty as diversity of creative practitioners increase the chance for producing novel ideas. Also, the new creative works and collaboration could be examined by their company profile, official website and online promotion. Similarly, the chance of exposure, which helps to measure the appropriateness of cluster, could be discovered in the interview as well as the online promotion.
1801
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu
Fig. 5.Three factors model for the making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster
7. Examining the sustainability of Easy-Pack Creative Precinct 7.1 Quality of Cluster Easy-Pack Creative precinct does not have a very pleasure environment as it located at the old industrial district with automotive repair shops and hardware stores nearby. The traffic is busy and the frequent loadings of Lorries create traffic jams during peak hours. For the cluster itself, as it is in the format of subdivided studio unit that some premises are very small and without window. Due to the limited size of gross floor, there are very limited supporting facilities for creation and testing. Ironically, all interviewees were satisfied with the spatial settings of the Easy-Pack Creative Precinct and the provision of better environment would be something “nice to have�. They agreed that the site had some drawbacks, but they could bear with in general and had their own strategy in dealing with the difficulties. For example, one interviewee shared that though the rent was his major concern, he was highly motivated by the fact that he had to pay the rent monthly. All interviewees believed that the flexible management and freedom in use of space were very crucial. For example, they could have some temporary storage spaces at the lift lobby if needed or they would not be accused of making noise or doing some testing by hand tools.
7.2 Formation of Community According to interview and observation, the dense social ties could be found among the creative practitioners. The small group size (only 16 creative groups) and intimate spatial setting encourage the interaction between tenants. Through the day-to-day encounter at the corridor, lift, toilet and rooftop garden, the tenants get familiar with each other. Most interviewees reported that they had frequent interaction with each other including chitchatting, going out for meal, playing TV game or even joining together to go out for music show. Also, the active participation of the events held/organized by cluster (i.e. flea
1802
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong
market, rooftop music show, BBQ and hotpot gathering) showed that they had formed the creative community with good sense of belongings. The strong social tie actually helps the creative practitioners in a number of ways. For instant, one interviewee highlighted that he preferred to collaborate with tenants in this cluster. Even he knew some practitioners at some occasions or events but he never knew exactly one’s ability and knowledge without prolong observation. Many people just boasted of their talents and covered by brilliant presentation skills. Only through day-to-day observation, he knew what other’s ability, strengths and weakness. It was so risky to work with people that you were not really sure. Obviously they had built up mutual trust among tenants. Half of the interviewees mentioned the reason for their stay owing to the concentration of the creative groups. They believed it was vital to stay with the mind alike, as they had similar belief and would share and support each other. One interviewee specially highlighted that they could seek the instant but professional advices from people around them. Also, the prolong working hours or even overnight work was so common for creative practitioners, the average working hours was around 10.5 hours per day for tenants in the site, all interviewees emphasized the value of others’ presence. “In order to meet the deadline, I usually work very late and very stressful; sometimes I work overnight at my studio. The feeling of loneliness makes me feel bad, but knowing your buddies in this building who are still workings just like you make me feel better. Even though they work at their units, you can hear the sound of hammer or you see dim light outside their door is good enough.” (Interview with interviewee K, 08/09/2013)
7.3 Happening of Creativity Even though there are only 16 creative groups in this small cluster, there are 7major domains of creative industries. In the interview with the landlord, he emphasized he had carefully selected the specialism of tenants as he wanted to balance the dynamic in the site. He further highlighted that many tenants asked him if there were similar creative groups in his building, as they wanted to minimize competitions and conflict of interest between tenants. The co-location of homogenous creative groups would not bring synergy to the creative cluster. One interviewee recalled the process of collaboration between the tenants. “I have collaboration with the furniture maker in this building, just a moment when I wait for the lift and have casual chat with designer J, we come up the idea of making a leather chair. I am a teacher on leather design, and his buddies also join in with furniture design background. After spending few nights, we finally get the design done. But we are not sure about the production, so I just go upstairs where a curator has her own studio. She then link up with the factory in mainland, and now the leather chair is available in the market.” (Interview with Y, 04/06/2013)
Therefore, Leonard and Sensiper (1998) even concluded that innovation, to a large extent, was a social and communicative process. The exchange of idea and information flow among the creative group and face-to-face interaction should not be neglected. However, the lack of place for regular retail and showcases was one of the drawbacks of the site. In order to
1803
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu
compensate it, some tenants initiate the bazaars and flea markets to have more exposure of their works. Also, the site had organized the joint exhibition and worked with different commercial brands in order to let people know their works. Table 1: Sustainability of cultural and creative cluster – an evaluation of Easy-Pack Creative Precinct Cluster
Basic need
Subdivided studio unit Shared toilet No subsided rent Not all premise has windows Split air-conditioning system (24 hours available) 1 elevator ( for both cargo and passenger use ) Convenient transportaiton ( MTR, minibus, bus nearby) Inexpensive meal nearby ( staff canteens of factories, local restaurants )
Speicific need
Flexible use of space No formal exhibiton and event venue Limited supporting failicites for creation , testing , produciton(rooftop garden for small scale testing or woodwork )
Psychological Need
A number of places in the cluster have been identified by the users for casual meeting, gathering, entertainment &relaxation Flexible management Mid level of security (No security guard and security company, CCTV, entrance locked after 8pm) The cluster was unknown to the public due to the lack of promotion Air pollution due to busy traffic and concentration of factories Noisy and chaotic traffic with frequent loading of lorries Next to the automotive repair shops and hardware store
Community
Creativity
Structure
Dense social ties formed among the creative practitioners (e.g. frequent encounter, chitchat, meal, TV game, appreciation of music show at live music house) Frequent day to day interaction Active participation of the events organized by the site (e.g. flea market, rooftop music show, BBQ, hotpot and other festival activities) Appropriate size in forming relation tie
Culture
Importance to stay with creative people with common belief Similar working pattern i.e. Prolong working hour (10.5 hour/day)
Novelty
7 major domains of creative industries in the site Self – initiated bazaars and events New creative works/activities through collaboration with tenants in the cluster
1804
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong
Appropriateness
Lack of place for regular retail and showcase Occasional self – initiated bazaars and events for exposure Low popularity due to the lack of professional promotion and marketing
8. Discussion: evaluation of sustainability of the cluster In order to reflect the applicability of the model, two significant evidences: (1) dropout rate and (2) collaboration and production of new works had been obtained to demonstrate the sustainable development of the Easy-pack Creative Precinct.
8.1 Dropout rate Sustainable growth first of all needs the stay of creative practitioners, whether the cluster is healthy enough to support the sustainable growth of creative practitioners. The dropout rate of tenants shows if the cluster could retain the stay of creative practitioners. Without any financial support from government, the dropout rate of Easy-Pack Creative Precinct was at a low level i.e. 11.1% during the research period. Two units of tenants moved out from the buildings due to business expansion and changing location for business purpose. The figure showed that the cluster actually supported the work of creative practitioners that they could afford the rent and run their business.
8.2 Collaboration and production of new works As highlighted by the official body of Hong Kong government Create HK, the aim of creative cluster in Hong Kong was to facilitate the synergy and exchange of creative practitioners. In fact, practitioners at Easy-Pack Creative Precinct actually exercised such practice that they worked closely with each other. Apart from exchanging information and discussion, tenants had various types of collaboration projects. Collaboration normally involved more than two units of creative groups and they involved in both commercial activities and creative works. During the research period, there were 2 large-scale joint exhibitions, 2 self-initiated flea markets, 4 workshops and 2 rooftop music shows. Also, a new brand for selling snacks at bazaar was even founded by three creative groups who came from the area of music production, product design and leather workshop. Collaboration did not only illustrate the good relationship between tenants, but it also demonstrated the active happening of creativity and the synergy between tenants.
1805
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu
Table 2: Some examples of collaborative projects at Easy-Pack Creative Precinct Nature of Work Date
Commercial activity and Creative work
Commercial activity
Creative work
Project
Description
Number of unit(s) Involved
10/10/2015 Weekend Pantry 03/10/2015 31/08/2015
Two product designers, one leather workshop and a musician form the group Weekend Pantry to produce the Handmade dessert and snacks for different weekend events held in/outside the site
3
28/01/2015 Music Critique workshop
One leather workshop, two product designers and online music magazine organized music critique workshop
4
26/10/2015 Nomad Nomad rooftop market
Leather workshop, product design, the newly formed group and media artist participated in the rooftop market fair
4
06/2013
Lee UNION-ALLS 100th Anniversary x Easy-Pack Union
The fashion brand Lee invited 10 creative groups of Easy-Pack to design the new denim outfit for celebrating the 100th anniversary of Lee Union-Alls. The woks were showcased at the Lee flagship store.
10
04/2013
Days of Being exhibition
A group exhibition with 12 creative units displaying their works at HAJI Gallery
12
10/2012
Detour 2012
Participation in the production of the Detour programme
5
9. Conclusion In order to express the sense of geographical concentration, a number of similar terms like quarter, agglomeration, village, district or region could be found and sometimes they were interchangeable with the notion cluster. However, the notion cluster, which was developed in the end of the nineteenth century, has very special implications. Cluster does not simply refer to the co-location of the creative groups or solely describes the geographical location and proximity of similar business; benefits on the efficient use of transportation, infrastructure, and utilities localized networks of specialized firms would be expected. Ultimately, generation of synergy effect is the finial goal for clustering. Moreover, there are numerous clusters in the world under the creative industries agenda, but whether the cluster could maintain its sustainability is in doubt. This research therefore suggests the
1806
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong
importance of taking the three factors (i.e. cluster, community and creativity) into account in constructing the sustainable cluster. Just like the Easy-pack Creative Precinct; it could be regarded as a sustainable cluster as it has very high attainment of the formation of community and happening of creativity. The synergy effect could be clearly evidenced in the quantity and range of creative productions. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the partial research support and the research postgraduate research fund. This research is made possible through the help and support from the tenants, caretaker and landlord of the Easy-Pack Creative Precinct.
11. References Adler, P. S. (2015) Community and innovation: From Tönnies to Marx, Organization Studies, 36(4), pp. 445-471. Alexander, C. (1978) A pattern language: Towns, buildings, and construction, New York: OUP USA. Amabile,T.M. (1983) The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization, Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), pp. 357-376. Belussi, F., & Staber, U. H. (2012) Managing networks of creativity, New York: Routledge. Brooks, D. (2000) Bobos in paradise: The new upper class and how they got there, New York: Simon and Schuster. Brint, S. (2001) Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the community concept, Sociological Theory, 19(1), pp. 1-23. Capaldo, A. (2007) Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability, Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 585-608. Clark, T. N. (2004) The city as an entertainment machine. Oxford: Elsevier. Coe, N. M. (2000) The view from out West: embeddedness, inter-personal relations and the development of an indigenous film industry in Vancouver, Geoforum, 31(4),pp. 391-407. Cooke, P. & Lazzeretti, L. (2008) Creative cities, cultural clusters and local economic development. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Create Hong Kong (2009) Hong Kong: The facts-creative industries, http://tinyurl.com/zw5waeu ,(Accessed 26 July, 2011). Create Hong Kong. (2014) Hong Kong: The facts-creative industries,http://tinyurl.com/hc8k4e2 ,( Accessed 6 Nov,2015) Cunningham, S. D. (2002) From cultural to creative industries: Theory, industry, and policy implications, media international Australia incorporating culture and policy: Quarterly Journal of Media Research and Resources, 102, pp. 54-65. Currid, E., & Williams, S. (2010) The geography of buzz: art, culture and the social milieu in Los Angeles and New York, Journal of Economic Geography, 10(3), pp. 423–451. Development Bureau Hong Kong. (2010) Revitalising Industrial Buildings,http://tinyurl.com/jk9keyq, ( Accessed 3 Nov, 2015) DeWolf, C. (2010, Jan 14) Interview: Eddie Lui steps down as JCCAC chief. CNNGo.com, http://tinyurl.com/j7tf7fh, (Accessed 26 July, 2010) Drake, G. (2003) This place gives me space: Place and creativity in the creative industries, Geoforum, 34(4), pp. 511–524.
1807
Kaman Ka Man Tsang and Kin Wai Michael Siu
Ekinsmyth, C. (2002) Project organization, embeddedness and risk in magazine publishing, Regional Studies, 36(3), pp. 229-243. Flew, T. (2011) The creative industries: Culture and policy.London: Sage. Granovetter,M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American journal of sociology, 91(3), pp. 481-510. Harvey, D. C., Hawkins, H., & Thomas, N. J. (2012) Thinking creative clusters beyond the city: People, places and networks, Geoforum, 43(3), pp. 529-539. Hemphälä, J., & Magnusson, M. (2012) Networks for innovation – But what networks and what innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), pp. 3-16. Hobbs, D. & May, T. (1993) Interpreting the field: Accounts of ethnography, Oxford: OUP Oxford. Keane, M. (2009) Understanding the creative economy: A tale of two cities' clusters, Creative Industries Journal, 1(3), pp.211-226. Keane, M. (2013). China's new creative clusters: Governance, human capital and investment, New York: Routledge. Kong, L. (2009) Making sustainable creative /cultural space in Shanghai and Singapore, Geographical Review, 99(1), pp.1-22. Kong, L. (2012) Improbable art: The creative economy and sustainable cluster development in a Hong Kong industrial district, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 53(2), pp.182-196. Kong, L., & O'Connor, J. (2009) Creative economies, creative cities (Vol. 98). New York: Springer. Lazzeretti, L., Boix, R., & Capone, F. (2008) Do creative industries cluster? Mapping creative local production systems in Italy and Spain, Industry and Innovation, 15(5), pp. 549-567. Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998) The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation, California management review, 40(3), pp.112-132. Maslow, A. H. (1943) A theory of human motivation, Psychological review, 50(4), pp. 370-396. Marshall, A. (1975) The early economic writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867-1890(Vol.2), London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2003) Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), pp. 5-35. Mommaas, H. (2009) Spaces of culture and economy: Mapping the cultural-creative cluster landscape, Creative economies, creative cities, pp. 45-59. Nachum, L., & Keeble, D. (1999) Neo-Marshallian nodes, global networks and firm competitiveness: the media cluster of central London. Cambridge: ESRC Centre for Business Research, Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge. Office of the Chief Executive. (2009) The 2009-10 Policy Address, http://tinyurl.com/jk2fmkb, (Accessed 10 Nov, 2015) Meusburger, P. (2009) Milieus of creativity: The role of places, environments, and spatial contexts, in Meusburger, P., Funke, J., & Wunder, E. (eds.), Milieus of creativity: An interdisciplinary approach to spatiality of creativity (Vol. 2), New York: Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 97-153. Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J., & Ormerod, P. (2008) Social network markets: a new definition of the creative industries, Journal of Cultural Economics, 32(3), pp.167-185. Porter, M. E. (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), pp.77-90. Sawyer, K. (2012) Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
1808
The making of sustainable cultural and creative cluster in Hong Kong
Scott, A. J. (2005) On Hollywood: The place, the industry, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Scott, A. J. (2006) Creative cities: Conceptual issues and policy questions, Journal of Urban Affairs,28, pp.1 – 17. Siu, K. W. M. (2012). Public sphere in cultural creative spaces, in Mok, P. & Tsui ,T. W. (eds.), Study on cultural creative space, Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, pp. 215-228. Tsui, E. (2014, April 18) Can revamped Police Married Quarters succeed as a hub for local design talent? South China Morning Post, http://tinyurl.com/m4y8egy, (Accessed 13 November 2015) Zeisel, J. (1984) Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape and planning, New York: W. W. Norton. Zukin, S. (1988) Loft living: culture and capital in urban change, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Zukin, S. (1995) The cultures of cities, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
About the Authors: Kaman Ka Man Tsang is a PhD candidate at the School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her research interests include creative industries, cultural and creative cluster, creative community, urban studies, design and culture. Kin Wai Michael Siu is Chair Professor of Public Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He is Leader of the first Public Design Lab. His research interests are in public design, design and culture, user reception, design research methods.
1809
This page is left intentionally blank
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social Enterprise Ksenija Kuzminaa*, Chris Parkerb, Gyuchan Thomas Juna, Martin Maguirea, Val Mitchella, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Portera a
Loughborough University The University of Manchester c Cranfield University * k.kuzmina@lboro.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.460 b
Abstract: Social enterprises (SE) are valued as innovative solutions to complex problems but require conditions to nurture and support them. Most support systems rely on individuals who already have an SE idea, and there is very little research on understanding what conditions can support to cultivate the willingness and motivation to engage individuals in this activity. An exploratory study was led to understand whether a particular event, Service Design Jam, can provide such conditions. The paper introduces the study of the Lufbra Jam, organised at Loughborough University, from which two social enterprises, Crop Club in 2013, and FrenPals in 2014 emerged. Through literature review desirability and feasibility were extrapolated as key variables to the formation process of social enterprises. A focus group with three Lufbra Jam organisers was led to identify important organisational elements of the Jam that were perceived to have an impact on the formation of the successful SE thus influencing the perception of desirability and feasibility of SE in individuals. The integration of the two created a thematic matrix that was used to analyse findings from the research with the participants of the two successful SE Cases. The research findings suggest that Lufbra Jam enabled individuals to identify socially and environmentally focused issues and formulate service solutions that they deemed to be desirable and feasible. It also provided an insight that winning and an enterprising workshop were important SDJ elements that helped teams to recognise their service ideas not only as feasible solutions but as SE opportunity for the team to take forward. Keywords: service design, social enterprise, social innovation, social value
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter
1. Introduction In the UK, social enterprises (SE) have been recognised as building blocks of the local communities and local economies (Teasdale, 2011; Kennell, 2013). Particularly SE have been actively providing products and services where private and public sectors have failed to provide for the needs of others (Chew and Lyon, 2012). Thus, politically they have been valued as innovative solutions to the increasingly complex social and environmental issues with a focus on the ‘local regeneration’ (Teasdale, 2011). Recently there has been a recognition that these solutions require nurturing and support (Nesta, 2012, Chew and Lyon, 2012). Various means of providing financial support to implement social entrepreneurial ideas or scale up existing ventures have been emerging. For example, consecutive governments have been developing policies and budgets such as Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) in 2013 to encourage organisations and individuals to invest into the start-ups and organisations. Oxford Hub and Beyond Business are a few examples that have been arising as support systems to provide funding to individuals with best social entrepreneurial ideas (ibid.). In most of these cases the support systems rely on individuals who are already willing to engage in an entrepreneurial activity and have solution concepts to the identified problems. However, there is less emphasis on creating conditions that will cultivate the willingness and motivation of an individual to engage in an entrepreneurial activity. NESTA identified the importance of intermediaries to develop ‘safe spaces’ (NESTA, 2012) where individuals, resources, and ideas can be connected to initiate and grow innovative enterprising solutions. Examples of these are Innovation hubs and research institutes that are usually permanent spaces and require a large amount of resources to be set up and managed. In this paper the potential of Design Jams that are taking place at the grassroots level to provide such support for individuals in a form of a ‘safe event’ is evaluated. The literature is reviewed to identify what motivates individuals to pursue setting up a new social enterprise venture and what are the processes and variables that enable it. The process of the three Lufbra Service Design Jams conducted at Loughborough Design School as part of the Global Jam event and entrepreneurial outcomes from these Jams, two ‘live’ social enterprises; ‘the Crop Club’ and ‘FrenPals’ are considered. In the conclusion the processes and variables of the Design Jam that support individuals in engaging with SE activity are identified.
2. Background Literature A common way to define social enterprise is ‘a business solution to social [and/or environmental] problem’ (Teasdale, 2011: p. 8). It is a unique type of business that is not driven by economic value alone, but has greater moral intentions. Stevenson and Jarillo (1990), suggest that ‘moral intention’ presupposes an activity that is pursued by an individual. They therefore place the social entrepreneur at the core of social enterprise definition, and redefine it as a process that involves individuals engaging in innovative use of
1812
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
resource combinations leading to solving problems that constrain the creation and sustaining of social/environmental benefits. Researchers have been focusing on identifying processes and variables that enable this activity. They show that individuals explore desirability and feasibility of the social enterprise idea prior to engaging with it full time (Forster and Grichnik, 2013, Mair and Noboa, 2003). The outcome of this process is based on personal and situational variables (Renko et al., 2012) that act as enablers or barriers to the initial social entrepreneurial activity.
2.1 Desirability and feasibility of setting up a social enterprise Willingness to take part in social entrepreneurial activities begins by identifying the desirability and feasibility of the new venture (Forster and Grichnik, 2013, Mair and Noboa 2003). Desirability refers to the perceived ‘attractiveness’ of forming the enterprise, where an individual perceives a problem space and is willing to solve it through an enterprising activity. The problem space or an opportunity that is seen as desirable for an individual relates to their motivation to discover and explore a particular type of opportunity (Mair and Noboa, 2003). Whereas for-profit entrepreneurs are mostly driven by economic goals (Bacq et al, 2014), the motivations of social entrepreneurs are more complex (Boluk and Motiar, 2014; Ross et al, 2012) and may include solving problems that are social, self-developmental and economic (Bacq et al, 2014).
2.2 Social Entrepreneurial Motivations Successfully solving a social or environmental issue is considered to be a primary motivation for social entrepreneurs (ibid.). For some entrepreneurs these issues are derived directly from the needs of others (Ross et al, 2012). In this case, as Mair and Noboa (2003) suggest, empathy, an ability to intellectually recognise and emotionally share another person’s emotions and feelings, is triggered to “enable a helping response” (p. 10). Ross et al. (2012) research found, that the problem space can also reflect the needs of the social entrepreneur, for example being unsatisfied with the status quo of a product or a service. However, a social entrepreneur will seek to develop a solution that will bring social or environmental value, rather than value to ‘self’ only. Another motivation of social entrepreneurs in starting a new venture is self-development. A study reported by Xavier et al (2012) describes personal growth as one of the factors that individuals pursue in starting a new venture. In line with these findings Ross et al. (2012) identified learning a new skill to be a motivational factor. In addition, they found that social entrepreneurs were motivated by the opportunity to creatively use one’s hobby or technical skills to address a new problem space. Creating enterprise has also been identified as a desirable goal for social entrepreneurs. Ross et al (2012) note that it is not a primary aim of social entrepreneurs, and lack of business skills and managerial knowledge has been a barrier for many to successfully develop SE (Bacq et al, 2014). Yet, motivation for social entrepreneurs is to make their new venture commercially viable, thus sustaining the social/environmental impact (Ross et al, 2012).
1813
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter
2.3 Social norm In addition to individual motivation, perceived social norm is another aspect that leads a social entrepreneur to act (Forster and Grichnik, 2013). In this case an individual perceives social pressure to perform or not to perform a particular behaviour, in this case engaging in enterprising activity. The individual makes the decision to act based on their perception, of whether their activity is viewed as appropriate by the leaders within their community, organisation or their close group of family and friends (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). Thus a ‘social norm’ within any given group may influence whether entrepreneurial activity is perceived as an opportunity or not.
2.4 Feasibility, Self-Efficacy Feasibility refers to whether one believes that they are capable of putting together the required resources to forming the enterprise (Forster and Grichnik, 2013). Perceived feasibility is grounded in self-efficacy, the conviction of one’s capability to successfully perform the task. This perception develops with time through development of knowledge, skills both physical as well as cognitive (Hostager et al, 1998). This evaluation of one’s capabilities does not necessarily mean that the task will be performed well. However, the conviction is required for an individual to engage in the activity in the first place.
2.5 Context of Social Support In addition to self –efficacy, social support also relates to the perceived feasibility, as it is recognised that entrepreneurs require external help and cannot operate on their own. Social support is provided through ‘collective action’ by various stakeholders connected to the entrepreneurs (Corner and Ho, 2010), who are able to provide entrepreneurs with various resources that are needed to facilitate the emergence of the enterprise. Thus social support may range from friends and family, for example small social entrepreneurs usually rely on their friends and family to identify the social and environmental needs of others. Works by Corner and Ho (2010) and Ross et al (2012) points out that identified problems are complex and the solution rarely resides with an individual entrepreneur. These ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973) need a collaborative approach, thus entrepreneurs coalesce with other stakeholders whose knowledge they require to co-create feasible solutions. Finally, entrepreneurs can establish community of users (Ross et al, 2012) who are willing to test out the initial ideas, provide user feedback and increase the perception of feasibility of the initial ideas.
1814
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
Table 1 Process and variables to support social enterprise activity Category Enhancing Perception of Desirability
Motivation
Seeing social/environmental issues as an enterprise opportunity (Teasdale, 2011) Personal dissatisfaction with the ‘status’ quo (Ross et al. 2012) / Social Norm (Forster and Grichnik, 2013) Self-development (Xavier et al., 2012)
Creating enterprise (Ross et al., 2012) Enhancing Perception
Self-efficacy Physical / Cognitive (Hostager et al, 1998)
of Feasibility
Social
Network/resources (Corner and Ho, 2010) support Co-creating solution with others (Rittel and Webber, 1973)
Community of users (Rittel and Webber, 1973) Whilst social support is seen as essential by many, one of the barriers expressed by individuals engaged in entrepreneurial activity has been time and resources to develop such social support and networks). In particular, participating in the wrong networks has been the most frustrating for these individuals (ibid.). Both the individual and environmental variables, summarised in Table 1, are needed for individuals to engage with social enterprising activity. To cultivate social entrepreneurial activities Forster and Grichnik (2013) suggest that to enhance the perception of feasibility as well as desirability can be achieved by developing a context within which this can happen.
2.6 What is a Design Jam? Design Jams are a recent phenomenon that followed Hackathon events (Vezzani and Tang, 2014) that brought together programmers, graphic, interface designers, and project managers to work intensively on a software project with a digital output (Briscoe and Mulligan, 2014). Design Jams, are conceptually similar, but do not require a digital output, and usually belong to a discipline (ibid.).
2.7 Emerging area of Service Design Service Design is an emerging area of design that seeks to apply design process, methods and principles to the design of service organisations, services, and other social systems, supporting and facilitating their development and improvement (Holmlid, 2007 and Mager, 2004). It is an ‘outside in’ approach (Holmlid, 2012) where its process may be described as an iterative process of inquiry and action (Steen et.al, 2011). It couples understanding of the
1815
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter
past and current situation with exploring and envisioning possible futures (Steen et.al, 2011). Methodologically Service Design engages with theories and methodologies of service management, marketing, human-centred design (HCD), user-experience design, product and interaction design (Polaine, 2012) in order to create new or improve existing services.
2.8 Service Design and Design Jams Recently Service Design community has used Design Jam format to create a Global Service Design Jam (globalservicejam.org, 2015). The Global Jam is a community-supported event and is run on voluntary basis with no staff and no budget. Instead, it relies on a small group of global organisers who provide online central platform, basic rules, and inspiration to the regional Jams that in turn are run by local hosts, volunteers passionate about service design. The aim of each regional Design Jam is to bring people with various backgrounds together, on a voluntarily basis, to dedicate 48 hours to co-designing new services that could make the world a better place to live. The focus of the Jam is on the use of human-centred, service design-based approach to problem solving: the problem is introduced to the participants by the global organisers as a ‘secret theme’ that requires re-interpretation from the jammers. Participants are expected to form teams during the event, and discover, develop and prototype solutions through the event, rather than come with a prepared idea. Throughout the 48 hours, participants are supported by the organisers and mentors, who usually have expertise in innovation, creativity, service design, and project management. The expected outcome of the jam is a physical functioning prototype of a service, ranging from low tech to high tech, and a plan of action that the team can take forward.
2.7 Literature Conclusion To further support emergence of social enterprise a safe environment where individuals can nurture their willingness to engage in social entrepreneurial activity is needed. While the core purpose for the Design Jams is in providing an opportunity to collaborate, share and learn, many aspects of the Jam make it a potential ‘safe event’ for increasing the desirability and feasibility of the participants to engage in social entrepreneurial activity. For example, the process of the Jam aims to motivate individuals to be creative in developing solutions that are of value to the world through the human-centred design process. It also encourages them to test the feasibility of their ideas by developing physical prototypes and testing them with their teams. The global dimension of the Jam and an expected outcome of ‘a service with a plan of action’ makes an idea of the ‘service prototype becoming a real SE’ a norm within the Jam community. Finally, the community-supported approach to the Jam generates social support that potentially increases self-efficacy and further feasibility of the individuals to pursue SE. SE knowledge or interest is not a pre-requisite for the Jam and there is no real evidence that the Jam does provide a supporting context for individuals to nurture their willingness to engage in an SE activity. The aim of the study is to reflect on the process of the Lufbra Service Design Jams and the two social enterprises that have been developed as a result, to
1816
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
identify whether a Design Jam, may be defined and designed in the future as a ‘safe event’ to support SE activity.
3. Research Methods and Analysis As the research objectives of this study were exploratory, seeking to understand how Service Jams may help inspire, foster, and grow social enterprises, an inductive research approach was selected. Importantly, this research was an exploration of people, their thoughts, feelings and reflections, encapsulated within the scope of user research; focusing on the person’s subjective perception rather than an objective or definitive expression of predetermined criteria (Rose, 2003). The insights that could help to understand the broad range of activities and experiences, from participants’ perspective is a unique focus to the SDJ environment that could foster enterprise activities. As such, it was necessary to understand which organisational elements of the 48 hour event at the Lufbra SDJ influence desirability and feasibility (see Table 1) of the social enterprise process the most. A focus group with Lufbra SDJ organisers was conducted to define these elements and their relationship to the concepts of desirability and feasibility. Then a case study research took place with Jam participants that have been able to set up a social enterprise from the ideas that came out of the event. These were conducted to validate the influence of the organisational elements on the SE process. Due to specific nature of this research project, participants were chosen using a purposive sampling. To analyse the focus group and case studies, transcripts were produced and analysed following an open coding process with the aid of NVivo (QSR, 2014). A thematic analysis process was followed in which the researchers recognised themes and patterns across the participant experiences and opinions, leading to further sub-themes to be compared and contrasted (Aronson, 1994).
3.1 Focus Group: SDJ Organisers Three members of Loughborough University Design School academic staff who have formed the core of the Lufbra SDJ were selected as participants for this paper’s focus group. The focus group lasted 45 minutes, and conducted within the Loughborough University Design School in a semi-public setting by the principal author of this study. In order to address the research aims, the interview questions were generated to identify the core organisational elements before, during and after the Jam.
3.2. Case Studies: SDJ Participants Two enterprises that came out of previous SDJ’s were included within the case studies for this paper; The Crop Club and FrenPals. Interviews with the founders of these enterprises were conducted based on the outcomes of the initial focus group, primarily targeting the organisational elements of the Jam with the desirability and feasibility of their new venture
1817
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter
as highlighted by Foster and Grichnik (2013); see Table 2. The two social enterprises that were used as case studies are the following: The Crop Club led by Dr Rose Deakin (interviewed) grew from the 2013 SDJ at Loughborough University Their focus is on creating a service to connect communities and individuals through sharing of grown produce such as vegetables or orchard/ hedgerow fruit. Over the last two years, The Crop Club has won several awards for enterprise, including Think Big Social Enterprise, Marketest Market Research, and Try It/ Do It from HEFCE and Unltd. FrenPals was created by Ibrahim Abdulkarim (interviewed), Siting Yang, and Jaydeep Gandi during the 2014 SDJ at Loughborough University. Their focus is on helping international students settle into university life within a new country through connecting with student volunteers (buddies), offering comprehensive support in a variety of contexts.
3.3 Results A summary of the findings within this study is presented within Table 2 below. Table 2 is a matrix integrates the organisation elements from the Jam (across) and the desirability and feasibility variables that are part of the social enterprise process (down). The X’s indicate the answers from the two Case studies where participants felt the Jam’s organisational elements support their SE process. Section 4 expands on the thematic analysis of these results.
1818
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
Table 2. SE Process and Lufbra Service Design Jam matrix
4. Thematic Analysis Thematic analysis introduces the findings from the research. In particular it highlights service design process and service design tools within the Jam event and its relationship with the Social Enterprise process that the participants experienced.
1819
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter
4.1 Motivation to attend the Jam event The main motivations to attend the Jam event by the participants were to do something different, to self-develop and to socialise. The event was marketed as a “48 hour design challenge” and participants, in both cases from art and design, saw this as an opportunity to practice applying their existing skills to the new discipline of design. The Jam positions itself as a ‘social collaborative event where participants work in teams’, participants were motivated by this opportunity to be in a social environment, collaborate and network whilst solving problems through design, and therefore doing design together. In neither of the cases, was developing an enterprise a motivation to join the Lufbra Jam.
4.2 General motivation and self-efficacy throughout the Jam The original motivations were supported by the organisation of the Jam. The selfdevelopment in both cases was high. The Jam not only allowed for the application of the existing design skills to the problem, but also introduced new design process, methods and tools that participants found valuable. The design process that the participants were presented with and formed the basis of the Jam is known as Double Diamond (Design Council, 2006). It is the process of problem inquiry and solution generation, and within service design is appropriated to the context of services. The tools and methods introduced support this process. For example, the inquiry tools and methods introduced to the participants focused on understanding the use situation as it is experienced by the stakeholders themselves. Participants engaged in research through contextual interviews, capturing and synthesising their understanding in brainstorming sessions, using personas and mind mapping (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1 Lufbra Jam participants interviewing allotment owner (left) Persona tool used by Case 1 participants (right)
Further generative tools were introduced to the Jammers in order to co-create service visions. Examples of the tools participants engaged with were customer journey maps and storytelling. These tools helped jammers to create consensus on their vision, build visual narratives and communicate their ideas to others (Figures 3 and 4).
1820
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
Figure 3 FrenPals initial customer journey (left) and Participant is sharing first service concept with the mentor (right)
Finally, jammers were presented with quick prototyping techniques. These were used by the jammers to collaboratively build their visions, to get as close to the real version of the service as possible, modelling the service and evaluating it. Desktop walkthroughs as well as digital tools such as PopApp were used by the jammers to build their service visions (Figures 5 and 6). This learning opportunity increased self-efficacy of the participants as they developed their solution.
Figure 5 CropClub high fidelity app prototype (left) and FrenPals low fidelity prototype (right)
Other unexpected opportunities for increased self-efficacy occurred at the Jam. For example, Lufbra Jam invited mentors from the industry who were eager to find new talent. During the Jam one of the participants was invited to a job interview, which increased her self-belief for the duration of the event. The overall social and collaborative environment was created and maintained at the Jam, which helped teams to stay motivated. At the venue the digital screens displayed tweets by the Jammers around the world. This visual representation of the Jam has been noted to give participants a feeling that they are part of a global event, which was motivational in itself. Neither Case 1 nor Case 2 were very much driven by winning the Jam. As the participant in Case 2 says, “the prize was not something so
1821
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter
big that it was worth fighting for”, instead during the Jam the teams were motivated by the service design process and by the need to develop an innovative solution.
4.3 Recognition of the social problem space The two problem spaces that the participants chose to work on during the Jam were particular issues that they were aware of or experienced themselves prior to the Jam. In the first case a group member observed a pattern within her community that she felt was problematic and felt strongly about. In the second case the problem originated around a personal bad experience. During the Jam these issues were brought to the surface through the global theme and the initial ‘speed dating’ brainstorm session that Lufbra Jam ran around it. In the first case the theme triggered an idea for a solution to the wider social problem, in the second, it triggered discussions that allowed for the personal issue to be identified. Once groups were formed, these ideas became more permanent. In Case 1 the group members recognised the solution and the wider social issue to be timely and important, with two group members already involved in the activities that were the concern of the identified problem. This prior knowledge of the problem space helped the team to focus on the design of the solution. In Case 2, the group identified the problem space to be important because several group members shared a similar bad personal experience. In the next stage of the event, the teams were supported and encouraged to carry out user research, which was in line with the human-centred approach of the service design methodology and the event. For the team 2 this was an important stage as by doing it, they began to validate the problem space as something that was important to others outside the group. It is also at this time that they became motivated by wanting to “help solve that problem for others”.
4.4 Enhancing desirability of social enterprise solution The Lufbra Jam criteria set out a vision for the service solutions to be innovative, userfocused, to have a social impact and to be commercially sustainable. Yet, participants in both teams focused on developing the solutions that would cover the first three variables, with less attention to the business case. Both teams felt that although the Lufbra Jam set business case as one of the criteria, the overall atmosphere and the ethos of the Jam was based around generating the value for society and social change. Both teams felt that being run by volunteers and marketed as a creative event, the Jam’s organisation was imperative to the outcome being a social enterprise. “If it was set out as a business workshop it would be different” (Case 2). Throughout the Jam service design tools were introduced to the participants, including personas and customer journey (see section 4.2), with less emphasis on service business tools such as business canvas. These tools are user-centred by their nature, which drove both teams to focus on value their service creates for the user. Case 1 identified business case to be the least of the topics to be covered over 48 hour period by the organisers and mentors.
1822
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
4.5 Perceived feasibility of the idea Both teams agreed that the 48 hours of the Jam were spent developing their service solution and building confidence in their idea. Participants discussed doing it through having an opportunity to gain greater understanding on the subject of services, for example, Lufbra Jam featured keynote speakers from the design industry, who helped participants to contextualise what service innovation is. In addition participants built knowledge and experience around service design tools and methods. These were introduced by Lufbra Jam organisers (see section 4.2) and applied with the support of Jam mentors to generate service ideas. At Lufbra Jam each team had a mentor from the design industry. Mentors ‘found’ their teams organically throughout the first hours of the event, thus finding a relational fit with the rest of the team. In both Cases mentors played a really important role in building the team’s confidence in their design capabilities and solution feasibility. Service design is an iterative process, and participants were encouraged to begin with low fidelity prototyping and move on to high fidelity as a result of the several feedback cycles. In both cases this allowed mentors to be involved with the teams’ service visions, to question them and give feedback whilst allowing the ownership of the ideas to stay with the group. The collaborative ethos of the Jam also permitted participants to build upon each other’s ideas and develop solutions that the whole team believed in. Case 1 participant shared: “The overall vision felt like mine, but how it was developed and delivered wasn’t because we did it as a team…even the vision, we discussed and built on it together”.
4.6 Perceived feasibility of the enterprise During the 48 hour challenge, both teams noted that they were focused on the idea generation and building capacity in their teams to generate those ideas. At every Lufbra Jam, winners received the prize of an enterprise workshop for one hour with the Glendonbrook Enterprise Office at Loughborough University. The winning of the prize played an important role in providing teams with an additional level of recognition for their ideas. For the team in Case 2, winning was the turning point at which they felt that their idea was feasible enough to be taken forward. For t Case 1, winning was not enough. It was at the workshop, when they received the positive feedback on their idea from the enterprise experts and were introduced to some strategies on developing an enterprise that they began to believe their work could be turned into a real life project. In both cases the winning prize of the Lufbra Jam, not only gave a brief introduction to the business elements of the social enterprise, but motivated the teams to take their work further. Both teams sought and received external funding, and are currently hosted by The Studio, a professional space at Loughborough University that not only provides access to physical facilities but also business support and guidance.
1823
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter
5. Discussion This paper highlighted that Lufbra Jam is an event that can support several elements of the successful social entrepreneurial development. It provides an insight into how in a very short period of time individuals can be supported to generate and develop ideas for the services that are socially focused and recognised as desirable and feasible. It also provides an insight into the need for the structured support of taking a developed design solution and increasing its feasibility as a social enterprise, which Lufbra Jam does not achieve. The findings show that participants had personal motivation to join the event, mainly to selfdevelop. This expectation was met by the Jam, which provided space to learn, do practical design, and network. However, the motivation to develop services that were socially and environmentally focused was partially directed by the ethos of the Jam. This ethos or ‘social norm’ (Forster and Grichnik, 2013) of the Jam was focused on the creation of the social value and emerged through such elements as the criteria, user research and organisational set up. During the event the teams worked on formulating their problem-solution spaces and confirming their desirability on the wider scale. The findings suggest that the problems and solutions that teams worked with already pre-existed within some individuals. The Jam was able to ‘tease them out’ (Corner and Ho, 2010) through such activities as provision of the Global theme and brainstorming. In addition to teasing out these ideas from the individuals the Jam, encouraged collaborative teamwork, as well as user research, which helped teams to identify the problem-solution spaces with the wider needs of the society. Further into the 48 hours, participants developed some self-efficacy in working within their team on a design project and in their own capability as designers. The feasibility of their solution ideas was also tested through the social support that included mentors, users, other participants and judges. However this was not enough to convince the teams that these solutions are desirable and feasible as social enterprise. It is the winning of the Jam in combination with the enterprise workshop that helped the teams to recognise their solution as an entrepreneurial opportunity. An hour entrepreneurial workshop, an opportunity exclusively developed for the winning teams, introduced teams to the basics of an enterprising activity. The workshop was led by the individuals who were passionate about turning ideas into enterprise opportunities, motivating the teams. Thus the winning of the Lufbra Jam based on its winning criteria and the subsequent enterprise workshop supported the team’s perceptions of their solutions to be desirable as an enterprise solutions. However, what the Lufbra Jam did not facilitate was the team’s service ideas to develop into feasible social enterprises. However, at that stage the team dynamics changed with some team members leaving and the more prominent members arising. The self-efficacy of some of the teams was strong enough to take the ownership of their solutions and seek further support including external funding or a membership in an enterprise hub, such as the Studio at Loughborough University.
1824
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
6. Conclusion This paper explores Service Design Jam, as a support system to facilitate development of the social enterprises. It looks at Lufbra Service Design Jam, organised by Loughborough University for three consecutive years, from which two social enterprises emerged. Findings from the research suggest that various Lufbra Jam elements were able to support individuals in developing desirable and feasible socially and environmentally solution. The winning and the prize contributed to individuals’ increased self-efficacy and recognition of their solution to be further developed as SE. However, participants relied on external support systems to increase the feasibility of their solutions to become SEs There is little research on how SE opportunities develop and this paper contributes to this discussion. However, this study is limited by the purposive sampling but is indicatory of the wider phenomenon, further research on other Jams and Hackathons is needed. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the participants from the Crop Club and FrenPals social enterprises for their contribution to this research. They would also like to thank Loughborough University for their ongoing support of the annual Lufbra Service Design Jam event.
7. References Aronson, J. (1994), “A pragmatic view of thematic analysis”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1–3. Bacq, S., Hartog, C., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2014). Beyond the Moral Portrayal of Social Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Approach to Who They Are and What Drives Them. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16. Briscoe, G., & Mulligan, C. (2014). Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon (No. 6). CreativeWorks London Working Paper. Chew, C., & Lyon, F. (2012). Innovation and social enterprise activity in third sector organisations. Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper Series, 83. Corner, P.D. and Ho, M. (2010), “How Opportunities Develop in Social Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 635–659. Fallon, G. and Brown, R.B. (2002), “Focusing on focus groups: lessons from a research project involving a Bangladeshi community”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 195–208. Forster, F. and Grichnik, D. (2013), “Social Entrepreneurial Intention Formation of Corporate Volunteers”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Taylor & Francis Group, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 153–181. Groenewald, T. (2004), “A phenomenological research design illustrated”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1–25. Haefliger, S., Jäger, P., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Under the radar: Industry entry by user entrepreneurs.Research policy, 39(9), 1198-1213. Hostager, T. J., Neil, T. C., Decker, R. L., & Lorentz, R. D. (1998). Seeing environmental opportunities: effects of intrapreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation and desirability. Journal of Organizational Change Management,11(1), 11-25. Kennell, J. (2013) ‘Social Enterprise and Employment in the United Kingdom’ in Perspectives on Work, Vol.16 (1-2), pp.21-23. Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D. (1994) “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91104.
1825
Ksenija Kuzmina, Chris Parker, Gyuchan Thomas Jun, Martin Maguire, Val Mitchell, Mariale Morenoc and Samantha Porter Lendel, V. and Varmus, M. (2011), “Creation And Implementation Of The Innovation Strategy In The Enterprise”, Economics & Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 819–825. Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. In Social entrepreneurship (pp. 121-135). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., Mulgan, G.(2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation. London: The Young Foundation. Orhan, M. and Scott, D. (2001), “Why women enter into entrepreneurship: an explanatory model”, Women in Management Review, MCB UP Ltd, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 232–247. Parker, C.J., May, A.J. and Mitchell, V. (2012), “Understanding Design with VGI using an Information Relevance Framework”, Transactions in GIS: GISRUK Special Issue, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 545–560. QSR. (2014), NVivo 10, QSR International, Melbourne, Australia. Renko, M., Shrader, R. C., & Simon, M. (2012). Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: a general framework. Management Decision, 50(7), 1233-1251. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Rose, D. (2003). Collaborative research between users and professionals: peaks and pitfalls. The Psychiatrist, 27(11), 404-406. Ross, T., Mitchell, V. A., & May, A. J. (2012). Bottom-up grassroots innovation in transport: motivations, barriers and enablers. Transportation Planning and Technology, 35(4), 469-489. Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic management journal, 11(5), 17-27. Teasdale, S. (2011). What’s in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Public policy and administration, 0952076711401466. Todd J. Hostager, Thomas C. Neil, Ronald L. Decker, Richard D. Lorentz, (1998) "Seeing environmental opportunities: effects of intrapreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation and desirability", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 Iss: 1, pp.11 – 25 Vezzani, V., & Tang, T. (2014). Investigating the Potential of Design Jams to Enhance Sustainable Design Education. DS 81: Proceedings of NordDesign 2014, Espoo, Finland 27-29th August 2014. Xavier, S.R., Ahmad, S.Z., Nor, L.M. and Yusof, M. (2012), “Women Entrepreneurs: Making A Change from Employment to Small and Medium Business Ownership”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 4, pp. 321–334. About the Authors: Dr Ksenija Kuzmina is a lecturer in Design Innovation and Management at the Institute for Design Innovation at Loughborough University, London. Her research investigates issues around service design methodology, social innovation, systems thinking, sustainable design and organisational change. Dr Christopher Parker is a Lecturer in CAD at The University of Manchester . His research interests are consumer behaviour, service design, anthropometrics and ergonomics. Dr Gyuchan Thomas Jun is a Lecturer in Human Factors and Complex Systems at Loughborough Design School. His research interests
1826
An exploration of Service Design Jam and its ability to foster Social
include participatory design, systems thinking and healthcare service design. Dr Martin Maguire is a lecturer and a research fellow at Loughborough Design School. His main research interests include the design and usability of interactive systems including the needs of inexperienced users, older people and people with disabilities. Dr Val Mitchell is a senior lecturer at Loughborough Design School specialising in the development of methods and tools for User Centred Design (UCD). Her research encompasses service design, co design and the use of creative methods to study the home. Dr Mariale Moreno is a research fellow at the RECODE Network at Cranfield University. Her work focuses on user-centred design, consumer behaviour, sustainable production and consumption, and business opportunities towards achieving a Circular Economy. Dr Samantha Porter is a Senior Lecturer in Design Ergonomics at Loughborough Design School. Her research interests include. Product pleasure, tools and methods for designing for emotion, the design of the person/product interface of medical related products, personalisation and product attachment leading to sustainability and the design of bereavement services.
1827
This page is intentionally left blank
Fiction as a resource in participatory design Eva Knutz*, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen University of Southern Denmark * evakknutz@gmail.com DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.476
Abstract: In this paper we are exploring the relation between participation and fiction with the aim of investigating how fiction can be a resource for participatory design and can shed more light on the participatory value of fiction. We describe how fiction has been taken up and conceptualized in contemporary design research and argue that different strategies for applying fiction may be seen as a resource for evoking various forms of participation. Furthermore this paper present three case examples of participatory prototyping, that makes use of play or games as a way to engage participants with a particular use of make-believe. We discuss these cases with the purpose of identifying how participatory design can benefit from a more articulate notion of fiction. Keywords: Fiction; Participatory prototyping; Participatory Design, Social Games.
1. Introduction Over the last decade, increasing attention has been devoted to understanding how fiction can be a resource for design research. Consequently, a number of themes and areas have occurred as being worth exploring using fiction either as a conceptual framework, method or practice-based tactic: from the democratization of innovation and instigating of a new DIY culture (Tanenbaum et al. 2012), to the fostering of critical debate (Dunne & Raby, 2013) and encouraging people to reflect on how new technologies would eventually reconfigure everyday life and cultural rituals (Auger, 2013). Interestingly, some scholars have also argued that fiction could hold a potential for increasing user-involvement and collaboration in participatory design processes. However, with few exceptions (Blythe, 2006; Dindler & Iversen, 2007), the question of the relationship between fiction and participation remains largely unexplored. Admitted, in participatory design, fiction artefacts such as games, role-play or story-making tools are often used as a part of a collaborative design process. But the notion of fiction is This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
strikingly absent from the vocabulary, discourse and theorization of participatory design. Hence, the value of fiction for methods and practices central for participatory design is only vaguely understood. In this paper, our aim is to explore how fiction can foster participation and be utilized as a resource for Participatory Design. This entails examining how the frameworks on fiction shed light back on the fictional aspects of tools and techniques traditionally used in participatory prototyping. We begin by describing an inexhaustible array of strategies for how fiction has been taken up and conceptualised in contemporary design research. In the second section we outline the function of playfulness in contemporary participatory design and how this relates to forms of participation. This is followed by three case examples of fiction as means to explore user experiences in participatory prototyping. All three cases involve play. Finally we turn to an analysis of fiction as a resource for participatory prototyping.
2. Strategies for a provisional framework on fiction In our account, we have chosen to focus on how authors claim fiction to be a resource for evoking various forms of participation without them necessarily using the language and vocabulary of participatory design. Fiction has figured prominently in recent attempts to conceptually ground approaches such as ‘discursive design’ (Tharp & Tharp), ‘design fiction’ (Sterling, 2009; Bleecher, 2009; Markussen & Knutz, 2013; Knutz, Markussen & Rind, 2014) and speculative design (Dunne & Raby, 2013; Auger 2013). In this section, we will bypass the discussion of the details that constitute these fields and instead focus on how fiction is argued for generally as a resource. In critical design, the notion of ‘value fiction’ (Gaver & Dunne, 1997; Dunne & Raby, 2001, p.63) has been introduced to help reversing the relationship between technology and social values in interaction design. Whereas technology is often portrayed as futuristic, social values are likely to be conservative, reflecting existing societal conditions. In reversing this relationship realistic and mundane technologies are employed to develop scenarios embodying fictional social or cultural values of how the everyday life situations could be different. A vivid example of this is Dunne & Raby’s Technological Dreams Series: No.1 (2007); a series of robots crafted as wooden modernist-like furniture. To operate the robot the user must engage intimately with it by holding it in the arms and staring concentrated at it. Here value fiction is used as a resource to provoke reflection and suggest alternative design ideals (contrary to ‘efficiency’ and ‘usability’) if robots were to be incorporated into the domestic spheres of life. For Dunne and Raby the material manifestation of value fictions (e.g. as prototypes) is important because it amplifies the perceptual double exposure of being situated in “the here-and-now, while belonging to another yet-to-exist” (2013, p.43). When executed successfully this will evoke what Dunne & Raby (2001, p.63) – paraphrasing British novelist Martin Amis – term “complicated pleasures”, compositing multiple and perhaps even
1830
Fiction as a resource in participatory design
contradictory emotions. We suggest that pleasures in regard to the analysis undertaken here could be aligned to the somewhat more encompassing notion of playfulness, capable of harbouring and negotiating a host of different emotions, beliefs and wishes for the future. In line with Dunne and Raby, Auger introduces the valuable term “perceptual bridge” to underline the importance of rooting speculative design proposals in people’s everyday life. If fictional design speculations become too unfamiliar or distant from reality, it will be too difficult for people to relate to them. The perceptual bridge is meant to be a guideline to designers offering ways to balance fiction and reality in various ways, as Auger explains: “These “perceptual bridges” can then be stretched in precise ways: this might be a technical perception such as extrapolating how they think a technology is likely to develop; a psychological perception such as not breaking taste or behaviour taboos; or a cultural perception such as exploiting nostalgia or familiarity with a particular subject. In this way the speculations appear convincing, plausible or personal, whilst at the same time new or alternative.” (2012, p.180)
If a perceptual bridge is well established people can be willing to accept proposals that appear at first sight to be unfamiliar. An example of this is Auger & Loizeau’s After Life Battery (2009), a battery stored with energy made from the acid in the stomach of deceased family members. In this instance, Auger & Loizeau established a perceptual bridge by asking some of their colleagues how they would want their own after life battery to be used. In so doing, the speculation becomes personal and plausible. A third way of utilizing fiction in design research is what we shall refer to as ‘narrative anthropomorphism’. This technique consists in attributing fictional personas and autobiographic narratives to technology or organisms in order to understand the complexity of a given ecology. Morrison (2014) exemplify this when they attribute a female character named Adrona to a military Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) - colloquially know as a ‘killer drone’. An asserted aim of such a discursive design approach is to give voice and inner emotions to a politically contentious artefact and thus enable both critical and analytical reflections. Adrona is but one in a line of similar anthropomorphised fictional personas from Morrison and associates that also counts Rumina, a wifi enhanced Bovine-machine hybrid that roam freely through a future city space (Morrison 2011). What makes Adrona and her kin of anthropomorphic-discursive constructs interesting in regards of this paper is that they enable the combination of rhetoric devises such as irony, pastiche and satire with a performative and collaborative mode of enunciation whereby a collective of different voices can act and re-act through the anthropomorphic persona to changing circumstances. This allows for sharing multiple divergent points of view in a collaborative research process. Pastiche scenarios are introduced by Blythe & Wright (2006) as a technique for writing fictional scenarios where popular characters from well-known novels and films are used instead of traditional personas. The term ‘pastiche’ refers not only to the re-use of characters, but also – and more precisely – to the mimicking of the narration and verbal style of this character. For instance, Blythe & Wright (2006) make use of the character “Alex” from Stanley Cubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”(1971) that is based on Anthony Burgess novel
1831
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
(1962). “Alex” is the main character of an ultra-violent gang of criminals that communicate in a language of their own. In their writing of a pastiche scenario, Blythe & Wright let “Alex” react against a new protective technology called the ‘cambadge’, a wearable lightweight webcam, which elderly people can use to inform the police if they feel unsafe or threatened in public space. By using the literary technique known as stream-of-consciousness their pastiche scenario gives us access to the inner feelings and thoughts of Alex and what victims need to be aware of when confronted with offenders of his type. Blythe and Wright contend that because pastiche scenarios present us with ‘deep characters’ that we feel as if we already know, they hold a much richer potential for increasing user-involvement than traditional scenarios where personas tend to be somewhat flat and stereotyped. Dindler (2010) introduces the term “fictional space as design space”. He borrows the term game-of-make-believe from Kendall Walton (1991) to explain his concept of the fictional space. In Waltons conception of this term, the fictional space is constructed through the games of make-believe. Here props can act as either prompters for imagination (I see a fast car, I imagine my self in that car); they also might be the object of imagination (I imagine that my car could be that of James Bond) or they can assist in generating fictional truths (the fact that all cars in Harry Potter move in their air is true in that particular harry-potterworld). Dindler argues that the production of a fictional space may be understood in terms of participants practicing games of make-believe mediated by props. In other words the fictional space is something that emerges when participants engage in a game-of-makebelieve (e.g. defined by the design/researcher) mediated by props (e.g framed by the design/researcher) that gives mandate to imagination (elicited or enacted by the participants) Fictional re-framing of social innovation is introduced by Emilson as critical technique for questioning the very foundation of design for social innovation and sustainability. Following Schön, Emilson suggests that framing like the act of naming is related to the idea “of seeing something’s as something else and the concept of metaphor” (2015, p. 255, italics in original). Here, it is the tacit use of “generative metaphors” that enable us to grasp an unfamiliar situation by transferring familiar experiences to a different domain and thus generate a new perspective on the world (Schön in Emilson, ibid.). It is often through the variety of problem-setting stories people tell each other pertaining to a given situation, that the different frames and their implicit generative metaphors become visible. Emilson suggests ‘dark and soft fiction’ as two strategies for re-framing the debate on sustainable development. The ‘soft’ predicate denotes a reconnection “with the organic part of life and humans as part of nature” (ibid. p, 313), whereas ‘dark’ indicates realism without false pretends of future absolution. The societal scale, on which this approach to fiction is operating, aims at opening a ‘design space’ where narratives can inform and inspire design (ibid., p.316). In this, it shares an affinity with the recasting of societal utopias as both attainable and real (Wood, 2007; Wright, 2010) and point to the role of fiction as a means of critically re-framing design work in accordance with overarching concerns and values.
1832
Fiction as a resource in participatory design
In this section we have identified fiction being a resource for design in the form of i) means for increasing critical reflection and people’s engagement in speculative design proposals (Dunne & Raby 2013; Auger 2013, 2012); ii) techniques for writing narrative scenarios for enhancing multiple cross-disciplinary reflection in research teams (Morrison et al.) or for increasing user-involvement in product development (Blythe & Wright, 2006; Dindler 2010); and iii) a re-framing of large-scale socio-economic conditions for design. The direct relevance of fiction for participatory design oriented approaches is most clearly pointed out by Blythe and Wright and Dindler. But the relationship between fiction and forms of participation in design remains largely unexplored. Following from the fiction strategies extrapolated above, we contend that each strategy displays qualities that may evoke specific forms of participation (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Fiction strategies and corresponding forms of participation
3. Playfulness and games in participatory design Almost from the beginning of the Scandinavian tradition of participatory design, participants have been invited to take part in ways of telling, making and enacting (Sanders, in Halse,
1833
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
Brandt, Clark & Binder, 2010, p.116-122). For example, in the UTOPIA Project Ehn and colleges (1988) developed a design by playing approach inspired by Wittgensteinian language-games, to engage newspaper pre-press workers in sharing stories (Ehn et al. 1990). Since the 90s design games and playfulness has been widely expanded and used as a methods of participatory prototyping; as something that can frame and stimulate design participation (Brandt, Binder & Sanders, 2013). Design researchers within the participatory design community have since developed various design game formats to accommodate different situations and aims, e.g. Brandt et al. 2008 (participatory design games); Bang 2013 (stakeholder games); Halskov & Dalsgaard, 2006 (inspiration card games) or Buur & Søndergård, 2000 (the video-card games). Narrative elements are often used within participatory prototyping to scaffold “what-if” prompts in order to boost collective imaginings, explore, enact or disrupt possible futures through development of future user scenarios (see Kyng 1995; Binder 1999; Caroll, 2000; Brandt & Grunnet, 2000). Playfulness and game activities thus provide what Brandt calls a “dream material” (Brandt, in Halse, Brandt, Clark & Binder, 2010, p.132) that helps participants play out and rehears various versions of the future. Brandt asserts that for such an approach to be successful, participants “have be able to see a purpose” and “must be able to influence the progression and outcome“ (ibid.). Fiction, in this respect, is predominantly utilised as a means to an end. However the question of the relationship between participation and fiction as a resource that harbours its own agencies and possibilities, we argue, has remained largely unexplored. In the following section, we will turn to three cases that all involve children or teenagers as participants in either a game-based or playful (participatory) design activity. Following Sanders and Stappers’ distinction between generative toolkit, prototype and probe (Sanders & Stappers, 2014) the projects utilize the format that may be characterised as generative toolkit (case 1), a prototype (case 2), or a probe (case 3). Here generative toolkits consist of a variety of components that stirs decisions to be made; prototypes are materially manifested ideas (e.g. physical objects, video prototypes or experience prototypes) that explore user involvement or user experiences; and probes are used as research material to understand people’s experiences or dreams.
4. Three case examples of fiction as means to explore user experiences in playful participatory prototyping 4.1 Case I: A playful toolkit as framework for expressing needs & concerns Hussain and Sanders (2012) describe the use of a generative co-design tool in relation to Cambodian children, who uses prosthetic legs. In order to facilitate the children’s involvement in the design process, Hussain & Sanders uses paper-doll toolkits to understand the children’s concern and needs related to the type of prosthetic leg (and garment) they find suitable to certain situations (being at home, at school, in town, at the market). Thus,
1834
Fiction as a resource in participatory design
the paper-doll kit offer the children an opportunity for communicating and expressing opinions about needs and concerns, through the act of play. The paper-dolls are designed as different girl/boy-characters with different face expressions and hairstyle that the children can choose from and give self-invented names (figure 2).
Figure 2: The paper-doll kit
The research team visits the same children several times. Through the use of the paper-dolltoolkit the researchers discovers (during the first visits) that it is important for the children to have at least one prosthetic leg with a naturally looking foot. In a following visit, one girl chooses a flower-patterned cover for her doll’s prosthetic leg - and one boy expresses a desire to have two prosthetic legs to choose from: one with a naturally looking foot (for all situations) and another one brightly coloured (for special occasions). In that way the researchers creates a fictional space that allow the children to engage themselves in a gameof-make-believe mediated by the paper-dolls. It can be argued that the paper-dolls in this case create awareness and give mandate to the imagination of multiple (future) prosthetic appearances.
4.2 Case II: A narrative as framework for prototyping museum experiences In 2008 Dindler and his colleagues were invited to create new engaging experiences for the Kattegat Marine Centre in Denmark. Here they sat up a workshop that involved a family of two adults and two children (age 9-11). The workshop began with fictional narrative in the style of ‘a letter in a bottle’: A letter from the king of the sunken city of Atlantis pleading the Kattegat Marine Centre to create new “fantastic experiences”. The design researchers then tasked the family to come up with ideas for new experiences using a “magic” toolkit (containing a flute, an apple, a magnifying glass, a mirror and a pen with a humming sound). In the ensuring game of-make-believe, the
1835
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
magnifying glass become an instrument for exploring certain species in the aquarium in detail and the pen become a tool to locate hidden treasures under the floor (figure 3).
Figure 3: Workshop with visitors: The family explores new experiences in the Kattegat Marine Centre
In this case the researchers used what they term ‘fictional inquiry’, materialized in the letter from the king of Atlantis and the content of the “magic toolbox”. The narrative-framework is concrete in that sense that is conveys interpersonal emotions, such as a plea for help and the magic properties of the toolbox objects, through which to enact the role of bringing relief to the fictive citizens of Atlantis by inventing real experiences for the Kattegat Marine Centre.
4.3 Case III: A game-world as framework for probing teenage dreams In the project Social Games against Crime the long-term aim is to develop social games that can help children build resilience towards many of the personal and social problems they experience as a result of parental incarceration (Markussen & Knutz, forthcoming). With the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of the issues involved a series of social games has been devised to probe the children, their parents and the prison-system The example provided in this paper is one such, a pilot game workshop with 7 children (age 10-14).
Figure 4: Game workshop with 7 children age 10-14; the children makes their own dreams, main characters and game elements.
The purpose of this particular workshop is to probe teenager’s wishes & dreams for the future and to explore how dreams can be played out in a fictional game world with fictional as well as non-fictional “helpers” and “opponents” in an actantial set-op. Thus, the game
1836
Fiction as a resource in participatory design
world offer the participants an opportunity for expressing dreams and concerns through the act of play (figure 5). The workshop starts with the children creating an alter ego character; defining a dream or future wish; build a set of helpers to fulfil the dream. The helpers consist of either ”people/characters”, “things/technologies” or “abilities/skills”” – and these must be crafted with the use of a toolbox with coloured clay, cotton balls and other material (figure 5).
Figure 5: Gameboard and toolbox with self-created dreams, barriers, people, things and abilities
During gameplay the participants will have to negotiate barriers and formulate experiences that will either help or inhibit progression. A set of black “disruptions” cards ensures an element of chance into the gameplay. The winner is the player who manages to aggregate the most helpers in pursue of her dream. During the workshop the participants formulated a dream or wish and created a fictional world around it. One girl, for instance wished that she one day could “stand on the top of the Eiffel-tower”. This participant chose her “dad”, a “doctor” and a “second life” as helpers. She explained that she needed her father and a doctor to support her – and a “second life” to help her if she fell down from the Eiffel-tower. As a barrier to achieve her dream she formulated “fear of heights”. Another participant filled in the wish I would like to (be able to) fly. The helpers in this case was “wings”, “wing-technology” and “rocket boots” and her barrier was “gravity”. In this workshop fiction is used to create a game world; a city with cars, bus stops, streets and graveyards, etc. The narrative-framework, however, is not pre-conditioned but only come into being as the relations between dreams, fictional characters, helpers and opponents are imagined, built and placed in the game world (the city) by the participants.
5. Analysis and discussion The central aim of this paper is to examine how the presented fiction strategies are beneficial for participation in relation to the three cases. In the following we will analyse which use of fiction is already in place in the three cases and how these are beneficial for
1837
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
participation. Furthermore we will discuss which fictional strategies the three cases could learn from – and use as a resource to stimulate other forms of participation. The strategy of value fiction manifests itself most strongly in relation to case 1 (paper-doll toolkit) and case 3 (game based probing). Value fictions, as proposed by Dunne and Raby, seek to reverse the relationship between technology and social values with aim of provoking dialog about different emotions, beliefs and wishes for the future. In case 3 one participant pursued the dream of being able to fly. Technology (“wings”, “racket-boots”, etc.) became merely practical devices to help her change and adapt to life in a world inhabited by flying people. Another participant dreams about standing on the top of the Eiffel-tower; that dream seems more “probable” than the future-wish of being able to fly. Yet, it is a complicated dream to achieve since the participant also suffers from “fear of heights”. She encompasses this in the game by reflecting on existing societal conditions (her father, and a doctor that can help her) which she combines with a fictional scenario that enables “a second life”. In allowing the participants to weave freely between “fictional” and "real" worlds, value fictions like these can be used as a resource in participatory prototyping to negotiate contradictory emotions and wishes for the future between “the here-and-now” and the “yet-to-exist”. This also counts for case 1 (paper-doll toolkit) where the participants play with possible futures in relation to their choice of prosthesis. Here two of the participants use the paperdoll-kit to negotiate contradictory emotions about the concern and need concerning the choice between a natural-looking prosthesis and a completely different-looking leg (something else than “natural”). The strategy of the perceptual bridge manifests itself most strongly in the Kattegat Marine Centre project (case 2). Here the perceptual bridge, proposed by Auger, is used to root the unfamiliar (the fiction) in some kind of familiarity (the daily lives of the users) to make it appear convincing, plausible or personal. The story of Atlantis that exists under the sea appears convincing because it relates to what the visitors are looking forward to experience, namely the underworld of the sea. In that way “the sunken city of Atlantis” can be seen as a “perceptual bridge” because the myth gives this project familiarity with the Kattegat Marine Centre. The “sunken city of Atlantis” expounds a sense of nostalgia tied to the perception of a particular subject: the underworld of the sea. Perceptual bridges are powerful fictional resources. Clearly, a narrative framing with a perceptual bridge that connected to the film JAWS by Steven Spielberg (1978) would have created completely different possibilities for engaging visitors in the Marine Centre - especially since one of its main attractions is an aquarium full of sharks. A project that could benefit from a perceptual bridge in the further development of the project is that of case 3 (game based probing). The purpose here is to develop social games that can be played in the visiting room of a prison and that can help teenagers of imprisoned parents to build resilience towards problems related to parental incarceration. By using a perceptual bridge and by rooting the fictional narrative (of the game) in a real life context (of
1838
Fiction as a resource in participatory design
the prison) – connections could be made to articulate and play with social hierarchies, power and unspoken norms and rules (inside and outside the prison system) that could stimulate a fruitful conversation between prisoner and teenager concerning deprivation of freedom. None of our three cases uses narrative anthropomorphism as a resource for participatory prototyping. As explained earlier narrative anthropomorphism seeks to attribute fictional personas and narratives to engage complex and/or troublesome technologies. Never the less we see several possibilities for how the participatory community could learn and benefit from that approach. In case 2 (the Kattegat Marine Centre) one participant uses a pen “with a humming sound” as “treasure finder” to find hidden treasures under the floor. In order for designers/researcher/participants to co-explore and understand this concept further narrative anthropomorphism could have been applied to give this “humming technology” a voice of its own – in the same way that “Adrona” the killer drone (Morrison et. al) was given a fictional persona and a reflective mind; this could enable critical and humorous reflection for instance about why and how technologies could help us find “things” – through the use of humming. Anthropomorphism as a framework could in this case be applied to stimulate a multi-stakeholder exploration between the design researchers, the participants and perhaps the marine biologists at the Kattegat Marine centre. Similar to narrative anthropomorphism, none of our three cases above makes full use of pastiche scenario as a fictional resource. The strategy of pastiche scenario gives the designer/researcher/participant the possibility of exploring the inner “felt-life” aspect of a user-experience by imitating fictional characters. Case 1 (the paper-doll toolkit) could benefit from this approach. This project makes use of generic paper-dolls, which might be difficult to relate to for the children. Using a pastiche as a framework could in this case be applied to give the fictional-character-as-user richness and depth and thereby avoid “flat” personas. All three cases activate fictional space as design space as a resource for participatory prototyping. As argued by Dindler (2010) fictional space is something that emerges when participants engage themselves in a game-of-make-believe mediated by props that gives mandate to imagination. In case 1 (paper-doll toolkit) the researchers creates a fictional space that allow the participants to engage themselves in a game-of-make-believe mediated by the paper-dolls. Here the paper-doll kit act as prompters for imagination (the child imagines it self being that doll) and offers the child an opportunity for forming (and perhaps modulating) its opinion about the need concerning the choice of prosthetic leg. In case 2 (the Kattegat Marine Centre) the fictional space for the participants emerges when the family engage themselves in the pre-conditioned narrative framework of “Atlantis”. And here it is the letter in the bottle that gives mandate to imagination by generating a fictional truth (the fact that the King of Atlantis needs “fantastic experiences is true in that particular Atlantis-world). In case 3 (game based probing) the fictional space emerges only when teenagers engage themselves in the game-world, by populating the game with their own dreams and
1839
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
experiences. In so doing they expand the existing game world - “a city” - to include “a city with people, dreams, things, relations and experiences”. What mandates imagination is the self-created dreams that act as props in the form of being the object of imagination The last strategy on fiction that might have a potential resource for participatory prototyping is that of fictional reframing of social innovation – which indicates that fictional stories can become frames (backdrop-stories) or generator - of social change. Case 1 and case 3 both deals with a vulnerable and under-privileged end-user; that of Cambodian children using prosthetic legs and that of teenagers of imprisoned parents – and in that sense they are part of larger societal condition that needs social change. Cambodia and its children have a long history of violence and poverty and children with prosthetic legs are being stigmatized as different; they have no voice in the Cambodian society. Children of incarcerated parents have difficulties learning in school, building social relationships, and many suffer in similar fashion (as the Cambodian children) by being marginalized. Using Fictional reframing of social innovation as a strategy for participatory prototyping in these two cases, allows the participants to develop a voice of their own and a critical awareness of their societal situation. Figure 6 below provides an overview of which fictional strategies are used as a resource in relation to the three cases – as well as which fictional strategies the three cases potential could learn or benefit from and which could open up new perspectives to the design process.
1840
t
Fiction as a resource in participatory design
t Wh i c hf i c i o ns tr a te g i e sa r euse da siar e sour c etoe vok epa nr ti c p ati o? Wh i c hf i c i o ns tr a te g i e sc oul dpote l nti a l yh av i ee vok e dp na r ti c , p ati o? Ca se1 n Fi c tio m ake si tpossi blef or th ec a mbodi a i nc h i l dr e nto pa r tic p atei n. . n. io n Va l uef i c
Ca se2 Fi c tio m ake si tpossi blef or th emui se um g ue sts to pa r tic p atei n. . n .
Ca se3 Fi c tio m ake si tp iossi blef or th ete e na g epla y e r s to pa r tic p atei n. . . . . . pl a y i ng( c ol l e c ti ve l y )w i th possible futures and explore h ow f utur edr e a ms c a nbe played out in a gameworld . . . ne g otig a ti n co nntr a di c tio na ry e moti os conc e r ni ngf utur e dreams i ... weaving freely between the ”here-and-now” and the “yet-to-exist”
...playing (individually) with possible futures and explore n optios b a ef or eaf i nlc h oic ei s taken . . . ne g oti a g ti n co nntr a di c tio na ry e moti os conc e r ni ngth ec h ol i c e of prosthesis . . . di r e c tuse r i nvol ve me nt i nth epr oduc tde ve l opme nt ofth ea c tua l t pr oth e si s . . . r o g otin af i c to na l n a r r a ti ve ( th ec i tyofAtl a n )ti si nare a l l i f ec onte x t( th emuse um)
P e r c e ptua lbr i dg e
Na r r a tive a nth r opoh mor ph i sm
. . . mul ti sta k e h ol de rc ol l a bon r a ti o, a ndh umor ousc r e f le ti o n fori nsta nc e a boutw h ya ndh ow te c h nol og i e s c oul dh e l pusd f i n “th i ng s”th r oug h the use of humming
P a stic en sc e na rio s
. . . e ng a g i ngw i th‘ de e pc h a r a c te r s’ f ori nsta nc ew i thf i c i o nl c h a r a c te r s th a tth ec h i l d trenfeel they already know
Fi c tioa lspa cea s de si g nn spa c e
. . . i ma g i ni ngmul ti pep rosth e ti c a ppe a r a nc e s . . . f or mi g nga ndmodul a ti n individual opinions about the ne e da ndc h oi c eofprosthesis
Fi c tioa lre f r a mi ng ofso nc i a li nnova tio
. . . r ooti ngth ef i c io n a lna r r a ti ve (of the game) in a real life c onte x t( ofth epr i son)
... imagining and prototyping a c tua lmuse ums e x pe r i e nc e s . . . pr oposi nga nde va l ug a ti n f utur esc e na r i os i nc ol l a n bor a tio with the designers
... externalizing and materializing future dreams . . . c ode si g ni ngbyi ma g i ni ng a ndbui l di ngg a mepi e c e sa nd g a mec onte nt
. . . de ve l opi ngac r i tic a l awareness and the ability to g e ne r a tene w pe r spe c ti ve s on th e i rsoc i t opoa l i ti c a lw or l d
... developing a shared e x pe r i e nc eofpe r sona lc h oi c e . . . de ve l opi ngavoi c eofth e i r own
Figure 6: Utilized versus potential fiction strategies to evoke participation across the three cases
Through our case analysis we have identified at least five areas – and notions of fiction – that could increase participatory involvement. We are proposing that fiction may be used as a resource in participatory prototyping to:
gain more direct user-involvement in product development; stimulate critical and humorous reflection; increase multi-stakeholder collaboration; engage with ‘deep characters’; root the unfamiliar in a real life context.
1841
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
By exploring these areas we might be able to further craft fiction as modes of engagement that encourage participation, which in turn could open up new perspectives on the design and development process.
6. Conclusion In this paper, we have explored the hypothesis that fiction holds value as a resource in participatory design, in excess of its current applications. With regards to the rich existing tradition of using playfulness and games as part of participatory prototyping, we have shown how the staging of make-believe scenarios, by different modes of engagement (e.g. generative tools, prototypes, probes), has elucidated the participatory potential of crafting a fictional space as design space. However, by drawing out a select number of examples of fiction strategies originating in areas of design research adjacent to participatory design, we demonstrate that (1) fiction holds a wider potential to encourage participation and (2) that the current use practices do not exhaust what games-of-make-believe might contribute to participatory prototyping. We have argued that (3) fiction strategies open up new perspectives on participation in three existing cases. Future work will be needed to investigate in greater detail how fiction, with regards to games and play, may strengthen social relations and social growth.
7. References Auger, J. (2012). Why Robot? Speculative design; the domestication of technology and the considered future. Royal College of Art. Auger, J. (2013). Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity (Special Issue: Design Fictions), 24(1). doi: http://tinyurl.com/hpzvr7g Auger, J., & Loizeau, J. (2009). After Life Battery. Retrieved 16 November 2015, from http://tinyurl.com/z4pyjph Bang, A.-L., & Rind Christensen, P. (2013). Co-Creation in Distributed Value Creation Systems and Networks. In Paper presented at Crafting the Future, Gothenburg, Sverige. Bleecker, J. (2009). Design Fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction. Retrieved January, (March). Blythe, M. A., & Wright, P. (2006). Pastiche scenarios: Fiction as a resource for user centred design. Interact. Comput, 18, 1139–1164. Brandt, E. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games: A Framework for Participation in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference. Trento: ACM. Brandt, E., Binder, T., & Sanders, E. B.-N. (2013). Tools and techniques: way to engage telling, making and enacting. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Handbook of Participatory Design. Taylor & Francis. Brandt, E., & Grunnet, C. (2000). Evoking the Future: Drama and Props in User Centered Design. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference (pp. 11–20). New York: ACM. Buur, J., & Soendergaard, A. (2000). Video Card Game: An Augmented Environment for User Centred Design Discussions. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing Augmented Reality Environments (pp. 63–69). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/354666.354673
1842
Fiction as a resource in participatory design
Caroll J.M. (n.d.). Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press. Dindler, C. (2010). Fictional space in participatory design of engaging interactive environments. Aarhus University. Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. (2007). Fictional Inquiry–Design Collaboration in a Shared Narrative Space. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 3(4). Dunne, A., & Gaver, W. (1997). The Pillow: Artist-Designers in the Digital Age. Conference Companion for CHI’97. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (n.d.). Technological Dreams Series: No.1. Retrieved 16 November 2015, from http://tinyurl.com/ae642g Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Basel, Berlin, Boston: Birkhäuser, Basel. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm: Publisher: Arbetslivscentrum. Ehn, P., Mölleryd, B., & Sjögren, D. (1990). Playing in Reality: A Pardigme Case. Sandinavian Journal Og Information Syestems, 2, 101 – 120. Emilson, A. (2015). Designing in the space between stories: Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability – from responding to societal challenges to preparing for societal collapse. Malmö University. Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark, B., & Binder, T. (2010). Rehersing the Future. The Danish Design School Press. Halskov, K., & Dalsgård, P. (n.d.). Inspiration Card Workshops. Society for Industriel & Applied Mathematics, 2–11. Hussain, S., & Sanders, E. B.-N. (2012). Fusion of Horizons: Co-designing with Cambodian Children who have Prosthetic Legs by Using Generative Design Tools. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts. Kendall L. Walton. (1991). Précis of mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 51(2), 379–382. Knutz, E., & Markussen, T. (2013). The Poetics of Design Fiction. In In proceedings of DPPI’13. Knutz, E., Markussen, T., & Rind Christensen, P. (2014). The Role of Fiction in Experiments within Design, Art & Architecture - towards a new typology of Design Fiction. Artifact. Kyng, M. (1995). Creating Contexts for Design. In John M. Carroll (Ed.), Scenario-Based Design (pp. 85–107). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Markussen, T., & Knutz, E. (n.d.). Playful participation in Social Games. Conjunctions. Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation. Morrison, A. (2011). Ruminations of a WiFi cow. In Proceedings of Nordes 2011: Making it Matter! 4th Nordic Design Research Conference. Helsinki, Finland. Morrison, A. (2014). Design Prospects: Investigating Design Fiction via a Rogue Urban Drone. In In Proceedings of DRS 2014 Conference. Umeå, Sweden. Morrison, A., Tronstad, R., & Martinussen, E. (2013). Design notes on a lonely drone. Digital Creativity (Special Issue: Design Fictions), 24(1), 46–59. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Co-designing. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts. Special Issue on Making., 10(1).
1843
Eva Knutz, Tau U. Lenskjold and Thomas Markussen
Tanenbaum, J., Tanenbaum, K., & Wakkary, R. (2012). Steampunk as Design Fiction. In In Proceedings of the SIGHCHI Conference on Human Factors in C (pp. 1583–1592). Tharp, B. M., & Tharp, S. M. (2013). Discursive Design Basics: Mode And Audience. In In Proceedings of Nordes 2013: Experiments in Design Research: Expressions, Knowledge, Critique. 5th Nordic Design Research Conference. Copehagen / MalmÜ. Wood, J. (2007). Designing for Micro-Utopias: Making the Unthinkable Possible. Aldershot: Gower. Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias. London: Verso.
About the Authors: Eva Knutz is post-doc researcher at Department for Design & Communication at University of Southern Denmark. In her research, teaching and work, Knutz focuses on social design, design fiction, game design and politics of participation within constructive Design Research. Tau U. Lenskjold is post-doc at University of Southern Denmark. His current research follows two avenues: The first investigates how speculative design practices engage with political and societal issues. The second avenue concerns participatory approaches in social design. Thomas Markussen is Associate Professor at SDU Design, University of Southern Denmark. In his research Markussen is interested in how citizens be can involved in processes of societal change. He works with social design, activism, social games and design fiction.
1844
Space as organisational strategy Pia Storvang University of Southern Denmark pia.storvang@sam.sdu.dk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.443
Abstract: More and more companies use physical space as a way to enhance creativity, create change and stimulate interaction. There seems to be a strong link between work practice, learning and innovation in an organisation. This research investigates how space affects this interrelationship and explores how space can support organisational strategy. This is investigated by exploring three cases from an educational, a cultural and an industrial setting to illustrate how space can be used to support an organisation’s policy and help it's strategic intentions. The theoretical framing takes its departure point in design literature on workspace planning and creative spaces for learning. The paper also builds on literature from design management, organisational change and psychology to explain how space can influence people. The findings demonstrate how space can be used to enhance organisational strategy and demonstrate how closely the creation of space can be related to the development of that strategy. Keywords: Space Strategy, Design Management, Organisational Change, Interaction
1. Introduction Research on organisations has shown that there is a strong link between work practice, learning and innovation (Brown & Duguid, 1991) as well as having the capability to initiate change in an organisation (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2012). Dale & Burrell (2008: 232) also indicate that the organisation of space can have a profound social affect which emphasises the need for research to take a closer look into how space can influence an organisation’s attempts to either support or change their organisational strategy. The importance of investigating space has been seen in different settings such as office layout (Grangaards, 2009; Leonard, 2012; Luck, 2014), urban spaces (Munro and Jordan, 2013) spaces in the educational sector (Oblinger, 2006; Nussbaumer, 2014). More and more international companies use physical space as a way to enhance creativity, create change
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Pia Storvang
and stimulate interaction among employees (Kristensen, 2004; Doorley and Witthoft, 2012). Preliminary studies from the project “Design to Innovate” have shown that Danish companies as GJD, Royal Copenhagen and Kähler use workspace and company areas to place themselves in a specific league to attract certain types of customers and collaboration with other companies (www.d2i.dk, 2014). This trend of companies towards using space as a way to tell stories about who they are and how they work in order to attract customers and the right employees has been seen in companies like Google, Lego, Nike, Virgin, Johnson & Johnson and Innocent (Groves & Knight 2010). At the same time only few papers from Product Management and Lean Production have looked at industrial space and examined how a spacial layout could be effectively arranged to support the companies’ production strategy (e.g. Weber, 2012). But no published papers have looked at how space can support an organisation’s management and business strategy. Research has shown that there is a need for organisations to be more concerned about how to create spaces for interaction (Paludan, 2010; Luck, 2014). This is supported by Hatch and Cunliffe (2012) who indicate ‘loose ends’ in organisation theory concerning learning, knowledge management and identity in relation to organisational culture and physical structure (p. 303). Taylor and Spicer (2007) also indicate that now more than ever the time is right to acknowledge space as a key dynamic in understanding management and organizations (Taylor and Spicer, 2007). Much of the literature on company design and organisational strategy is more often concerned with managerial challenges in relation to goals, performance, system, structure, economy and processes (e.g. Mansfield, 2013). At the same time Cooren, et al. (2008: 1163) point out that there is every reason to believe that organisational research will continue to study organisations and organisational phenomena through sociological, economic, discursive or psychological lenses, which leaves little concern for other issues such as communication, interaction and strategies on the use of space. This is further supported by a review of organisational and management literature that shows a relative paucity of studies of space Fayard (2012:179). This research will investigate how space can be used to support organisational strategy. It will look into the ways in which organisations can use the creation of space in their strategic considerations in generating interaction, learning and new relations. In order to explore this, three cases with maximum organisational variation in special scale and organisational levels (Taylor & Spicer, 2007: 336) from an industrial, an educational and a cultural setting have been chosen to illustrate how a special layout can endorse the organisation’s policy to encourage and back its strategic intentions for what, why, and how they want the organisation to be developed (Sinek, 2009) to support its organisational strategy. The what, why, and how is in this research developed into a framework to analyse the organisational strategy and the design of space supporting the strategy. The paper is structured into five main sections, including this introduction, to explain why research into organisational theory on strategy is of interest in understanding an
1846
Space as organisational strategy .
organisation’s policy of change, interaction and the creation of new relations. After the introduction, section 2 takes its departure point in design literature to explain theory on the creation of spaces and theory from organisational studies that relate to strategic considerations involved in developing an organisation. In relation to the aim of this paper, which is to investigate how space can support organisational strategy, section 3 explains how the data was gathered in order to present, evaluate and discuss the data. This section will further assess the quality of the data according to the claims of the research and the methods used. In section 4, the findings will be discussed, ending with section 5 with conclusions and some perspectives for future research.
2. Literature and theory It has already been stated that some of the literature concerning new ways of working, planning and re-arranging of space to support various kinds of working activities has been richly studied in the design literature as different ways of arranging physical space (e.g. Laing et al., 1998; Grangaards, 2009; Bakker 2012; Plunkett & Reid, 2014). The tendency to create extraordinary spaces in workplaces has led to research and experiments with re-design and the creation of social spaces that can enable increased collaborative working (Luck, 2014) and the need to establish physical environments that can accommodate personal and individual workspaces within open spaces (Grangaards, 2009). Documentation of studies on the human factor in the built environment has been found, in which certain types of users, e.g. the elderly, children, and disabled, have been subject to studies (Nussbaumer, 2014; Rengel, 2014). The design literature also includes reports on how space can set the stage for creative collaboration (e.g. Doorley and Witthoft, 2012) and how new spaces influence work processes (Borges et al., 2013). Similarly, the design literature investigates how the physical context, the confined space, can restrict and enable interaction and how the induced emotions of this framing can facilitate or reduce creative processes and interaction (Kristensen, 2004). Furthermore, various types of case studies on the shaping of interior spaces have been located including studies on the different use of architectural elements e.g. material, form, patterns, expression, order, balance and enrichment (e.g. Rengel, 2012; Plunkett & Reid, 2014; Rengel, 2014). In the development of architecture design of spaces have often been debated as the physical structure with an aesthetic or technological perspective. But also space has been investigated on the evolution of buildings and how buildings adapt to changing requirements over time with different kind of use (Steven, 1994; Myerson, 1998). Physical structures are likewise discussed as playing an essential element of organisational life whether we think of physical environments or places (Fayard, 2012: 178) or as an understanding of public life between spaces (Gehl, 2006; 2013). Basically this means that people are not only influenced by whom they are working with and what they are doing at work, they are also affected by the physical buildings, the workspace and the geographical locations of their organisation
1847
Pia Storvang
(Fayard, 2012). At the same time research has also indicated how both materials as artefacts, arrangements and infrastructures and the use of technology has an impact on organisational life and how practices are performed (Orlikowski, 2007: 1436). Orilikowski suggests that we can get considerable analytical insight if we stop treating the social and material as distinct and largely independent spheres of organisational life (ibid.: 1438) because people in an organisation and the identity of organisational life can be affected by space (Storvang and Dalby, 2015). But nowhere in the design literature is the focus on how people in organisations can use space in at strategic way to create an organisation because space is often viewed as how it can be used in terms of business and commercial building (e.g. Duffy, 1999) but not as the impact space has on an organization. With this departure point in design literature on workspace planning, creative spaces and spaces for learning, the theoretical framing for this paper will also build on literature from design management and organisational literature to explain learning and organisational change. Duffy, Laing and Grisp (1993:164-214) has pointed out that the organisation can have impact on their workplace but the aim of this article is to discuss how spaces can support organisations from a strategic perspective. Due to its multidisciplinary stance the paper will regard an organisation as a frame for people’s working and learning, a notion that we consider neither as a living organism nor as an absolute metaphor. Concepts of organisational change and learning are rooted in human resource and management literature and focuses on how people can be used as change agents to make improvements in an organisation. But really to change life….we must change space (Lefebvre 1991: 190). Storvang and Dalby, (2015) have also suggested that space can create an impact on how people in an organisation relate and interact in their collaboration internally and with external organisations. So in this sense ‘space matters’ because it is “…a living system, a collection of interacting, and adjacent patterns of events in space”(Alexander, 1979: 74). With regard to management literature, Cooren et al. (2008) argues that in shaping organization, theory on firms are mainly associated with economics, management, and social psychology to guide research and practice in their work (ibid.: 1157) which leaves little concern for other issues such as strategies on the use of space. Other research on organisational theory has explained how the creation of identity is important to an organisation in relation to organisational culture and physical structure (ibid.: 303). Dale & Burrell have also looked at how identity, power and materiality are important both to the spaces of organisation and the organisation of physical space. In their examinations they go beyond an exploration of physical settings by looking at how the social and the material are entangled with modern life, which calls for a rethinking of mainstream theoretical approaches (ibid.: 203). In doing this Dale & Burrell (2008: 203) argue for the reconceptualisation of theory by including materiality and embodiment as part of the social production of space. Some of the concepts they discuss are the use of different spaces over time and the different use of space during the day (ibid.: 241 – 243). Another concept is having alternative spaces for various purposes to create change and dissimilar working
1848
Space as organisational strategy .
patterns (ibid.: 243 – 244). Concepts for opening up spaces to be more transparent in an attempt to pull down barriers and division of work (ibid.: 257) or to engender a more democratic approach to work in an organisation (ibid.: 258). Dale & Burrell (2008) also point to the concept of private property and power as an alternative to organising space (ibid.: 269 - 278). As pointed out the relationship between property and space is linked to what is the individual, the local, the civic or the state level at which the concept and reality of private property is critqued (ibid.: 276). This is similar to how Taylor & Spicer (2007: 336) have adapted Lefebvre (1991) in defining special scale and organisational levels as 1) a public space (Macro), 2) a semi-public space (Meso) and 3) a private space (Micro). These three levels will later be used in selecting the cases. But so far, this research has found that none of the management or organisational studies focus on what, how and why space can influence and support organisations in their strategic considerations for organisational development. Finally, Dale & Burrell (2008: 326) argue that further conceptual development towards defining organisational spaces is needed. In this line of thinking, the paper will in the following look into how an organisation can use the creation of space as strategy in generating interaction, learning and new relations.
3. Method and Data The choice of using case studies in this research is related to the notion that “the interaction between a phenomenon and its context is best understood through in-depth case studies� (Dubois and Gadde, 2002, p. 554). Attention was also given to variation (Miles and Huberman, 1994) in terms of illustrating spaces with maximum variation at three different organisational levels: a public space, a semi-public space and a private space (Taylor & Spicer, 2007). The case studies present: 1) A new university campus hosting Faculties of Humanities, Engineering and Business and Social Sciences; 2) A culture and production centre for performing arts, visual arts and literature and 3) A private manufacturing company of air-laid technology for non-woven fibre production. All the cases are from a Danish setting. The studies consist of three semi-structured interviews with management and/or architects as well as a serious of observations on the different locations. This also included regular visits at the premises and meetings on site as well as a serious of unstructured conversations with employees and researcher about space and how space matters both as conceptual discussions and talks about how the observed spaces matters in relation to their work and use of the facilities. The case of the campus and the manufacturing company has both been followed as a longitudinal study by participating in on-going discussions with people in the organisation about space considerations in relation to the development of their organisations. The researcher of this paper has in the case of the university campus participated in several formal and informal meetings discussing strategies on workplace and spaces for learning. Further, the case of moving the campus to the new university facilities has been used by the researcher as a teaching case, in which groups of students facilitated interviews with
1849
Pia Storvang
stakeholders and other students concerning issues in relation to the move to the new campus. Finally, all the data includes secondary data from Web pages and other organisational documents. To some extent, this diverse data collection is an advantage, but on the other hand the data is very uneven and sometimes lacks consistency and would perhaps have benefitted from a more systematic way of collecting. The data was at times collected when least expected, as the author visited the locations many times and was also a member of one of the organisations involved. After all, man is, in his ordinary way, a very competent knower, and qualitative common-sense knowing is not replaced by quantitative knowing . . . This is not to say that such common sense naturalistic observation is objective, dependable, or unbiased. But it is all that we have. It is the only route to knowledge--noisy, fallible, and biased though it be (Campbell 1975)
In the following the three cases will be presented and after each case the design of space and organisational strategy will be analysed as well as three themes will be identified as: 1) “Space as an organisational meeting place” in the University campus, 2) “Space as a network organisation” in the Culture and production centre and 3) “Space as a cell organisation Case 1: The new university campus
The first case is the open space of a new university campus that hosts Humanities, Engineering and Business and Social Science faculties. The idea for the campus is, according to the Associate Dean and former Head of Campus, a “main station for open knowledge” that could facilitate cross-disciplinary work. The campus is designed as an equilateral triangle, in which classrooms, offices and open terraces line the perimeter. The core of the building is a triangular atrium twisted as it ascends from the ground floor to the 6th floor. The decks leave a variation of space for student areas: circular sofa areas provide private areas for group work and long desks placed with a view over the open atrium provide study areas. The open space in the centre also offers a variation of additional spaces for interaction, meetings, contemplation and learning. Each floor is designed in order to create crossovers between teachers, researchers and students by giving all users a legitimate presence on all floors as well as areas of immersion and quietude (se figure 1).
1850
Space as organisational strategy .
Figure 1 One of the six floor plans of the university campus
The red dots represent the different departments and units within the departments, but also studio facilities for specific groups of students and different spaces as meeting, class and other supporting rooms. The smaller black dots characterise different individuals attending courses, meetings and other types of activities as collaborators, guests or visitors. Analysis of design of space and organisational strategy in the university campus The co-operation across faculties is the overall profile of the campus along with the strategic focus on interdisciplinarity as an initiative to enhance Design Research. Encouraging students and researchers from different fields and departments to work together by embracing interaction and student centred learning is the core idea of the new campus. “If research is supposed to concern the real world, it is a good thing that the university and the real world meet� (Associate Dean). This design approach to learning also plays a significant role in education, research and in the co-operation with public institutions and companies in the region.
1851
Pia Storvang
Figure 2 The Pubic space at the university campus
Figure 3 The Pubic space at the university campus
The challenge of collaborating and working together across disciplines in the different departments, interacting and learning from each other, has in many ways been translated into the huge, open six storey high space in the centre of the new campus. Internally, the open space is transparent as it is possible to look across the space to the other departments at all floors. It is also possible to extend the more private department spaces into the big open space to share and exchange knowledge. Since the open space is a student working area, the students to a large extent act as agents across the space and they also represent
1852
Space as organisational strategy .
the ways of working in the different departments. The more private areas of the various offices along the perimeter of the building have glass doors, so the transparency is extended into the offices and further out into the city. Case 2. Culture and production centre The second case is a public space organised as open workshops for performing arts, visual arts and literature (www.godsbanen.dk, 2015). The spaces are a re-design of an old closed rail freight facility that is located close to the city's other cultural places such as music scenes, venues, theatres, museums and art exhibitions. The aim of the centre is to create a multifaceted cultural production complex across the arts to develop talents, but also to make the city visible and strengthen the city’s position as a cultural, national and international centre for innovative art – and cultural production. According to manager of the workshops the centre functions as an “idea factory” for creative people, who wants to design their ideas, makes projects, create exhibitions and events or test themselves in a creative and open environment. He describes the facilities as a “transformation factory where dreams can become reality” and he also explains how the open workshops can create “stars” that can earn their own living from their talents (Hansen, 2015a). The workshops have 20 volunteers who serve as facilitators for users so they can operate the machines and tools to develop their ideas. Among other facilities the workshops offer is one of the world’s most advanced laser cutter for wood, plastic, textile and metal that can also be used to engrave stone and glass. The place is open 28 hours a week and in addition the super users and seniors who are professionally trained have all received a course in how to operate the machines outside opening hours (Hansen, 2015a). The spaces at the centre are designed as a series of workshops placed in a long row connected through a pedestrian area. This is the building’s main street, which in principal operates as an extension of the city streets from where the various workshop spaces can be entered (figure 4). In addition to the complex there is an open scene, which groups of users can hire for various types of artistic activities. Joint events, seminars and exhibitions are also organised in the many common areas.
1853
Pia Storvang
Figure 4 Diagram of how the spaces in the centre is organised as various workshop spaces.
The red dots in figure 4 represent different users at work who either come from various organisations or are working there independently and the smaller black dots show different individuals attending events and other types of activities as guests or visitors. Analysis of design of space and organisational strategy in the cultural production centre The idea behind the design in the culture and production centre is rooted in the idea of railway tracks where people visiting the centre can go into different compartments to work or to participate in activities, exhibitions or other types of events. The comparison to a railway is also reflected in the name of the rooms as: Train Remise, Boiler, Railway Wagon, Platform and Railway Track etc.
Figure 5 Pubic and semi public spaces in cultural production centre. The spaces at the centre are designed as a series of workshops placed on a long row connected through a pedestrian area.
1854
Space as organisational strategy .
The complex includes predefined spaces for particular artistic groups, and open workshops, and project facilities for graphics, laser cutting, textile, montage, wood and metal workshops. The supplementary spaces outside the building are further extended along the old railway tracks with alternative workshops, additional spaces for subcultural activities and other types of open street events. The organisation of the place is community driven and the idea is for people to meet, create networks and new organisations and to put the city’s culture on “track”. In this sense the centre has an event driven space strategy where people can jump “on” and jump “off” when activities pass by and people are on the move to create new opportunities and learn together in their production and creation of art and new types of cultural events. Case 3: Private manufacturing company The third case is a private engineering company working with air-laid technology for nonwoven fibre production for all kinds of natural and synthetic fibres. The company holds a couple of worldwide patents for their technology, which can either be used for different customer production processes of non-woven fibre or for the cutting techniques of their products. The company also has a pilot line with a testing facility where the company can, in cooperation with their customers, develop their production. Their customers are mainly very big companies in other industries where they are experts, specialists or lead users in their field. This means the company is really keen on learning and working together with their customers since they are specialists. Equally the company is an attractive partner to collaborate with as they are able to work with the restrictions, contractual constraints and strict specifications from user requirements. On the other hand collaboration is difficult to initiate as the company has to be extremely careful about revealing what they are developing together with their customers. In order to do, as the Managing Director points out it is “…important to create a long-term trust relationship with our customers and the customers need to be able to trust the company in their collaboration” in order to protect their business secrets and visa versa. In their collaboration with the different customers they therefore need to separate the different types of customer collaboration, which also demands the separation of production technologies and types of fibre production. In order to do this the mother company divides the company into closed cells as different smaller organisations (figure 6).
1855
Pia Storvang
Figure 6 Diagram of how the spaces are organised as cells in the manufacturing company
The red dots symbolises the different customers that the mother company works with in the different business areas. Analysis of design of space and organisational strategy in the manufacturing company When the company develops new products by working with a customer, it hires spaces as new storage or warehouse space in the nearby surroundings that are within walking distance from the mother company area. The warehouses are then turned into different production areas with one big space for the production line and the additional areas on the location functions as storage for what is produced and tested on the specific production line. As such the company only needs to have supporting facilities such as offices and meeting room etc. in one location. This makes it possible to run different kinds of productions and tests with different kinds of materials but also to alter the production line according to the material that is tested. But it also means that the customers and business can be separated into different organisational cells even though the technology is fundamentally the same.
1856
Space as organisational strategy .
Figure 7 Organisation of space in the manufacturing company
At the same time this approach also reduces the need for employing new staff every time they go into a new market, since the same employees can be used in the various production areas regardless of which customers they are working with. This also makes it possible for the company to grow without hiring new and untrained staff or making large investments before entering a new market. In principle the technology is the same in spite of customer segments so basically whenever they want to enter a new market they just hire some more space. In the following the analysis of design of space and organisational strategy of the three cases will be further discussed
4. Discussions In the cases three approaches as to how to work with space to support organisational strategy have been presented: 1) “Space as an organisational meeting place” in the University campus, 2) “Space as a network organisation” in the Culture and production centre and 3) “Space as a cell organisation” in the private manufacturing company. As already introduced the what, why, and how the organisation is being developed to support its organisational strategy (Sinek, 2009) is in this section developed into a framework to analyse the organisational strategy and the design of space supporting the strategy (table 1). The organisational strategy of space in the three cases of the University Campus, the Culture and Production Centre and the Private Manufacturing Company are compared in the following:
1857
Pia Storvang
Table 1 The organisational strategy of space in the three cases. Case:
University campus
Culture and production centre
Private manufacturing company
What - is the strategy?
Space as an organisational meeting place
Space as a network organisation
Space as a cell organisation
Why - this strategy?
“A main station of knowledge” to create collaboration and learning across different faculties, researchers, students and external organisations.
“A transformation factory where dreams can become reality” to create collaboration, entrepreneurship and learning between creative people cross different arts in an “idea factory”
To create ’a long tern trust relationship” to be able to innovate, develop and learn together with customers that are specialists, experts and lead users from other industries.
How - is the strategy implemented?
Open space with visual interactive spaces and possibilities to look into all spaces such as offices, reading rooms, library and canteen to make the spaces transparent with a focus on interaction and collaboration in an interdisciplinary environment where students act as change agents in the meeting between teaching, research and external collaboration partners.
Semi open multiple creative environment designed as a series of workshops combined with various large meeting, event, exhibition and restaurant areas where people can occasionally meet. An event driven space strategy where people can jump “on” and jump “off” or they can work together for a period of time while they try out different professional opportunities.
Closed spaces to create separation between customers and knowledge sharing. Business areas are thereby not dependent on each other and it is therefore also possible for the company to enter new types of markets. By splitting their customers into different locations it is also possible to work with them to understand their needs and how to act, organise and sell in the new and sometimes emerging market
Strategy:
Space as an organisational meeting place In the case of “space as an organisational meeting place” in the University campus the space has according to the chief architect the intention to be the “…main station of knowledge” from the very beginning. The new building should help facilitate new approaches to teaching and make the organisation more transparent, making it easier to see and get inspired by each other. Right from the start, the heart of the new university has centered on the concept of collaborative space. As the chief architect states: the job of the architects has primarily been to provide “a lot of different spaces for collaboration with each other”. The architects’ design intentions were to to ensure intimacy by making the distance between spaces short in order to engender the feeling of cohesion and enable people to see each other across the spaces. The glass box meeting rooms, the desks along the perimeter of the atrium, the lounge areas, the stairs ascending from a large open space at the bottom of the building, the reading
1858
Space as organisational strategy .
rooms and the visual lines into the library and canteen are elements introduced as answers to ‘how to make a transparent building with focus on interaction’. As well as an effort to break down the traditional academic boundaries the campus is further designed to open up for collaboration with the outside world and accommodate collaboration with external organisations. In this sense the university campus has a space strategy both to enable the organisation to change in the new facilities created as a meeting place for interaction and collaboration, and also to learn together to create new opportunities. Space as a network organisation In the case of “space as a network organisation” in the culture and production centre the space is about community driven learning. The idea is for people to meet, create networks and new organisations in a sub cultural environment. Here they can tap into the community to learn as they grow their talent. An example of this a design company which grew out of the production centre to develop their own store where they sell Scandinavian Design in a high class shopping district. As the owners of the design company explains, he has learned and got to know how to do this from his experience in the the cultural production centre. As the company grew there was a need for them to have their own store to get into closer contact with their customers and study them in order to understand what they were thinking about the products (Hansen 2015b). Although they now have their offices in the store they still use the cultural production centre as “a factory for new ways of thinking” and as “a laboratory for development”. At the production centre they have facilities they can use to learn from others in order to make inspiring projects with them. Space as a cell organisation In the case of “space as a cell organisation” in a private manufacturing company, the organisation is divided into smaller cells. Businesses and customers are separated when the company collaborates and tests new products and processes with their customers. From this they can use the business-customer interactions to learn and generate adequate knowledge and legitimacy in a new market. In this way they can also learn about the industry and its product application and create the credibility and position necessary in order to become known in the new market. The Managing Director explains that they are dependent on their cooperation with the customers in order to learn about their needs. They need to work closely together with them to understand how they act in the emerging market including how they sell and organise in order to penetrate that new market. In order to work with this type of sidestepping the company needs to divide the different collaboration partners into closed cells, which are not dependent on each other, so they can operate with them individually. This also means that different business areas and customers are separated to different locations. Equally, as the different customers do not collaborate
1859
Pia Storvang
or interact, and as the business areas are not dependent on each other, it is also possible to sell off a business area if it is not interesting enough for the company portfolio. Findings across the cases All three cases have learning and space as a change agent as central issues in their strategy. It is therefore interesting to compare and look at how space can influence an organisation’s learning and willingness to change. It is also important to explore how learning is facilitated and mediated as a social practice, as this is one factor among many in a complex relationship that engenders learning outcome (Oblinger 2006). This understanding is in line with Brown & Duguid (1991) who have pointed out the need for more research into organisational learning in order to understand, how people communicate in organisations (e.g. Orlikowski, 2007; Ashcraft et al., 2009). In the three cases it is also seen how space is organised to generate learning, create new relations. This is in line with what Duffy, Laing and Grisp (1993) have found that the organisation can have impact on the workplace. But in this research we have also seen how space can have impact on how people in an organisation interact with each other and the surrounding organisations. In the three cases the spaces have been closely related to organisational strategy. In two of the cases (the cultural centre and the private company) the organisations have turned existing spaces to fit the organisations strategic intension and in the university case the space was design for the purpose of the new campus. The university was build to fit changes in the organisation. The purpose of the new building was to help facilitate student centred learning, new approaches to teaching and transparency in the organisation. But also to make it easier for staff and students to interact and collaborate both cross faculties and with external partners such as private companies, local political systems in a multi-disciplinary environment. The opportunity to change the organisation both in a new campus and in existing facilities found in the two other cases were also found by Myerson (1998: 32) who has learned from the studies at DEGW that change in location may act as a catalyst for change but, more often, change has to take place on an existing site and within the confidence of an existing building. What is also interesting in the university case is that the original plans for the campus changed already before it was taken into use since a faculty from another campus was relocated to the new campus in order to create synergies in the directions for change that the top management wanted for the new campus. Therefore some of the original plans for spaces had to change. The need for change of plans is supported in an interview with the former head of campus who says that he does not believe in the complete solution because it is not possible to imagine all kinds of situations: “… the task is now to take it in (author: the building) and make it better”. But it is also in line when Myerson (1998) quotes architect Frank Duffy as he say he has ”…learned that client organisations are in a constant state of change”. This means that organisations will also change over time and therefore they will have changing needs for space. Despite all challenges, the move to the new campus has initiated a change process and influenced the identity and self-understanding of the employees as some of them have started to work in new ways by collaboration cross faculties and introduction new teaching
1860
Space as organisational strategy .
methods. The analysis have further shown that the new building made it possible for people to unfold a new identity, evolve the vision and slowly change their culture. The campus is an aesthetically pleasing building, but it is designed as a place for classic thinking and interaction performed as dialogue. It is not designed for alternative ways of interaction and a designerly way of learning e.g. experimenting with messy prototyping, large scale visualizing and organisational theatre. Therefore some new workshop facilities and lab space has been leased in a close-by external building. The question is now whether the arrangement is going to be permanent. The debate is now whether to make yet another new building in a nearby location to the campus to fit the needs for alternative spaces or will the existing campus space change over time to be able to accommodate the requirements for use (Steven, 1994; Myerson, 1998: 40-53). The issues of time and how the space will change over time will as Myerson (1998) points out influence the management of space. In the case of the cultural production centre debate is going on for how to be more selffinanced in the future as some public funding may come to an end. In the near future the local school of Architecture will also be building a new architectural school in the close by area of the cultural production centre. One can therefore only speculate what will happen when the school is moving to the nearby location in terms of synergies between the two organisations. Will this for instance create an opportunity to combine the two organisations in order to develop a better economy for both institutions? And if, how will such a strategy change direction for the use of space? What will change the direction of the strategy and evolve the spaces will in the public and semi public organisations depend on the political situation but also in the private organisation outside factors such as changing performance rules on technology, environmental credentials and/or changing economic conditions may influence the organisations use of space.
5. Conclusion and perspectives The research in the three cases has shown how space can be used to enhance organisational strategy and demonstrates how closely the creation of space can be related to the development of that strategy. The cases have shown how space can influence an organisation’s learning to create change and new relations and how an organisation can reinforce its identity, generate interaction and strengthen collaboration with internal and external partners. The cases have also shown how space can have impact on how people interact, whether the strategy of space is an organisational meeting place, a network organisation or a cell organisation. The case studies have shown three different models for change but there might be more as it is seen organisational change have impact on space. But the risk factors associated with literally setting an organisational management system in stone may ultimately be a significant risk in terms of how and whether architectural and spatial organisation can be both flexible and impactful.
1861
Pia Storvang
But the argument in this paper is the challenges in organisational strategy, creation of space and use of space as a change agent to generate interaction and new relations is interesting for the field of design, in particular when it comes to actually creating new spaces for interaction and learning, as well as designing the right spatial challenges to support an organisation’s strategic intentions. The research is also interesting for managers of strategic processes in organisations to help define the spatial challenges and the means to support and perform the changes needed – and, as the cases shows, design of spaces could be one of those means. But also the issues of time and how the space will change over time will influence the management of space and how management can work with space to fit the organisational strategy. The findings are also of interest to applied research on design, design management, management and organisational learning literature and for designer on spaces for learning and organisational change. The case deals with the relation between the design of physical space and its impact on the practice of organisational interaction and learning. The findings are vital in understanding, diagnosing and analysing the connection between space, strategy and design as organisational practice. The study has shown that the design and operationalization of spaces can influence organisational strategy, as space influences relations between people. That organisations can use space to support their strategic intentions seems to have been overlooked in the literature. Although the research is based on a limited sample of cases, they do however present some interesting insights as to how space can influence an organisation’s strategic intentions, interaction, learning and the building of relationships within different sectors on various organisational levels in a public space, a semi-public space and a private space. The usefulness of the research needs further investigation based on a larger sample of cases within the three levels of spaces. It might perhaps also be interesting to test whether there are some typologies of strategies within the different levels of spaces.
6. References Alexander, C. (1977) A pattern language: Towns, buildings and constructions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R. and Cooren, F. (2009) Constitutional Amendments: “Materializing” Organizational Communication, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3(1), pp. 1-64 Bakker, M. L. (2012) Space Planning for Commercial offices interiors, Fairchild Books, New York. Borges, S., Ehmann, S, and Klanten, R. (ed.), (2013) Work Scape. New spaces for new work, Gestalten, Berlin. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation, Organization Science, 2 (1), pp. 40-57. Duffy, F. (1999) British Airways at Waterside:a new model office?, Design, 3(2), pp. 125-140. Duffy, F; Laing, A. & Crisp, V. (1993) The Responsible Workplace. The redesign of work and offices, Butterworth Architecture in association with Estates Gazette
1862
Space as organisational strategy . Cooren, F. et al. (2008) Communication, organizing, and organization. Organization Studies 32, 9: 1149-1170. Dale, K & Burrell, G. (2008) The space of organisation & the organisation of space. Power, Identity & Materiality at Work, Palgrave Macmillan. Doorley, S. and Witthoft, S. (2012) Make Space: How to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration, Wiley. Dubois, A., Gadde, L.-E. (2002) “ Systematic Combining: An Abductive Approach to Case Research.” Journal of Business Research, 55 (7), pp. 553–560. Fayard, A-L. (2012) Space Matters, But How? Physical Space, Virtual Space, and Place in Materiality and Organizing. Social Interaction in a Technological World, Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A. and Kallinikos, J. (ed.) Oxford University Press, pp. 177- 195. Gehl, J. (2006) Life between buildings - using public space, 6. Edition, Danish Architectural Press Gehl, J. (2013) How to Study Public Life - Methods in Urban Design, Island Press Grangaards, S. (2009) Med mennesker i rammen - Dialogorienteret registrering af rum og aktivitet i kontormiljøer. København, PhD-Thesis. Center for Designforskning og Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole. Groves, K. with Knights, Will (2010) I Wish I Worked There. A Look Inside the most Creative Spaces in Business, Wiley. Hansen, B. T. (2015a) Aarhus har en idéfabrik, Århus Weekend, June 31, pp. 6. Hansen, B. T. (2015b) Nordic Tales er vokset ud af Godsbanen og ind i Guldsmedgade, Århus Weekend, June 31, pp. 7. Hatch, J. H. with Cunliffe, A. L. (2012) Organization Theory. Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Third Edition, Oxford. Kristensen, T. (2004) The Physical Context of Creativity, Creativity and Innovation Management, 13 (2), pp. 89–96. Laing, A., Jaunzens, D., Duffy, F., & Willis, S. (1998) New environments for working: The re-design of offices and environmental systems for new ways of working. London: Construction Research Communication. Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Spaces. Oxford: Blackwell. Leonard, P. (2012) Changing Organizational Space: Green? Or Lean and Mean?, Sociology 47(2) 333– 349. Luck, R. (2014) Organising design in the wild: location multidisciplinarity as a way of working, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, DOI:10.1080/17452007.2014.892472. Mansfield, R. (2013) Company Strategy and Organizational Design, Routledge, New York, NY. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis—an Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Munro, I. and Jordan, S. (2013) ‘Living Space’ at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Spatial tactics and politics of smooth space, Human relations, Vol. 66(11) pp. 1497-1525. Myerson, Jeremy (1998) Design for change. The architecture of DEGW, Birkhäuser Verlag Nussbaumer, L. L. (2014) Human factors in the build environment, Fairchild Books, New York Oblinger, D. G. (2006) Learning Spaces, Educause. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007) Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work, Organization Studies, 28(09), pp. 1435-1448.
1863
Pia Storvang
Paludan, T. (2010) Creating Spaces of Learning in: J. Halse, E. Brandt, B. Clark and T. Binder (ed.) Rehearsing the future, The Danish Design School Press. Plunkett, D. and Reid, O. (2014) Detail in Contemporary Office Design, Laurence King Publishing. Sinek, S. (2009) Start With Why - How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action, Penguin Group USA. Stacey, Ralph (2003) Learning as an activity of interdependent people, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10, No. 6. Steven Brand (1994) How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built, Viking Press Storvang, P. and Dalby, M. S. (2015) Room for improvement : Space as a change agent in generating interaction and new relations, Proceedings of the 4th Participatory Innovation Conference 2015, The Hague, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, 2015, pp. 249-257 “Syddansk Universitet, Kolding” (2014) SDU, Kolding. Taylor, S., & Spicer, A. (2007) Time for space: a narrative review of research on organizational spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(4): 325-346. Weber, A. (2012) Lean Plant Layout, Assembly, Vol. 55 (3), p. 52. www.d2i.dk (2014.08.01). www.godsbanen.dk (2015.05.21).
About the Author: Pia Storvang is associate professor in Design Management at SDUDesign Research, Department of Entrepreneurship and Relationship Management, University of Southern Denmark where she is affiliated with the research project "Design to innovate (D2i), Reframing the Future”. She holds a Ph.D. in Participatory Design and Innovation. Pia Storvang’ research is related to Design Innovation, Management processes, Design Entrepreneurship and Design Thinking, Architecture, Creativity and the intersections between the areas.
1864
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation Mariana Fonseca Braga Politecnico di Milano mariana.fonseca@polimi.it DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.129
Abstract: What is the value of design? Why should firms invest in design? The paper aims at clarifying the value of design, its dimensions and its variables (qualitative and quantitative) throughout a literature review and analysis. The premise is that firms invest in design to create value. Design has evolved, becoming closely related to innovation, and the need to clarify its dimensions and relationships to value within firms and society rises. Despite the global growing interest in design, it is not fully understood how it brings benefits to the company. The concept of value is found in a fragmented literature including economics, marketing, business, management, value engineering, design domains, social and environmental sustainability. In conclusion, the value of design still is under-researched and new dimensions emerge. It is shaped by designers and companies visions, creativity and interpretations. Better crossfertilization is required to identify the mechanisms of value creation by design. Keywords: value of design, vision, creativity, cross-fertilization
1. Introduction The paper is organized in four sections in order to provide a framework to develop the analysis that draws the answers for the questions and the conclusion. It starts pointing out design definitions, and the evolution of the term and activity is provided in order to contribute to the understanding of the relationships between value and design, as well as its enlargement. The value of the design section lies in clarifying the concepts of value reported in several domains and their limitations referring to the design perspective. Topic 4. Why should companies invest in design? elaborates on the motives to adopt design, describing some reported studies that have approached the economic benefits generated by design in the companies and highlighting qualitative dimensions related to competitive advantage. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Mariana Fonseca Braga
The discussion and conclusion topics are presented in two parts. The first part summarises the value of design dimensions and variables according to the different perspectives reported that can be related to design. The second part emphasizes the need to grasp design’s nature and practices to better achieve cross-fertilization. In this sense, the paper extends the Cross (2001), D’Ippolito (2014) and Heskett (2009) concerns about the importance of understanding design practices and theories. Design and its value are perceived as a question of vision (Borja de Mozota 2006, Danish Design Centre 2003, Heskett 2009, Trueman and Jobber 1998, Walsh 1996), creativity and interpretation.
2. Design: definitions, approaches and potential “Design is all around you, everything man-made has been designed, whether consciously or not” (Hunter 2014)
The word design has its origin in the Latin term designare which means “mark out, devise, choose, designate, appoint," where de- means "out" and signare means "to mark," from signum "a mark, sign" (Online Etymology Dictionary). Leonardo Da Vinci is considered the first designer, but his legacy refers more to invention (Bürdek 2006). The beginning of the industrial era (XVII-XVIII) separates design and manufacturing in the company (Bürdek 2006, Forty 2007). Design starts taking on a mediator role between producers and users to convey social aspirations to products’ designs in a European perspective (Forty 2007). Two main streams of Design can be identified: (1) the inclusive one, that considers the multiplicity of design regarding arts and craftwork and (2) the polytechnic culture, where design is a branch of architecture and interacts with engineering, being called industrial design (Trocchianesi and Guglielmetti 2012, p. 39). The polytechnic culture is related to approaches that are close to product development and product engineering involving product design at the project level (e.g. Baxter 1998, Pugh 1991, Ulrich and Eppinger 1995). Baxter (1998) defines product-design as the set of project activities, which can be overlapped, systematically planned and managed to approach each project context. The inclusive perspective can be observed in the Italian cultura del progetto1 (Munari 2008, Paris 2014), where the immersion in design is part of the culture and history and emerges from diverse relationships framed in the company throughout its experience and its relationships to diverse stakeholders, generating meanings that are conveyed to and valued by people. The idea of design culture conceptualizes design as a mediator between the production and consumption worlds (Deserti and Rizzo 2014, Forty 2007). The designer is seen as an
1
The term is not considered synonymous of design culture.
1866
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
interpreter of social aspirations and serves as a means to convey values through products, services, experiences and so on. Verganti (2008) introduces the concept of design driven innovation, a top-down approach to design. Instead of a user-centered design approach, the strategy of design driven innovation is used by design intensive firms based on their visions about possible new product meanings and languages that could spread in society (Verganti 2008). The design intensive company uses external interpreters to understand, anticipate and influence the emergence of new product meanings (Verganti 2008). According to Verganti (2008, p. 450), “this process is more knowledge based than creativity based”. Bottom-up (or user-centered) approaches such as design thinking (Brown 2008) and emotional design (Norman 2008) are emergent in North-America, especially in the USA, where the focus on market and consumer-related needs are perceived throughout their industrial design history and culture (Paris 2014). Norman (2008) describes the design expertise as the one responsible for discovering the users’ needs that they cannot express by themselves. Several ethnographic methods and the use of inter-disciplinary teams have been suggested to achieve users’ needs through design thinking (Brown 2009). Norman (2008) develops the argument that emotion plays a fundamental role in better products use; people feel more motivated to solve problems or to grasp products’ use as a consequence of the emotional relationship established through product's aesthetics.
Figure 1 Top-down and bottom-up approaches to design. The inspiration flow.
Top-down approaches emphasize designers as interpreters who bring the disruption, which could not be imagined by users who are used to behave according to a referable context, presenting difficulty to create breakthrough concepts. In this sense, top-down approaches have been considered more useful to achieve disruptive (or radical) innovations and bottomup approaches to incremental innovations or improvements (Norman and Verganti 2014). Design creates more than a tangible world composed of goods, driving the development of new ideas, strategies, services, brands and users’ experiences. The emphasis on innovation changes from technology, R&D (e.g. Clark and Wheelwright 1993) to design principles: inspiration, ideation and implementation (Brown 2009). The International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID 2015) acknowledges design as a fundamental means of innovation:
1867
Mariana Fonseca Braga
“Industrial Design is a strategic problem-solving process that drives innovation, builds business success and leads to a better quality of life through innovative products, systems, services and experiences.”
The Design Council (2015) broadly defines design as: “a way of thinking that helps large organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises, social enterprises and charities change the way they work”.
Design Council (2015) definition assumes that design plays a fundamental organizational role related to the human-resources evolvement and its ability to change. Heskett (2009, p. 82) highlights the design activity as a source of innovation, stressing the role of design to envision change. Design potential has enlarged as well as its definition, being studied in several domains and being considered as an important competence to achieve innovation in enterprises (Brown 2009, Design Council 2007a, 2007b, ICSID 2015, Maeda, et al 2015, Verganti 2008) with its own ways, practices, knowledge and language (Cross 2001, Deserti and Rizzo 2014, Zurlo and Cautela 2014). The complexity of evidencing design roles, “modes of use” and benefits for organizations becomes visible. Design management, business, design and competition are examples of fields that try to accomplish this clarification. Exploring the design role in business success, Walsh (1996) interpreted design as an activity which overlaps with R&D and technological innovation, and can also contribute to the business of the company. She provides the insight that the way design is led by the company is a crucial issue along with resources invested (Walsh 1996). The growing interest in design benefits for firms leads to the development of models and tools, such as the Design Management Staircase model from the Design Management Europe survey (Kootstra 2009) and the design ladder tool shown in Figure 2 (Danish Design Centre 2007), in order to grasp the design phenomena in companies, according to the ways companies see and use design.
1868
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
Figure 2 The design ladder (Danish Design Centre 2007). Retrieved from: http://www.seeplatform.eu/casestudies/Design%20Ladder
Zurlo and Cautela (2014, p. 35) assume that design can contribute to the company in several ways and levels of innovation, from styling to the change of ecosystems of product-services and business models. From the argument of design and competition, D’Ippolito (2014, p. 721) underpins that “design has the potential of bringing into the picture some non-technological dimensions of new products that firms had not considered before,” emphasizing design as a creative activity and a social phenomenon that has been studied across various domains. In the context of management and business, design is considered a strategic resource (Bruce and Bessant 2002, Celaschi, et al 2012, Dell’Era and Verganti 2007). Design adoption and its “mode of use” are a question of enterprises’ behavior, ethos or vision (Borja de Mozota 2006, Calabretta, et al 2008, Danish Design Centre 2003, Verganti 2008, Walsh 1996). Borja de Mozota (2006) introduces the concept of the four powers of design in the management science. Two powers suggested by Borja de Mozota (2006) are of special interest in this paper’s discussion: design as an integrator, which undertakes design as a core competence, and design as a transformer, which brings the design contribution to the learning processes and to the ability to deal with change in organizations, creating new business opportunities. Design potential depends on the individual creativity, talent, experience of the designer (D’Ippolito 2014, Gemser and Leenders 2001). Besides the designers’ skills, the development of competencies and ability to deal with change (Borja de Mozota 2006) are important potentials which can be fostered by design in the organization. On the other hand, the company’s vision about design (Borja de Mozota 2006), its cultural imperatives (Heskett 2009), and the adopted design strategy (Gemser and Leenders 2001, Roy and Riedel 1997) or
1869
Mariana Fonseca Braga
stage (Danish Design Centre 2003) define the limitations of design potential exploration by the firm. Another stream that design has strongly embraced refers to social and environmental issues (e.g. Bonsiepe 2011, Manzini 2007, Manzini and Vezzoli 2005). The interest in the social dimension comes from the Bauhaus and Ulm schools, which started working on design and its social contributions. Papanek (1971) introduced the idea of design responsibility in his book Design for the real world. Design starts exploring the ways towards social responsibility throughout ecodesign, Design for Sustainability and social innovation.
3. Value of design 3.1 The evolution and fragmentation of value concepts Several domains have studied the value concept (Ulaga and Chacour 2001). Among them, marketing (Kotler 1972, Ravald and Grönroos 1996) and economic (Heskett 2009, Smith 1776) disciplines have stressed the importance of value and presented a range of definitions. In the modern economics, the value in exchange comes from the concept of money, which arises because of the need to have a common element and measure to exchange things among different producers. It started as a question of a commodity becoming “the universal instrument of commerce” (Smith 1776). Smith (1776) suggests two different meanings for value: value in exchange and value in use. Scant things have a higher value in exchange and a lower value in use (e.g. diamond). Goods which have a greater value in use (e.g. water) usually have no value or have a lower value in exchange (Smith 1776). Both concepts are restricted to the monetary value, to the idea of price defined by productive dimensions (labour and capital), in the neoclassical theory. The concepts of value generated throughout economic theory do not fit the design dimensions regarding the context of use, the role of products, communications, environments, services and systems in the lives of people (Heskett 2009). Heskett (2009) argues that the economic theory generally stops at the point-of-sale and the new economic concepts such as value should be elaborated from the design perspective. The Austrian School explores value concept closer to the marketing ideas in which the users’ behaviour plays an important role in purchasing (Heskett 2009, p. 75). Marketing concepts are related mainly to the idea of “customer-perceived quality” and “customer satisfaction,” where the customer perceives benefits relative to perceived sacrifice, taking into consideration suppliers’ offers and price (Ulaga and Chacour 2001). In business-to-business, value has also been related to psychological benefits such as risk reduction and reputation (Hinterhuber 2008). Hinterhuber (2008) highlights that the concept of value still is ill-defined and an under-researched subject, despite the importance of providing value to customers to foster their loyalty. Ravald and Grönroos (1996) emphasize that marketing perspective carries on the idea of value, adding that it can lead to adding
1870
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
technical products improvements or increment of services that are not perceived by the customers anymore. The value engineering (Csillag 1991) and the product-design (Baxter 1998) approaches to value are similar, stressing value in terms of money as an outcome of a combination of different types of value or functions, representing how much money the consumer is willing to pay for functions in the market by comparison. Baxter (1998) considers two productdesign functions: utility and esteem1. Krucken (2009) relates value to the perceived product quality, suggesting different value dimensions such as functional or practical value referred to the mode of use; emotional value related to subjective factors as feelings, user’s experience, memories; environmental value represented by nature preservation; and symbolic and cultural value expressed by the social identity. Borja de Mozota (2006) says that value in management science is achieved when a result superior to that of the competition has been achieved, when a greater ratio between the profits and the capital invested is realized. The Economic Value Added (EVA) comes from two types of value: substantial value based on customer value, performance value and strategic value; and financial value that is gotten through finance, investment or mergers (Borja de Mozota 2006). The substantial value includes the value perceived by the market (competitive rationality), and the value created and shared by human resources (process improvement, individual creativity, knowledge management, the performance of projects) that is referred as organizational rationality by Borja de Mozota (2006). The perspective of value engineering and of product development narrows the design strategic values related to the corporate image, language and meanings, innovation, human resources and possible social contributions. Marketing perspective bounds the issue to a profit, focusing on the customers’ viewpoint (Kotler 1972, Ravald and GrÜnroos 1996, Ulaga and Chacour 2001), presenting the shortcoming of an innovative logic to achieve disruptive ideas or to deal with change.
3.2 The scenario of design value within companies: the management of design complexity Design has been emphasized as an important factor for economic growth by several governments and institutions throughout Europe and North America (Aalto University, et al 2012, Barcelona Design Center 2014, Borja de Mozota 2006, Danish Design Centre 2003, Design Council 2007b, European Commission 2012). The need to demonstrate design benefits for business has generated reports, website platforms (e.g. SEE Platform) to share design experiences and policies. Governments have focused attention on design as policy for national economic growth and to foster innovation.
1 Esteem function represents social, cultural and commercial effects throughout beauty, shape, appearance.
1871
Mariana Fonseca Braga
Despite all the emphasis that design has recently received (Borja de Mozota 2006, Brown 2009, Bruce and Bessant 2002, Danish Design Centre 2003, Design Council 2007a, 2007b, D’Ippolito 2014, Gemser and Leenders 2001, Hunter 2014, Maeda, et al 2015, Norman 2008, Roy and Riedel 1997, Verganti 2008, Walsh 1996), it is still considered an uncertain activity, where we cannot be sure of the results (Bessant 2002, Trueman and Jobber 1998). On the other hand, design management makes an effort to explain how we can achieve better performance by design in the firms throughout skills, organizational and managerial practices, to attain an effective design (Chiva and Alegre 2009). The value creation by design can be regarded as a complex phenomenon. The intangible values have strongly emerged and impacted firms in several ways. Brands have become more valuable than the physical and tangible aspects of business. Creativity, knowledge and ideas related to design are highlighted as sources of value creation in organizations, improving competencies and skills to deal with a change towards innovation. In this scenario, design expertise contributes to the company’s challenge, but it is still considered an uncertain practice and it is not grasped at all in enterprises that use design according to their own visions. The nature of design activity is tacit-based, relying on creativity to achieve unique solutions. Design is not a science, design is a reflective practice in a constructivist paradigm where we do not expect something repeatable, despite the fact that it can be seen as a discipline and can be studied as a phenomenon (Cross 2001). The design practice is related to subjective factors such as empathy and intuition, presenting an experimental character of “trial and error” practice (Brown 2009) despite methods and tools that can be systematically employed. To source a designer, for instance, companies consider personal recommendations (Bruce, Cooper and Vazquez 1999). In addition, looking at the identity of design at the organizational level, design still is undefined in terms of responsibility, budget source, guidelines and power, presenting a non-clear form to manage compared to R&D or technology developments (D’Ippolito 2014). All the subjective and tacit dimensions make design difficult to grasp, and the risk of disruptive ideas is higher than improvements proposals enabled by market research1. Design is future-oriented and the future is uncertain, which leads to the representation of customer value as a range of expected values, rather than a single (certain) number (Hinterhuber 2008, p. 390). It seems more comfortable for the company to invest in things that are the “right things,” that are possible to forecast in terms of return on investment and profits in short run strategies. On the other hand, companies that acknowledge design as a source of innovation challenge forecasts and market research (which can be observed in the history of Apple and Sony – e.g. Ipad and the Sony walkman).
1 It is important to emphasize the difference between market research and design research. Market research is statistically
valid and shows opportunities for improvements considering similar behaviour among groups. Design research tends to more innovative solutions starting from users and establishing relationships with cultural anthropology and sociology (as cited in Zurlo 1999, p.35).
1872
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
4. Why should companies invest in design? Gemser and Leenders (2001) and Roy and Riedel (1997) show that more innovative design strategy leads to better results (e.g. turnover growth and exports) from design at the product development level. However, first-to-market innovation strategy does not always lead to more success than using a follower strategy (see for instance Teece (1986) who also describes ways in which some enterprises profit from others’ innovations). Gemser and Leenders (2001) suggest that other qualitative aspects influence competitive performance such as the designers’ reputation, experience, skills, and talent, and the market segments a company tries to serve. The Danish survey: The Economic Effects of Design (Danish Design Centre 2003) was a pioneer in studying the effects of design on national and business economics. The study shows that companies that work systematically with design, using professionals internally or as consultants, have higher earnings and exports than companies that do not use design. Gross revenue performances and exports are higher the higher on the design ladder those companies rank (Danish Design Centre 2003). However, the research does not identify the precise share of the economic growth that can be directly related to design. After that, United Kingdom has strived to measure design impacts on companies. The public policy has approached design as a fundamental factor for economic growth. The Design Council (2007b) report contributes to show the design impact on business performance. The report states design advantages in business such as (Design Council 2007b) turnover growth and shares outperformance. The recent Design Council (2015) publication, The Design Economy, demonstrates the design contribution to the financial performance of the business in the United Kingdom. The publication widened the scope of design activities approaching a wide variety of industries, compared to their previous report. It identifies a concentration of design workers and design intensive firms in London, evidencing the fact that design is underused and its benefits can be broadened in other locations. Borja de Mozota (2006, p.46) relates design to the competitive advantage, presenting multiple interpretations to design by the firm, from design as differentiator when the company sees design in the context of reputation or brand to design as a core competence, or a resource-based view difficult to imitate in terms of organizational competencies. Chiva and Alegre (2007) emphasize that the relationship between design investment and company performance is not unconditional. The authors describe the importance of design management and its skills to achieve design effectiveness and good results to the firm (Chiva and Alegre 2007). The way the company uses design investment to obtain or improve design management skills affects performance (Chiva and Alegre 2007). Most studies focus on the relationship between commercial success, competitive advantage, economic performance, and design to demonstrate benefits that design can generate for companies. However, the reasons to invest in design are not reduced to commercial success in firms. The development of unique organizational competencies (Borja de Mozota 2006)
1873
Mariana Fonseca Braga
and of learning skills (Roy and Riedel 1997) are qualitative aspects that can drive the economic value creation to strengthening the ability to deal with change and innovation, generating competitive advantages (Borja de Mozota 2006, Chiva and Alegre 2009, Roy and Riedel 1997). Other limitations are that design economic performance is more evident throughout time (Rae 2013, 2014) and that disruptive ideas are not always immediately successful in the market.
5. Discussion and conclusion 5.1. Dimensions and variables of the value of design The value of design dimensions and variables can be distinguished from the domains and approaches studied. This is just an initial effort considering the complexity of the subject and that it is an ill-defined, under-researched, multifaceted and complicated topic (Hinterhuber 2008, Ravald and Grรถnroos 1996) where visions, interpretations and new dimensions emerge as well as new research domains. The figure below demonstrates the dimensions and variables of the value which can be related to design according to the reported studies:
Figure 3 Qualitative and quantitative dimensions and variables of the value of design according to the perspective of different stakeholders (users, companies and society) and domains reported (economics, marketing, business, management, design).
1874
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
5.2 The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity, and interpretation The reasons that lead companies to explore design potential have been related to the interest in getting a competitive advantage at a profit, increasing the focus on design relationships to competition, business, and management. The will to demonstrate that design is a rewarding activity for companies triggers several efforts to translate in numbers design outcomes. Then again, Gemser and Leenders (2001) suggested that good financial performance is not a precondition for design investment in firms. Furthermore, this approach presents the limitation of binding design to an outcome, disregarding its qualitative roles and benefits that lead to the results. In this sense, Borja de Mozota (2006) draws a compelling perspective contributing to the establishment of a connection between the qualitative aspects (e.g. design as a core competence and as an agent that fosters the firm’s ability to deal with change and creates new business opportunities), which are considered the source of economic added value. Another constraint is the difficulty in isolating design from other variables that impact the firms’ performance, because the company’s performance is not just a result of design adoption (Chiva and Alegre 2009, Gemser and Leenders 2001, Roy and Riedel 1997) and design is very “integrated into the fabric” of design-led organizations (Westcott, et al 2013). Moreover, the measurable results of design are more evident throughout time (Rae 2013, 2014). Design expertise and practice are still not fully understood by people in the company (D’Ippolito 2014, Trueman and Jobber 1998, Walsh 1996), despite the existence of systematic processes and tools. This misunderstanding can be related to the idea that design is not a science and has its own logic (Cross 2001), and that design is future-oriented; it deals with uncertain change. In addition, the individual creative component and the tacit nature in which it operates to build expertise through practice-based know-how can also contribute to this (Cross 2001, D’Ippolito 2014, p.722). Assuring measurable results for innovative design is an incoherent approach, and so is market behaviour forecast, which is inappropriate to disruptive innovations that are unfamiliar to users. Design as a process relies on creativity. From the semiotics point of view, we are always interpreters regardless of our functions or positions. When a message is sent (an image, a text, a product and so on) the relevance is the meaning that the “reader” builds on it, the interpretation. Designers interpret society and users employing technical information to create. The knowledge used to achieve solutions passes through a creative process where the designer is also a “filter” and interpreter, who turns diverse subjective (e. g. social desires, aspirations, unknown users’ needs, individual know-how) and objective (e. g. manufacturing requirements, technologies, materials) information into design (products, services, experiences, communications, systems). In this sense, creativity is the main power to innovation by design.
1875
Mariana Fonseca Braga
Verganti (2008, p. 450) claims that the design driven innovation process “is more knowledge-based than creativity-based”. Knowledge and creativity appear inherent to each other (Cohen and Levinthal 1990, p. 130), and weighing which of them is more relevant to design seems incoherent considering that design knowledge has its own form of relying on engagement and reflection on design activity (Cross 2001, p. 54) that is creative-based. To think of new languages and visions in an explorative manner requires creativity to establish new linkages that embodies sociocultural models making sense of new meanings. Individual creative reactions and the construction of an organizational culture that fosters innovation seem to be crucial factors to innovate by design. The design process is creativeoriented and its most powerful feature is to innovate. Nevertheless, the design strategy supported by the firm (Gemser and Leenders 2001, Roy and Riedel 1997), its vision about design or its cultural imperatives (Borja de Mozota 2006, Heskett 2009) along with adopted approach to design and design skills embraced by the organization binds the exploration of the value of design in organizations. Design requires a diversity of competencies and each project is unique (Project Management Institute 2012). The difficulty in demonstrating a “recipe for design” relies on the creative nature of the activity and its diversity compared to activities that you can repeat and obtain the same result (e.g. manufacturing activities). To overlook the nature of design, its practice and knowledge can lead to a superficial approach to the role of creativity to innovate by design. The way in which the firm leads design concerns design management that searches for patterns or indications for “good” design (e.g. Hertenstein, Platt and Veryzer 2012). The limitation on a recipe for “good” design is also related to the unique competences, visions, change, innovation, breakthrough concepts and design context. In this sense, the value of design is not just related to the results but to the capacity to create, interpret and visualize worthy ideas in each context, forecasting novelty throughout time. Some enterprises are future- and design-oriented at the beginning of their foundations, which means that the stages in the design ladder are useful references but the reality and the dynamism of the companies to compete and to innovate by design are not reduced to this general scale. Furthermore, some studies have explored organizational culture in design-centric firms (Calabretta, et al 2008, Design Council 2007a), and the cultural change of perspective in climbing the design ladder (Doherty, et al 2014). However, it is not clear when and how a non-design-oriented company presents capacity to absorb design (or features that favours design embodiment) to create value fostering innovation. The analogy to absorptive capacity1 (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) suggested by Verganti (2008, p. 447) regarding the company’s immersion in design is a valuable insight, considering 1 Cohen and Levinthal (1990, p. 128) notice that the ability to exploit external knowledge is a critical component of
innovative capabilities: “We argue that the ability to evaluate and utilize outside knowledge is largely a function of the level of prior related knowledge.[…] prior related knowledge confers an ability to recognize the value of new information,
1876
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
that design performs a mediator role between companies and users or society (outside knowledge), and that design can foster the evolvement of the companies’ human resources and their learning skills (Borja de Mozota 2006, Roy and Riedel 1997) depending on its management. But it is necessary to clarify the particularities of design knowledge and practice (Cross 2001, D’Ippolito 2014, Heskett 2009) to better accomplish this crossfertilization. For instance, what are the preconditions or the prior knowledge in the design context to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends? Another consideration discussed in this paper is that the value of design is not restricted to commercial ends, but is built throughout the evolvement of unique competencies, visions, and interpretations that can lead to the creation of economic value. The implication of this discussion for research in design innovation management is the need to develop new ways of dealing with the innovation by design issue besides the measurable and visible assets, first focusing on the creative process and tacit knowledge in organizations in order to get insights related to the design core competencies and their roles in the companies changing processes, understanding what the preconditions to better develop innovation and create value by design are. This paper tries to shed light on this issue emphasizing design as a creative-oriented activity in which its value is shaped by companies’ visions and interpretations.
6. Limitations and future research This study focuses on the value of design at the organizational level. It is important to notice that this issue does not rely just on designers’ activities as it can be observed in the phenomenon of silent design (Gorb and Dumas 1997). Moreover, a set of activities inside and outside the company is accomplished in order to make the design system work, supporting and communicating the value of design. Future research aims at exploring the value creation by design at the design system level, considering the diverse stakeholders and their actions through a strategic design perspective. Acknowledgements: Thanks to Prof. Francesco Zurlo, Prof. Claudio Dell’Era and my PhD fellow Xue Pei who provided comments on the subject of this paper at Politecnico di Milano. This research is supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil).
7. References Aalto University, Finish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation et al. (2012) Design ROI: Measurable Design. Retrieved from: http://www.seeplatform.eu/images/DROI%20Measurable%20Design(1).pdf Baxter, M. (1998) Projeto de produto: guia prático para o design de novos produtos. São Paulo, Brasil: Edgard Blücher.
assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. These abilities collectively constitute what we call a firm's "absorptive capacity”."
1877
Mariana Fonseca Braga
Bessant, J. (2002) Why design? In M. Bruce, J. Bessant, Design in business: strategic innovation through design (pp. 3-7). London, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Barcelona Design Center. (2014) € Design: Measuring Design Value. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting design data: A proposal for a future Barcelona Manual on Design. Retrieved from: http://www.measuringdesignvalue.eu Bonsiepe, G. (2011) Design, cultura e sociedade. São Paulo, Brasil: Blucher. Borja de Mozota, B. (2006) The Four Powers of Design: A Value Model in Design Management. Design Management Review, 17, 43-53. Brown, T. (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Brown, T. (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92. Bruce, M., Bessant, J. (2002) Design definitions and management processes. In M. Bruce, J. Bessant, Design in business: strategic innovation through design (pp.1-2). London, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Bruce, M., Cooper, R., Vazquez, D. (1999) Effective design management for small businesses. Design Studies, 20, 297-315. Bürdek, B. E. (2006) História, teoria e prática do design de produtos. São Paulo, Brasil: Edgard Blücher. Calabretta, G., Montanã, J., Iglesias, O. (2008) A cross-cultural assessment of leading values in designoriented companies. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15 (4), 379-398. Celaschi, F., Celi, M., García, L. M. (2012) The Extended Value of Design: An Advanced Design Perspective. Design Management Journal, 6-15. Chiva, R., Alegre, J. (2009) Investment in Design and Firm Performance: The Mediating Role of Design Management. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 424-440. Clark, K. B., Wheelwright, S. C. (1993) Managing New Product and Process Development. New York, NY: The Free Press. Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. (1990) Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152. Cross, N. (2001) Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, 17 (3), 49-55. Csillag, J. M. (1991) Análise do Valor: metodologia do valor: engenharia do valor, gerenciamento do valor, redução de custos, racionalização administrativa. São Paulo, Brasil: Atlas. Danish Design Centre. (2003) The Economic Effects of Design. Compenhagen: National Agency for Enterprise and Housing. Retrieved from: http://www.seeplatform.eu/images/the_economic_effects_of_designn.pdf Danish Design Centre. (2007) The Design Ladder. Compenhagen: Danish Business Authority. Retrieved from: http://ddc.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Design-Ladder_en.pdf Dell’Era, C., Verganti, R. (2007) Strategies of Innovation and Imitation of Product Languages. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 580-599. Deserti, A., Rizzo, F. (2014) Design and the Cultures of Enterprises. Design Issues, 30, 36-56. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00247 Design (n.d.) In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=design Design Council. (2007a) Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global brands: A study of the design process. Retrieved from: www.designcouncil.org.uk
1878
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
Design Council. (2015) The Design Economy: The value of design to the UK economy. Executive summary. Retrieved from: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ Design Council. (2007b) The Value of Design: Factfinder report. Retrieved from: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/TheValueOfDesignFactfinde r_Design_Council.pdf. D’Ippolito, B. (2014) The importance of design for firms’ competitiveness: A review of the literature. Technovation, 34, 716-730. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.007 Doherty, R., Wrigley, C., Matthews, J., Bucolo, S. (2014) Climbing the Design Ladder: Step by step.Proceedings of the 19th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference: Design Management in an Era of Disruption, 2576-2597. European Commission. (2012) Design for Growth and Prosperity: Report and Recommendations of the European Design Leadership Board. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/design/design-for-growth-andprosperity-report_en.pdf Forty, A. (2007) Objeto de desejo: design e sociedade desde 1750. São Paulo, Brasil: Cosac Naify. Gemser, G., Leenders, M. A. A. M. (2001) How integrating industrial design in the product development process: impacts on company performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 28-38. Gorb, P., Dumas, A. (1997) Silent Design. In M. Bruce, R. Cooper, Marketing and Design Management (pp. 159-174). London, England: International Thomson Business Press. Hertenstein, J., Platt, M., Veryzer, R. (2012) What is “Good Design”?: An investigation of the structure and complexity of design. Proceedings of the DMI 2012 International Research Conference: Leading Innovation through Design, 175-192. ISBN 978-0-615-66453-8 (electronic) Heskett, J. (2009) Creating Economic Value by Design. International Journal of Design, 3(1), 71-84. Hinterhuber, A. (2008) Value delivery and value-based princing in industrial markets. In A. G. Woodside, F. Golfetto, M.Gibbert (Eds.), Creating and managing superior customer value (pp. 382448). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Hunter, M. (2014) What is design and why it matters. Retrieved from: http://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk/uk-creative-overview/news-and-views/view-what-isdesign-and-why-it-matters International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (2015) Definition of design. Retrieved from: http://www.icsid.org/about/about/articles31.htm Kootstra, G. L. (2009) Design Management Europe Survey 2009. The incorporation of design management in today’s business practices: An analysis of design management practices in Europe. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Centre for Brand, Reputation and Design Management, INHOLLAND University of Applied Sciences. Retrieved from: http://www.bcd.es/site/unitFiles/2585/DME_Survey09-darrera%20versi%C3%B3.pdf Kotler, P.(1972) A Generic Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 46-54. Krucken, L. (2009) Design e território: Valorização de indentidades e produtos locais. São Paulo, Brasil: Studio Nobel. Maeda, J., and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers team. (2015) #DesignIn Tech Report. Retrieved from: http://www.kpcb.com/blog/design-in-tech-report-2015. Manzini, E. (2007) Design, social innovation and sustainable ways of living: Creative communities and diffused social enterprise in the transition towards a sustainable network society. DIS- Indaco, Politecnico di Milano. Retrieved from: <http://www.producao.ufrj.br/design.isds/material.htm>.
1879
Mariana Fonseca Braga
Manzini, E.; Vezzoli, C. (2005) O Desenvolvimento de Produtos Sustentáveis: Os requisitos Ambientais dos Produtos Industriais. São Paulo, Brasil: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo. Munari, B. (2008) Das coisas nascem coisas. São Paulo, Brasil: Martins Fontes. Norman, D. A. (2008) Design emocional: por que adoramos (ou detestamos) os objetos do dia-a-dia. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Rocco. Norman, D. A.; Verganti R. (2014) Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78-96. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00250 Papanek, V. (1971) Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Paris, S. (2014) Disegno Industriale vs Industrial Design. The Italian history. In Design and Technology lectures (84-96). Trento, Italy: LISt Lab Laboratorio Internazionale Editoriale. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292735723_Disegno_Industriale_vs_Industrial_Design _The_Italian_story Project Management Institute. (2012) Um guia do conhecimento em gerenciamento de projetos (guia PMBOK). São Paulo, Brasil: Saraiva. Pugh, S. (1991) Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Workingham, UK: Addison-Wesley. Rae, J. (2013) Design-Conscious Companies: What Is the Real Value of Design?. Design Management Institute, 30-37. Retrieved from: https://www.dmi.org/resource/resmgr/pdf_files/TheRealValueOfDesign.pdf Rae, J. (2014) What Is the Real Value of Design? Design Management Institute and Motiv Strategies, 1-9. Retrieved from: http://motivstrategies.com/work/what-is-the-real-value-of-design/ Ravald, A. and Grönroos, C. (1996) The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19-30. Roy, R., Riedel, J. (1997) Design and innovation in successful product competition. Technovation, 17(10), 537-548. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00050-3. SEE Platform. (2015, August 14) Retrieved from: http://www.seeplatform.eu/ Smith, A. (1776) Of the Origin and Use of Money. In A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Retrieved from: http://geolib.com/smith.adam/won1-04.html Teece, D. J. (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305. Trocchianesi, R.; Guglielmetti, I. (2012) Elementos de reconhecimento do design na multiplicidade e “multiversalidade” das diversas dinâmicas de relação com o artesanato. In A. Jaña, I. Abreu, C. Albino (curadoria), Design, Artesanato e Indústria (pp. 30-39). Cidade de Guimarães, Portugal: Editoria, Fundação Cidade de Guimarães, Greca Artes Gráficas. Trueman, M., Jobber, D. (1998) Competing through Design. Long Range Planning, 31(4), 594-605. Ulaga, W., Chacour, S. (2001) Measuring Customer Perceived Value in Business Markets: A Prerequisite for Marketing Strategy Development and Implementation. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 525–540. Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D. (1995) Product Design and Development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Verganti, R. (2008) Design, meanings and radical innovation: A meta-model and a research agenda. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 436-456. Walsh, V. (1996) Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm. Research Policy, 25, 509-529. Westcott, M., Sato, S., Mrazek, D., Wallace, R., Vanka, S., Bilson, C., Hardin, D. (2013).The DMI Design Value Scorecard: A Design Measurement and Management Model. Feature DMI Design Value
1880
The value of design: an issue of vision, creativity and interpretation.
Scorecard. Retrieved from: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.dmi.org/resource/resmgr/pdf_files/13244SAT10.pdf Zurlo, F., Cautela, C. (2014) Design Strategies in Different Narrative Frames. Design Issues, 30(1), 1935. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00246 Zurlo, F. (1999) Un modello di lettura per il Design Strategico: La relazione tra design e strategia nellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;impresa contemporanea. (Dissertazione di dottorato). Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italia. About the Author: Mariana Fonseca Braga is PhD candidate at Politecnico di Milano with a B.Sc. in industrial design and a M.Sc. in production engineering. Her research interests include design and innovation management. She has experience developing products, teaching and researching design domains and ergonomics.
1881
This page is left intentionally blank
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices Emmanouil Chatzakisa*, Neil Smithb and Erik Bohemiac a
Teesside University Northumbria University c Loughborough University * E.Chatzakis@tees.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.371 b
Abstract: The paper’s aim is to discuss a need for a multilevel research approach to investigate innovation practices in organisations. We argue that this approach overcomes some of the limitations of the single level research methods commonly used investigating innovation performance and success. Specifically, the multilevel research approach allows researchers and subsequently organisations to take into consideration ‘obscured’ practices within innovation processes. First, we put forward a motion that innovation processes permeate the formalised organisational structures and practices. Then, we outline a case where many of the practices associated with innovation are ‘obscured’. This is followed with discussion on how the commonly used single level research methods fail to take into consideration these obscured factors. We then introduce Activity Theory and propose a multilevel framework which aims to overcome the shortfalls of the previous analytical methods. Keywords: Activity Theory, New Product Development, Analytical Methods, Organisational Agility
1. Context: The impact of obscurity in organisational practices Research suggests that organisations1 are struggling to sustain an organic and long-term growth and resilience in the increasingly hypercompetitive market conditions and increased and unprecedented rate of change at all levels of society2 (Johannessen, Olsen, & Lumpkin, 2001; NESTA, 2006). Bessant, Francis, Meredith, Kaplinsky, and Brown (2001) suggested that companies will need to become agile. Bohemia and Harman (2008, p. 56) stated that the 1 2
Organisations referred to throughout this study concern specifically industrial, commercial and manufacturers. Such as in the economic climate, environmental challenges, demographic and organisational changes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
“agile manufacturing is underpinned by four key principles: delivering value to the customer, being ready for change, valuing human knowledge and skills, and forming virtual partnerships”. It is proposed that agile practices will enable organisations to act more proactively, flexibly and rapidly in order to meet emerging challenges and opportunities through innovative responses. More precisely, Bessant et al. (2001) outlined that companies will need to creatively respond to these two critical continuously shifting arenas: 1. The internal (to the company) efforts to constantly search for applications of own
expertise and resources into developing a new product that may ultimately be used by others (e.g. customers), and 2. To do this within a highly uncertain external environment with little or no control over
important events (that may be taking place on the other side of the world) and/or other actors’ behaviours, and to manage to actually sell the new product in the end. Prior research in design, innovation and organisational analysis have discussed the existence of phenomena related to innovation processes which remain ‘informal’, ‘hidden’, ‘invisible’ or ‘silent’ within organisational practices (e.g. Gorb & Dumas, 1987). The argument is that these ‘hidden practices’ are often overlooked, unrecognised. This is either because there is a certain level of tacitness (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), people are too involved and activities are too familiar or the metrics used to measure them are not ‘sensitive’ enough to capture them. Put it differently, there exists a certain level of obscurity attached to them. For instance, a great deal of organisational success is said to rely heavily on practices such as strong interpersonal and informal relationships and their ability to cleverly make use of resources to compete within established or niche markets (S. King & Ockels, 2009). The informality and spontaneity surrounding the activities of organisations means that many phenomena are extremely difficult to be captured into a so-called ‘objective’ data (Edwards, Delbridge, & Munday, 2005; Watkins-Mathys & Lowe, 2005). For example, Krackhardt and Hanson (1993, p. 104) pointed out that “if the formal organisation is the skeleton of a company, the informal is the central nervous system driving the collective thought processes, actions, and reactions of its business units”. Therefore, whilst it is logical to suggest that all organisations possess a certain level of structure reflected by functional / departmental roles that an organisation’s members occupy as well as in formal documents such as manuals, organizational charts, training programmes and job descriptions, they only represent the tip of the iceberg of organisational life. These are unlikely determinant factors and as such do not sufficiently reflect how organisations actually operate in reality. Neither fully represent how innovation activities are carried out. This view is also shared, for instance, by socio-technical advocates like Macpherson and Clark (2009, p. 553) who noted that: “Documented procedures provide a useful point of reference, but they cannot capture the complex unfolding nature of work and the tacit practices employees develop over time as they solve practical problems in their day-to-day employment.”
1884
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
This is particularly important because in times of uncertainty and rapidly changing environments, organisational practices are constantly challenged and undergo changes which are not reflected by the formal organisation. Therefore, factors impacting on agility and innovation are said to remain often either ‘invisible’, or simply ignored by organisations and researchers (Nonaka & Teece, 2001; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). This also highlights the case with many innovation tools, analytical screening models, and over-codified processes (e.g. ISO standards) recommended by experts, that often struggle to cope with the swift transformations and typical heterogeneity of many organisations, or worse, becoming a routine ‘to-do’ tasks, which impacts on creativity and forward thinking (Verganti, 2009). According to Nonaka and Teece (2001), studies on the way work is usually conducted in many organisations differs significantly from how it appears in job descriptions and manuals, and has both ‘invisible’ and collective characteristics. Verganti (2009) noted that during his study of Italian manufacturing SMEs, his understanding of what was going on within the organisations was the biggest challenge he had to overcome as “the innovation process of these organisations was tacit, invisible – no methods, no tools, and no steps” (p. 8). Similarly, Miles and Green (2008) in NESTA’s research report introduced the notion of ‘hidden innovations’ that are “not recorded using traditional innovation indicators such as research and development (R&D)” (p. 6). This can be problematic for organisations which find it difficult to identify or even understand the sources of their relative strengths. For instance, a great deal of an organisation’s activities during innovation making (i.e. New Product Development) involves unstructured phases (e.g. ‘ad-hoc problem solving’ Winter (2003) such as during idea generation phase during which the outcomes are still uncertain, and the activities involved are inherently non-routine (Anssi, 2010). Meanwhile, there is much anecdotal and empirical work that discusses, a) factors promoting agility and innovation in organisations, b) the challenges associated with managing the process of innovation making and, c) prescriptive guidelines for ‘best practices’ to New Product Development (NPD) success. This paper does not seek to challenge these or identify new ones. Rather, the paper aims to explicate the underlying phenomena facilitating agility and innovation making by consolidating and aligning these to the dynamic contexts where they emerge. More precisely, the paper seeks to introduce a multi-level, practice-based methodological approach that will enable design researchers to take into consideration ‘obscured’ organisational processes and associated practices in order to enable organisations to increase their awareness and, hence, better manage their innovation potential. By obscure processes the paper refers to those practices that have been previously described as hidden, invisible or tacit and as a means to adopt a more pragmatic term (something that is not well articulated but can be found and recorded) as opposed to implying that they are ‘hidden’ therefore one cannot study them.
2. Limitations to single level analyses Studies around agility and innovation has been done from a variety of perspectives and according to a particular level of analysis. For example, psychological theories have been
1885
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
applied to individual and/or group/team level, management theories to the organisational level, and economic theories to industrial, sectorial and overall societal level (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). This line of enquiry is the dominant approach to study organisational performance and innovation and has been previously termed as variance-based research (see e.g. Van de Ven & Poole, 2005; Wolfe, 1994). As mentioned earlier, an exhaustive list of factors that impact on the agility and innovativeness of organisations is not the focus of this paper as these have been systematically reviewed elsewhere (e.g. Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). What matters here is that a single level approaches have the notion of treating each level in isolation, hence impeding useful insights about their inherently interrelations and the influence they have on each other (Chatzakis, 2015; Gupta, Tesluk, & Taylor, 2007) For instance, research at the organisational and external level (usually termed as macrolevel, see Figure 1) generally discount social and relational phenomena when analysing various factors such as: structures, resources, capabilities, policies; even though they also affect innovation processes and outcomes (Felin & Foss, 2005). In general, there exists a diverse range of theories and perspectives such as the structuralist perspective, the resource-based and dynamic capabilities view of the organisation, the knowledge creation and learning organisation, and more recently social network and practice-based perspectives (Lam, 2005; Nooteboom, 1999; Pettigrew & Fenton, 2000; Sears & Baba, 2011). There are various distinctive differences as well as complementarities to the theoretical enquiry of each perspective (Fagerberg, Mowery, & Nelson, 2005). One notable distinction is about their level of enquiry; some pay attention to aspects such as structures, resources and capabilities (termed here as ‘resource-based’), whilst others to human aspects such as knowledge flows, relationships, interactions, situations, boundaries and the social practices underpinning organisational life (Chatzakis, 2015; Lam, 2005; Lazonick, 2005). Notwithstanding the significant contribution of the resource-based approaches to organisational performance (and innovation), these theories have been criticised on a number of occasions. For instance, they remain somewhat abstract concepts due to the lack of a dynamic conceptual framework that would analyse the phenomena beyond the resource-based view. According to the resource-based view, for an organisation to enjoy sustained competitive advantage, an implemented strategy must nurture those resources that create value for the organisation against competition whilst remaining rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable by other organisations (Stevens, 2009). For instance, design is often described as such a core inimitable capability that is linked with a company’s success; it adds value to the company by providing high levels of customer satisfaction, commercial advantage through product differentiation and directing its offerings to a variety of markets (Moultrie, Clarkson, & Probert, 2007; Stevens, 2009; Walsh, 1996). It has been argued that the resource-based view lacks a “perspective on why and how some organisations rather than others accumulate valuable and inimitable resources, or indeed what made these resources valuable and inimitable” (Lazonick, 2005, p. 33). In a post-reflection of his earlier work, Barney, Wright, and Ketchen (2001) contented that, whilst managers may assume they know which particular resources are sources of sustained competitive advantage in
1886
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
their organisation, in reality, such knowledge remains extremely obscure, as the link between resources is likely to be uncertain and ambiguous. For instance, Barney (1991) emphasized the role of social agency by suggesting that many ‘imperfectly imitable’ resources regard very complex social phenomena such as the interpersonal relations amongst the organisation’s members, its culture, or the organisation’s reputation in the external environment, all of which are very tricky to measure and systematically manage. Whilst many organisations may possess the exact same technological resources and capabilities, their effective exploitation often depends on other intangible resources, such as social relationships, quality of interactions, coordination mechanisms, and the culture and traditions of each organisation (Pettigrew & Fenton, 2000). On the other hand, research at the micro-level (individuals and/or groups, teams, see Figure 1) tends to overlook the effect that both internal (organisational) and external (environment) contexts impose on the innovation process (Bessant et al., 2001; Sears & Baba, 2011; Slappendel, 1996). Traditional economic theory has been criticised as emphasizing what people are supposed to do in order to achieve ‘optimal outcomes’, yet forgetting that humans are far from ideal and rational beings (Fagerberg, 2005). Micro-level studies often examine the actions of certain key individuals (e.g. leaders) without taking into consideration either membership in its entirety (N. King, 1990) or the contextual and other environmental factors that influence their actions. Organisations are systems made out of bundles of people and therefore it is them who determine the willingness and ability of an organisation to innovate. Studies that adopt a single level perspective possess an important weakness in that they paint an incomplete picture of the mechanisms that influence organisational innovation practices. Lack of sensitivity to obscure micro-processes and their dynamic links with other phenomena influencing organisational performance suggests theoretical and methodological deficiencies, which considerably affect our understandings of the dynamics of their innovation practices, leaving an important gap in knowledge with several implications for potential investment and support towards them. Therefore, we suggest the need for the adoption of a multi-level approach where key phenomena may be explored incorporating a multipoint of view (Figure 1). This need builds upon calls made by other scholars who have previously supported the view that multi-level approaches are beneficial for the study of organisational agility, innovation and its associated processes (e.g. Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2008; Gupta, Tesluk, & Taylor, 2007; Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999; Nooteboom, 1999; Sears & Baba, 2011; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).
1887
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
Figure 1. Illustration of micro and macro-level determinants that are suggested to facilitate agility and innovation
3. Process: Towards a situational, contextual, relational generic process model of innovation making Van de Ven and Rogers (1988) centred their focus on aspects impacting the innovation process to five central concepts; a) ideas, b) people, c) transactions, d) context and e) outcomes. According to them, the innovation process progresses from “the invention and implementation of new ideas, which are developed and carried by people who engage in transactions (relationships) with others, over time and within an institutional context, and who judge the outcomes of their actions” (Van de Ven & Rogers, 1988, p. 639, original in italics). According to this view, innovation making, in its broader sense, is fundamentally an organisational phenomenon that involves simultaneously at least two levels; i) the actor(s) which might be an individual, a team and/or an organisation, and ii) a context (both internal and external) where the actors operate in (Gupta et al., 2007). Hall (1987; cited in Hofmann, 1997, p. 723) defined organisations as: “… a collectivity with a relatively identifiable boundary, a normative order, ranks of authority, communication systems, and membership-coordinating systems; this colIectivity exists on a relatively continuous basis in an environment and engages in activities that are usually related to a set of goals; the activities have outcomes for organizational members, the organization itself, and for society.”
A fundamental question that can be said to matter most in innovation research is, of course, to understand how companies innovate. As opposed to the variance approach, this line of enquiry adopts a temporary-based, process approach (Mohr, 1982; Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). One way to demystify innovation in its making is to look at the process through which new outcomes, whether tangible or intangible, are created. New Product Development (NPD) may be seen as the ultimate end-goal for every organisation, in the sense that organisations exist, to a great extent, to serve – that is, to provide tangible and/or intangible goods and services to their ‘customers’. These goods are critical to the survival, resilience and/or growth of these (and other) organisations, because new developments add to their
1888
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
economic viability as well as differentiates them from competition through attractive and pleasant products that people are more likely to choose to buy (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). The term ‘New Product Development (NPD)’ is used here to describe the process through which new products are developed in organisations. However, it is common for scholars from other disciplines to adopt a different terminology, such as ‘new product design’ by engineers and designers (although Moultrie, Clarkson, & Probert, 2007 clearly posited 'design process' as a distinguished phase within NPD) and ‘innovation process’ by those in R&D domain, For reasons of simplicity and to reflect the interdisciplinary nature of NPD, this paper employs the terms interchangeably (Hart, 1995). NPD processes trigger the mobilisation, reconfiguration and adaptation of an organisation’s capabilities and resources to effectively respond to internal and external needs and, in doing so, lead to the development of different types of novel outcomes. Hence, there is a general agreement that a high-quality NPD process and proficiency in managing and executing it is important for organisations (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1995; Molin-Juustila, 2006). Some of the reasons for the above assertion include the decreased cycle time and increased innovation productivity as well because it “determines the degree to which businesses can meet and/or exceed demand, and thus succeed” (Harmancioglu, McNally, Calantone, & Durmusoglu, 2007, p. 400). This recognition has led to the substantial amount of research interest in the dynamics of NPD (e.g. Cooper, 1996, 1999; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 2007; Hart, 1995; Moultrie et al., 2007). One common attribute to the process of innovation making (i.e. NPD) is the notion of uncertainty (Fagerberg, 2005) and the inherent risks, unpredictable and highly complex nature of the various multifunctional activities involved there (Moultrie et al., 2007). Saren (1984) argued that this recognised complexity highlights not only the difficulties organisations face in managing the process, but also to outsiders in studying and understanding it. For this reason, models of the process have been created with the goal to know the ‘what’, why’, ‘how’ and ‘where’ type of activities and construct a better understanding of these activities for both their management and improvement (Tidd & Bessant, 2009). Tidd and Bessant (2009) suggested that instead of looking at process models as descriptions or prescriptions of how the process actually operates, it would be better (especially for researchers) to look at them as ‘frameworks for thinking’. This way, the task would be to develop general representations of the process, yet flexible enough in order to enable the analysis of the process “in terms of activities, functions, decisions, information flows, input and outputs, internal and external actors, or as complex network of relationships” (Saren, 1994, p. 638). Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, and Venkataraman (1999) offered a relatively simple framework of the innovation process. The authors labelled it as the innovation journey and organised it into three main periods; initiation, development and implementation/termination where various actions and events take place. Through their longitudinal case study research where the authors explored a number of different innovation outcomes, they challenged many assumptions attached to process models. For example, Van de Ven et al. (1999) supported
1889
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
the view that innovation making has a historical aspect to it. In what they termed as a gestation period, the authors suggested that innovation making does not necessarily initiate as a result of intentionally directed activities towards innovation. Rather, the authors identified a period (i.e. gestation) during which a number of events are triggered leading to the ’Initiation’ of innovation process. Closely relating to Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek’s (1973) discussion about the total change process, the gestation period according to Van de Ven et al. (1999), contains diverse events (‘shock events’) such as declining organisational health to changes in ownership, product failure, change in environmental conditions, the general society, various technological breakthroughs and so forth. In effect, these events generate a degree of awareness of threats and/or opportunities for the organisation which often then lead to activities triggering innovative responses. However, as ideas proliferate, the initial recognition of an opportunity for innovation (of any type) may not result in the form that was originally conceived. This is because, as Van de Ven et al. (1999) contended, the decisions made by key organisational members about a particular course of action could, occasionally and coincidentally, intersect with the courses of action of other actors (internal or external level) and lead to the realisation of new opportunities or resources. Therefore, incorporating political elements into the process. Hence, Van de Ven et al. (1999) postulated that the decision to proceed with the development of an innovation is rarely the result of a sudden spark of inspiration. Rather, the decisions that lead to innovations are dynamically and non-linearly cultivated by lengthy precipitating events, where multiple and coincidental sources of influence may come into play and cumulatively trigger the recognition of (new) opportunities. Van de Ven et al. (1999) also recognised the link between innovation and learning, albeit they also noted that “much of the outcome is due to other events which occur as innovation develops – often making learning ‘superstitious’ in nature” (Tidd, 2006, p. 3). What differentiates Van de Ven et al. (1999)’s framework from standardised process models is that it recognises that “the progress of any particular innovation along this journey will depend on a variety of contingent circumstances; depending on which of these apply, different specific models of the process will emerge” (Tidd & Bessant, 2009, p. 67). This recognition makes Van de Ven et al. (1999)’s conceptual model a satisfactory general framework for the analysis of the NPD process, as it provides enough flexibility to adapt to different organisational contexts. Figure 2 depicts the NPD process model in connection with instances of obscure multi-level phenomena described earlier that impact on agility and innovation.
1890
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
Figure 2. A general NPD model interpreted by Van de Ven et al. (1999)’s model of the innovation journey; the figure depicts the rather messy, complex and non-linear progression between the three key periods of development
4. Towards a practice-based approach Recent theoretical and methodological approaches to study organisations focus on social theories that have taken a ‘practice turn’ for conceptualising agency and action (Chia & Holt, 2006). In general, the concept of ‘practice’ has been a central investigation of the social sciences and practice theorists (e.g. Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, & Savigny, 2001), and increasingly the attention of management research (Tsoukas & Yanow, 2009). For the former, practice is seen as a social phenomenon in which “the social is […] embodied, materially interwoven [...and] centrally organised around shared practical understandings” and thus “actions are embedded in practices, just as individuals are constituted within them” (Schatzki et al., 2001, p. 3). Moreover, according to Tsoukas and Yanow (2009, p. 1347) “practitioners acquire and develop their skills in the contexts of practices, such that theorising must engage practitioners acting in the context of broader activity sets, rather than merely focusing on their individual attitudes and beliefs”. Therefore, it can be asserted that as practices are socially and contextually situated within a given unit of analysis, i.e. the organisation, so are the characteristics and needs of the different organisations, dependant on their idiosyncrasies.
1891
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
This ‘relational’ (see e.g. Cooper, 2005) turn has shifted its emphasis away from what has being coined as methodological individualism (Chia & Holt, 2006). This view suggests that social phenomena may be best explained “in terms of actor intentions and motivations” (ibid, p. 638), towards an emphasis to “the primacy of relationships over individual entities” and recommends that “practices are social sites in which events, entities and meaning help compose one another” (ibid, p. 640). Hence, innovation determinants such as organisational knowledge creation, sharing and learning are understood as the product of social action, interaction and habituation amongst the organisational members situated within a social system (Gherardi, 2009; Higgins, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Macpherson & Clark, 2009; Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003; Schatzki et al., 2001). In this vein, Marshall (2008, p. 414) asserted that: “…practice based theories adopt a more holistic, constructionist position in which the various elements of thinking, doing, and being, and the social, cultural, historical and material settings within which they are actively situated, are conceived in relationships of co-constitution.”
Consequently, the practice-based1 tradition offers a potential contemporary platform for addressing issues of organisational practices and innovation “in such a way that the richness and depth of the phenomenon is given full consideration” (Nicolini et al., 2003, p. 26). In this way, research in this area can explore the complex dynamics of organisational practices from the participant’s point of view, yet construed as ‘bundles of practices’ instead of isolated entities (Chia & Holt, 2006; Schatzki et al., 2001). However, as Nicolini et al. (2003, p. 12) stressed “there is no such thing as a unified practice theory or practice-based approach, only a number of research traditions and scholars connected by a common historical legacy and several theoretical family resemblances”. For example, the authors provided four examples of such practice-based approaches. These adopt: i) a cultural interpretive framework, ii) a symbolic interactionist perspective through the lenses of legitimate peripheral participation also known as ‘communities of practice’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991), iii) a sociology of translation also known as actor network theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005), and iv) a social constructivist theory of the cultural and historical activity theory (CHAT - more contemporarily known as Activity Theory (AT) (Engeström, 1987). One key resemblance of these four, otherwise unique, traditions is their contextual and culturally situated theorising of practice.
4.1 Activity theory Activity Theory has its roots in Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) which has a long historical association with the works of developmental psychology Soviet scholars such as Leont’ev (and his concept of activity) and Vygotsky (and his concept of mediation) (Blackler, Crump, & McDonald, 2003). The theory’s most current form can be found in particular in Engeström’s work (1987). Activity Theory has attracted major interest in other areas apart 1
It is important to highlight here that practice-based theories in this study have a social science philosophical grounding rather than practice-based design research (see e.g. Sevaldson, 2010; also Yee, 2010).
1892
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
from psychology such as in educational and learning studies (see a notable review of empirical studies in Daniels, Edwards, Engeström, Gallagher, & Ludvigsen, 2010), and increasingly in organisational and management research (e.g. Macpherson, Kofinas, Jones, & Thorpe, 2010). In design research scholars have adopted Activity Theory as a model to analyse activities in order to, for instance, improve the design of user interfaces in the human computer interaction paradigm (HCI) (e.g. Kaptelinin, 2012), the design of services (e.g. Sangiorgi & Clark, 2004) and develop computer systems for aiding product design (Tuikka, 2002). Recent calls in design research, such as in design engineering (Cash, Hicks, & Culley, 2015) and the graphic design field (Tarbox, 2006) have particularly stressed the usefulness of Activity Theory as a framework for studying design practices from the contextual perspective it offers. As it will be further asserted in the following section, some of the key strengths that make Activity Theory stand out from other practice-based research methods are: first, Activity Theory does not rule out other practice-based theories1, rather it provides a framework that expands on them (Tarbox, 2006) and second, Activity Theory offers a visual model (that other practice theories do not) that enables a holistic analysis of the context and the multilevel phenomena influencing the activity process (NPD) as these are experienced from the members’ point of view (Cash et al., 2015). Due to its historical link with developmental psychology, Activity Theory draws on heavy conceptual tools and therefore this paper will discuss only those concepts that have immediate relevance to its scope. The main goal of Activity Theory is to analyse development within practice through the social and contextual activities in which people develop their skills, personalities and consciousness (Sannino, Daniels, & Gutierrez, 2009). According to this theory, human activity has a structure with a number of components; there is an active subject whose activity is directed towards an object mediated by tools and signs while rules influence the subject’s relation to his community and the division of labour in the community’s relation to the object (Tuikka, 2002). Mediation and relationships between these central components form an Activity System (Figure 3), which can be seen as: “…the subject or group of subjects, which through mediating artefacts (concrete tools and signs) orientate their collective activity to a specific object. When the mediating artefacts change the object can appear different. Activity is always collective, thus it is constructed by a certain community and distribution of work as well as rules (written and unwritten).” (Engeström, 1987; cited in Kallio, 2010, p. 34)
1
Such as Lave and Wenger (1991)'s communities of practice - see Bjørk (2004); also Engeström, Miettinen, and Punamaki (1999, p. 12).
1893
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
Figure 3. The structure of a human activity system according to Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987; found in Engeström, 2001, p. 135)
According to Kallio (2010) the object of activity can be seen as the ‘true’ motive of an activity and provides a model through which the different activities can be observed “from the point of view of an individual subject or group as collective, object-oriented and mediated by culturally produced artefacts” (Kallio, 2010, p. 33). An object can be either tangible (e.g. a product), less tangible (e.g. a drawing) or entirely intangible (e.g. a concept) (Tuikka, 2002). The culturally produced artefacts may include “tools, procedures, regulations, processes, concepts and accepted practices” and “represent the experiences of those who have solved problems in the past” and hence performance may only be achieved through their collective acceptance (Macpherson et al., 2010, p. 305). In other words, tools are “created and transformed by people during the development of the activity itself and carry with them a particular culture — historical remnants of that development” (Tuikka, 2002, p. 56). The relationship between subject and the tool can be inversely related as the tool can be both enabling (empowering the subject to go about a certain task) and limiting (interaction is selfrestricted by the perspective that the tool allows) (Molin-Juustila, 2006). Moreover, the subjects/ individuals/ groups being analysed, abide by certain rules, which can be formal and explicit, such as regulations or procedures and/or can be tacit such as norms, values, beliefs (see e.g. Schein, 2010 on organisational culture). Practice is seen as taking place within a community where other activity systems and people belong and is being shared and coordinated by some divisions of labour. Engeström (2001) also suggested that by exploring the history of the object of activity (hence, closely linked with Van de Ven et al. (1999)‘s concept of ‘gestation period’) through which it has evolved, it may potentially offer a rich understanding of the changes that have occurred within the practices of the particular activity system, as well as the tensions (or ‘shock events’ in Van de Ven et al. (1999)’s terms) that led to such transformation.
1894
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
4.2 Activity Theory’s relevance to the study of organisational agility and innovation There are a number of observations that suggest AT as an appropriate analytical model for the study of agility and innovation making (NPD). First, the analytical model of AT takes into account “one of these pervasive and persistent issues [of] the relationship between the micro and macro levels of analysis” (Engeström et al., 1999, p. 8). As it has already been discussed in earlier sections, a multilevel approach (micro and macro) to organisational innovation is the focus of this paper. Similar to the Activity Theory approach, this paper proposes the exploration of innovation activities by looking at both the detail of the practices in question, including what people do, how they do it and with whom, as well as the context in which these practices take place, including both internal and external elements. The concept of ‘object-orientated’ activity in particular seems to provide a very useful tool for the analysis of the activities of the key practitioners involved in the NPD process. As an example, let us consider a new product development setting where an organisation is devising a new design output for a client. As noted earlier, the ultimate goal for the NPD is to produce a new artefact based on given requirements devised internally or as a response to external stimuli. In most typical cases, these requirements relate to the particular market needs at which the organisation aims its products. The members of the project team are all subjects in the development process and together they form a community both internally and externally with the client / partners. Each member has his/her own personal characteristics i.e. experience, skills and so forth. For example, Tuikka (2002, p. 66) outlined the role of the designer as subject in their participation during concept design process. “The subjects who participate in the design sessions contribute with their knowledge and personal background. These are individual resources, which are brought into the design situation. Thus, the subjects’ knowledge is composed of personal understanding of the domain, which has been accumulated during their individual history. […] The designer reflects on this knowledge and transforms the vision of the design object according to their own reflection on the goals of the design group.”
Every member of the project team interacts with members not only from their own functions but also with other organisational functions in a division of labour. Initially, the object at hand is an unfinished prototypical idea, which needs to be transformed in order to be ready to be handed over to the client. In NPD, an object can be seen as the actual motive that drives a new idea while being transformed into its final outcome and, in this example, the overall motive is the client’s satisfaction. The relationship between object construction and final outcome may be found in the concepts, visions and images of the new products that organisational members collectively construct through their practice. In this sense, the object ultimately refers to the possibilities and courses of action of the relevant activity collectively transformed through the development process. In the different stages of NPD, the subjects carry out different kinds of actions in order to transform the object into the outcome.
1895
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
Because the activity system of these practices is ambiguous and dynamic, tensions and conflicts are often evident between diverse expertise and boundaries of the various functional groups, distributed practices and competing objectives inevitably affect the way practices co-orient and re-establish (Macpherson & Holt, 2007). Along the process, the project team makes use of a number of tangible and intangible tools, from early ideas and strategic planning to design specifications, drawings, prototyping, testing and, finally, to a fully functional product. At the same time, these different tasks are driven by certain rules, some explicit (e.g. safety standards) and some implicit (e.g. organisational culture). As Engeström (1999, p. 381) pointed out that “this situation-specific construction and instantiation of the object of an activity system often takes the form of problem finding and problem definition”. For instance, according to Activity Theory’s approach, the early phases where an organisation searches and recognises an opportunity for innovation, is conceptualised as a process of sense-making of uncertain and ambiguous events (Macpherson et al., 2010; Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld, 2005). At these early stages, the organisation does not only need to construct a new product, but the object/motive of the whole new activity system needs to be designed, including elements such as strategic vision and the business plan that will guarantee (to a certain extent) sufficient profitable prospects for that new activity to exist in the first place (Molin-Juustila, 2006). Putting it simply, the activity system during the NPD process begins as an emerging state only to slowly transform into a more stable new activity system as it progresses to the later developmental stages (Molin-Juustila, 2006) (i.e. the transition between Initiation, Development and Implementation periods). By combining the analytical approach of Activity Theory model with the multi-level factors and NPD process model presented earlier, we propose an integrated, multilevel threelayered framework to study ‘obscure’ innovation practices, as depicted by Figure 4 below:
1896
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
Figure 4. An integrated, multilevel framework for data collection and analysis of obscure organisational practices
5. Conclusion As outlined earlier, many theoretical models, tools, services and policies both from academia, industry and government bodies exist today which aim to help achieve the conditions for organisations to become agile and innovative. Yet, the majority of these are based on prescriptive guidelines of ‘best practices’ that are divorced from the complex social dynamics of organisational practices which are often characterised by ‘obscure innovation’, i.e. not recognising the actual outcomes and the members involved in the process. This is a problem as if businesses do not fully recognise their own capabilities (or lack of them), then they will be unable to fully understand the dynamic nature of innovation practices in the unique and idiosyncratic context within their organisations. Therefore, we argue that new
1897
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
approaches are needed to better explicate the contextual, situational and relational phenomena that impact on organisational innovation practices. Initially, the paper looked at the dichotomy between ‘asking what’ (variance) and ‘asking how’ (process) through; a) a level-based approach; people’s-level (micro-level), organisational-level and external-level (macro-level) and, b) a generic model of the New Product Development where multi-level phenomena may be studied on a loose time-series and event basis. Micro and macro-levels have been well researched and documented previously. A lot less has been done with regards to how micro and macro levels interact and influence each other in the process of developing new products. In adopting a multi-level approach key organisational phenomena are seen from an interactive point of view, that is, the expected relational dependency each may have on each other. The framework is flexible enough as to be tailored and iterated according to the researcher’s enquiry. Furthermore, the relatively simple NPD model (Initiation, Development, Implementation) proposed by this paper serves as a ‘framework for thinking’ (Tidd & Bessant, 2009) rather than a descriptive or prescriptive representation of an ideal NPD process. This approach provides researchers with enough flexibility to adapt their enquiry to different organisational contexts; identify key phenomena that emerge at different phases in the process; reconstruct the actual process according to how organisations experience their NPD processes. Finally, the paper argues that the analysis of the organisational phenomena underpinned by a practice-based approach and through the Activity Theory model, should enable researchers to conceptualise agility and innovation-making from a social relational, situational and contextual perspective. According to the proposed model (Figure 4), the research process starts with focusing on the NPD process and exploring the roles and activities of key organisational members through the Activity Theory model. Doing so, it should enable the identification of multi-level factors influencing practice at each point in the NPD process. The theoretical contribution of this paper is the consolidation and investigation of the various terms and concepts from a multi-level, integrated approach that aligns together variance, process and practice-based theories. We propose that this devised research methodology may enable the construction of a more holistic picture of organisational phenomena that often remain ‘obscure’ in day-today practice. Future work will provide case examples of the suggested framework’s application in the industry.
5. References Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2008) Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717. Anssi, S. (2010) Characteristics of routine, development and idea networks in teams. Team Performance Management, 16(1), 95-117. Barney, J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99.
1898
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001) The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625-641. Bessant, J., Francis, D., Meredith, S., Kaplinsky, R., & Brown, S. (2001) Developing manufacturing agility in SMEs. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1), 28-54. Bjørke, S. Å. (2004) The concepts of Communities of Practice, Activity Theory and implications for Distributed Learning. Retrieved 30 January, 2011, from http://www.gvu.unu.edu/docs/The%20concepts%20of%20Communities%20of%20Practice,%20Ac tivity%20Theory%20and%20implications%20for%20distributied%20learning.doc Blackler, F., Crump, N., & McDonald, S. (2003) Organizing Processes in Complex Activity Networks. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: a practice-based approach (pp. 126-150). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Bohemia, E., & Harman, K. (2008) Globalization and Product Design Education: The Global Studio. Design Management Journal, 3(2), 53–68. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995) Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378. Cash, P., Hicks, B., & Culley, S. (2015) Activity Theory as a means for multi-scale analysis of the engineering design process: A protocol study of design in practice. Design Studies, 38, 1-32. Chatzakis, E. (2015) Maintaining Agility: A study of obscure New Product Development practices in small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises to understand how they maintain relevance to their markets. (PhD), Northumbria University. Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2006) Strategy as practical coping: a Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 27(5), 635-655. Cooper, R. (2005) Peripheral Vision: Relationality. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1689-1710. Cooper, R. G. (1996) Overhauling the New Product Process. Industrial Marketing Management, 25, 465-482. Cooper, R. G. (1999) From Experience: The Invisible Success Factors in Product Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 115-133. Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995) Benchmarking the Firms Critical Success Factors in New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, 374-391. Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2007) Winning Businesses in Product Development: The Critical Success Factors. Research-Technology Management, 50, 52-66. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191. Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, R. S. (2010) Activity theory in practice : promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London; New York: Routledge. Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., & Munday, M. (2005) Understanding innovation in small and mediumsized enterprises: a process manifest. Technovation, 25(10), 1119-1127. Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 375-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
1899
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
EngestrĂśm, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (1999) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fagerberg, J. (2005) Innovation: A Guide to the Literature. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 1-26). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2005) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005) Strategic organization: a field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441-455. Gherardi, S. (2009) Knowing and learning in practice-based studies: an introduction. The Learning Organization, 16(5), 352-359. Gorb, P., & Dumas, A. (1987) Silent design. Design Issues, 8(3), 150â&#x20AC;&#x201C;153. Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E., & Taylor, M. S. (2007) Innovation At and Across Multiple Levels of Analysis. Organization Science, 18(6), 885-897. Harmancioglu, N., McNally, R. C., Calantone, R. J., & Durmusoglu, S. S. (2007) Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: an exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation. R&D Management, 37(5), 399-424. Hart, S. (1995) Where we've been and where we're going in new product development research. In M. Bruce & W. G. Biemans (Eds.), Product development: meeting the challenge of the designmarketing interface. Chichester: Wiley. Higgins, D. (2009) Engaging the small firm in learning: Practice based theorising on complex social knowledge. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(1), 81-96. Hofmann, D. A. (1997) An Overview of the Logic and Rationale of Hierarchical Linear Models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723-744. Johannessen, J.-A., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001) Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom? European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 20-31. Kallio, K. (2010) The meaning of physical presence: An analysis of the introduction of processoptimisation software in a chemical pulp mill. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engestrom, T. Gallagher & R. S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 31-48). London; New York: Routledge. Kaptelinin, V. (2012) Activity Theory. In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), Encyclopedia of HumanComputer Interaction. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/activity_theory.html. King, N. (1990) Innovation at work: the research literature. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: psychological and organizational strategies: Wiley. King, S., & Ockels, C. (2009) Defining small business innovation. In Intuit (Ed.), Future of Small Business Series. Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A. (1999) Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 248-253. Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993) Informal networks: the company behind the charts. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104-111. Lam, A. (2005) Organizational Innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 115-148). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social-An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, by Bruno Latour, pp. 316. Foreword by Bruno Latour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1900
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lazonick, W. (2005) The Innovative Firm. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macpherson, A., & Clark, B. (2009) Islands of Practice: Conflict and a Lack of ‘Community’ in Situated Learning. Management Learning, 40(5), 551-568. Macpherson, A., & Holt, R. (2007) Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Research Policy, 36(2), 172-192. Macpherson, A., Kofinas, A., Jones, O., & Thorpe, R. (2010) Making sense of mediated learning: Cases from small firms. Management Learning, 41(3), 303-323. Marshall, N. (2008) Cognitive and Practice-based Theories of Organizational Knowledge and Learning: Incompatible or Complementary? Management Learning, 39(4), 413-435. Miles, I., & Green, L. (2008) Hidden innovation in the creative industries. London: NESTA. Mohr, L. B. (1982) Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco; London: Jossey-Bass. Molin-Juustila, T. (2006) Cross-functional interaction during the early phases of user-centered software new product development: reconsidering the common area of interest. University of Oulu. Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P. J., & Probert, D. (2007) Development of a Design Audit Tool for SMEs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 335-368. NESTA (2006) The Innovation Gap Report. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003) Knowing in organizations : a practice-based approach. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Nonaka, I., & Teece, D. J. (2001) Managing industrial knowledge: creation, transfer and utilization. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. Nooteboom, B. (1999) Innovation, learning and industrial organisation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 127-150. Pettigrew, A. M., & Fenton, E. M. (2000) The innovating organization. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Sangiorgi, D., & Clark, B. (2004) Toward a participatory design approach to service design. Paper presented at the PDC. Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutierrez, K. D. (2009) Activity Theory Between Historical Engagement and Future-Making Practice. Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saren, M., A. (1984) A classification and review of models of the intra-firm innovation process. R&D Management, 14(1), 11-24. Saren, M., A. (1994) Reframing the process of new product development: from "stages" models to a "blocks" framework. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(7), 633-643. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. D., & Savigny, E. v. (2001) The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge. Sears, G. J., & Baba, V. V. (2011) Toward a multistage, multilevel theory of innovation. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 28(4), 357372.
1901
Emmanouil Chatzakis, Neil Smith and Erik Bohemia
Sevaldson, B. (2010) Discussions & movements in design research. FORMakademisk, 3(1). Slappendel, C. (1996) Perspectives on innovation in organizations. Organization Studies, 17(1), 107129. Stevens, J. (2009) Design as a strategic resource. Design's contributions to competitive advantage aligned with strategy models. (PhD), University of Cambridge. Tarbox, J. D. A. (2006) Activity Theory: A model for design research. In A. Bennett (Ed.), Design studies: theory and research in graphic design (pp. 73-81): Princeton Architectural Press. Tidd, J. (2006). A review of innovation models. Imperial College London. Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2009) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change (4th ed). Chichester: John Wiley. Tsoukas, H., & Yanow, D. (2009) What is Reflection-In-Action? A Phenomenological Account. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1339-1364. Tuikka, T. (2002) Towards computational instruments for collaborating product concept designers. (Thesis), Oulun yliopisto, Oulu. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999) The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005) Alternative Approaches for Studying Organizational Change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377-1404. Van de Ven, A. H., & Rogers, E. M. (1988) Innovations and organizations. Communication Research, 15(5), 632-651. Verganti, R. (2009) Design-driven innovation : changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Walsh, V. (1996) Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm. Research Policy, 25, 509-529. Watkins-Mathys, L., & Lowe, S. (2005) Small business and entrepreneurship research: the way through paradigm incommensurability. International Small Business Journal, 23(6), 657-677. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007) Managing the unexpected: resilient performance in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed. ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass ; Chichester : John Wiley [distributor]. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. Winter, S. G. (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991995. Wolfe, R. A. (1994) Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-431. Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. (1993) Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321. Yee, J. S. R. (2010) Methodological innovation in practice-based design doctorates. Journal of Research Practice, 6(2), Article M15. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973) Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.
1902
A Multilevel Approach to Research ‘Obscure’ Innovation Processes and Practices
About the Authors: Dr Emmanouil Chatzakis is a part-time Lecturer in Product Design at Teesside University and a Design Researcher. He was awarded his PhD in Design in 2015 at Northumbria University. His specialities include Product and Service Design, Design Strategy, Innovation Practice, Design Methods. Neil Smith is an Enterprise Fellow at Northumbria University. A Product Designer with over 35 years experience working across academic and business sectors, from SME’s to major FMCG organisations. His specialties and research activities include; Design for Manufacture, Innovation practice within SME’s, and Multidisciplinary Design Practice. Dr Erik Bohemia is the Programme Director in the Institute for Design Innovation at Loughborough University London. He is interested in Design as a cultural practice and the material effects of design. He is currently researching the ‘construction’ of the user and how this guides the design process.
1903
This page is left intentionally blank
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes Anders Haug University of Southern Denmark adg@sam.sdu.dk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.150
Abstract: The effectiveness of design management depends on how well it is coordinated with other managerial functions. In relation to this topic, this paper focuses on the importance of coordinating product design with production and marketing processes. To this end, it offers a framework that connects product design to four central processes related to the production and consumption of products and their communication. The relevance of the framework is demonstrated through sixteen empirical examples. The framework provides a means for understanding the reasons for consumer product failures caused by a lack of design coordination â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and the product failure types associated with the framework may serve as a checklist for design managers in design projects. For future research, the framework provides a link between different research areas to facilitate a clearer understanding of the role of design management. Keywords: design management; industrial design; marketing; consumer products
1. Introduction Design management focuses on integrating design processes into the corporate environment (Borja de Mozota, 2003; DMI, 2015), and the effectiveness of the design management function depends on how well it is coordinated with other managerial functions (Vazquez and Bruce, 2002). Two of the key functions to be coordinated with product design are production (procurement, manufacturing, distribution, etc.) and marketing (market analysis, advertising, retail design, etc.). Furthermore, the design function, obviously, needs to consider the target consumers, who encounter the design in the form of output from the production and marketing processes. To ensure that consumers are targeted appropriately, the design, production, and marketing efforts need to be aligned. However, it is often difficult to coordinate these processes, which are normally
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Anders Haug
handled by different organizational units that are often not particularly well integrated (Beverland, 2005; Kristensen and Grønhaug, 2007; Lindahl and Nordin, 2010). As the subsequent literature review demonstrates, much of the literature deals with the role of designers in relation to production, marketing, and consumption processes as separate issues, while the links between these areas involves some unclarity. To provide an overall framework that connects these perspectives, thereby supporting a more holistic perspective, the present paper addresses the following question: What are the relationships between the design function and the processes related to production, marketing, and consumption?
In order to enable a more specific discussion of this question, the focus of the paper is limited to consumer products. This delimitation does not imply, however, that the contributions of the paper are not relevant for other types of products, simply that these are not discussed in this paper. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: First, the paper conducts a literature review of how product design is related to production, marketing, and consumption processes. Then the paper constructs a framework that connects the aforementioned four processes and links them to product design. Next, a set of empirical examples is provided to support the relevance and usefulness of the proposed framework. Finally, conclusions are drawn.
2. Literature review The development of new consumer products involves the production of physical products and the production of communication about these products (e.g., advertising and product descriptions) to be consumed by consumers. In other words, there are four basic types of processes that the design function needs to consider: 1) product production, 2) product consumption, 3) communication production, and 4) communication consumption. In the following subsections, the literature is organised under these four central processes. The usefulness of this distinction is further discussed in the subsequent section.
2.1 Product production The design problem typically originates from a client (internal or external), who needs assistance solving the problem (Lawson, 2006: 84; Pedgley, 2009). In typical industrial design projects, the demands from the client are not all stated in their final form at the beginning of the project but emerge and evolve during the process (Jevnaker, 2005). In fact, the process of communicating with a client during a design project may be perceived as a ‘reflective conversation’, which is a matter not only of understanding the client’s demands but also of understanding the client (Schön, 1983: 295). In the early phases of industrial design projects, the ‘design brief’ is a central element of the communication between client and designer (Borja de Mozota, 2003: 193). Later in the design process, design requirements may be described in the form of ‘product design specifications’ (Buur and Andreasen, 1989).
1906
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes
According to Cross (2006), a product design specification evolves from a design brief to determine the precise limits for the full set of requirements in the product being designed. Typically, designers collaborate with other experts in design projects (Wang and Oygur, 2010) in a process that is often referred to as ‘co-design’ or ‘co-creation’. In fact, these terms have to some extent become buzzwords, and their definitions vary widely; so much so that the terms are often confused or used synonymously (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Steen et al., 2011). Sanders and Stappers (2008) define the term ‘co-creation’ as “any act of collective creativity, i.e., creativity that is shared by two or more people”, and the term ‘co-design’ as the “collective creativity as it is applied across the whole span of a design process”. Thus, in this perspective, co-design is a subtype of co-creation. Creating shared understandings in design projects among actors from different disciplines can be difficult because of the actors’ different backgrounds, interests, and perspectives on the new design (van Dijk and van der Lugt, 2013). In fact, a lack of shared understanding has been linked to reduced quality of the final product (Valkenburg, 2000; Dong, 2005). Different concepts have been introduced to understand and address design communication issues, including ‘object worlds’, which refers to an actor’s individual beliefs, interests, knowledge, and experience as well as the methods/techniques the actor is able to use (Bucciarelli , 1998); ‘transactive memory’, which refers to the mechanisms through which groups collectively encode, store, and retrieve knowledge (Wegner , 1985); and ‘boundary objects’, which typically exist in the form of sketches or diagrams that designers use as a medium of communication with persons from different object worlds (Star and Griesemer, 1989). Finally, designers may attempt to affect product producers in an ethical direction in the form of environmentally sustainable and socially responsible material choices and manufacturing processes. In fact, it has often been argued that designers have an obligation to push designs in this direction – not least with reference to the work of Victor Papanek (1991), who was one of the first to address the social responsibility of designers in detail. Papanek’s (1991) book has later come to be widely seen as the seminal text of twentieth-century ‘design activism’, a topic that has been of growing interest to researchers in recent decades (e.g., Fuad-Luke, 2009; Julier, 2013; Markussen, 2013; Clarke, 2013).
2.2 Communication production In addition to producing a product, the company also needs to market it. Although marketing is, to a large extent, considered a task for marketers, product designers also need to consider the future marketing efforts in relation to the design, either because such marketing concepts are already defined prior to the design phase and impose constraints on the product design or because the product needs to allow for efficient marketing strategies to be developed. In order to position new consumer products, it is necessary to consider the congruency of the design, i.e. how much the design deviates from a normative expectation (Noseworthy and Trudel, 2011). A central concept in this context is ‘the moderate incongruity effect’,
1907
Anders Haug
which refers to the idea that consumers will evaluate moderately incongruent products more favourably than congruent or extremely incongruent products (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989), because a moderately incongruent object is both novel and familiar. Product incongruity can take different forms — for example, products may be incongruent in form, making them perceptually incongruent, or functionally incongruent, making them conceptually incongruent (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). According to Noseworthy and Trudel (2011), consumer research has shown that the moderate incongruity effect can be affected by numerous contextual factors, for which reason they question whether consumers truly prefer moderately incongruent products, especially given the complexity of real-world consumption. In relation to product communication, designers need to consider consumers’ existing product experiences. According to Krugman (1967), memories associated with personal experiences with a product category enhance the recipient’s personal involvement in marketing messages. Thus, when creating adverts, marketers frequently utilize consumers’ episodic memories to make consumers imagine future experiences (Escalas and Luce, 2004). Brand associations help consumers understand the meaning of a brand (Pullig et al., 2006). Therefore, designers need to ensure a certain degree of correspondence between marketing messages and product design. Brands are commonly defined as marketing tools with the purpose of differentiating a company’s offering from the competition and creating value for the targeted customers (Keller, 2007). Brand cues can be extremely powerful, even to the extent where they block the process of evaluating product quality (van Osselaer and Alba, 2000). Brands can create value for customers on two dimensions: (1) by signalling the quality of the underlying offerings, and (2) by creating meaningful associations that add value beyond the intrinsic product attributes (Fournier, 1998; Chernev et al., 2011). In this context, brands can have different roles in relation to self-expression. First, brands can be used to communicate membership of particular social groups — more specifically, brands are often used to express memberships of desirable groups, while the avoidance of certain brands may be explained as a way of avoiding signalling membership of certain, undesirable groups (Escalas and Bettman, 2005; Berger and Heath, 2007). Second, brands may serve to confirm a consumer’s self-concept without explicitly conferring to attain social status, recognition or acceptance; instead, the consumer’s motivation may be to express self-identity to him/herself (Aaker, 1997; Bodner and Prelec, 2003). The product communication does not only originate from marketers but is also produced by consumers. Besides traditional sharing of experiences and opinions about products, i.e. talking to friends, colleagues etc., in recent years, such information has increasingly been shared through so-called ‘brand communities’, where consumers exchange experiences, advice, resources, and tips (e.g., Kozinets et al., 2008).
1908
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes
2.3 Communication consumption There are important differences between experiencing the actual product and experiencing communication about it, i.e., direct and indirect product encounters. A key characteristic of direct product encounters is that when consumers use a product, they have an opportunity to test their expectations regarding how the product works, which may be seen as engaging in active (rather than passive) learning (Hoch and Deighton, 1989). Thus, direct product experiences often provide consumers with what seems to be more credible information than indirect experiences (Smith and Swinyard, 1988). Furthermore, direct and indirect product experiences are often associated with different evaluation contexts; prior to purchase, consumers tend to compare products (joint evaluation), but when trying a product, they tend to focus their attention on that specific product (separate evaluation) (Hamilton and Thompson, 2007). Compared to separate evaluation, joint evaluation increases the importance of quantitative differences among alternatives (Hsee and Zhang, 2004). Another aspect related to evaluation contexts was described by Hamilton and Thompson (2007), who noted that consumers tend to prefer products with many features and capabilities before using them but tend to prefer the ones that are simpler and easier to use after trying them. Thus, if consumers select products based upon indirect experiences, this may reduce satisfaction during subsequent usage. An important topic in relation to the consumption of product communication is product packaging, which has been shown to have the capacity to bias consumers’ perceptions by drawing attention to prominent physical product properties (e.g., Deng and Kahn, 2009; Wansink and van Ittersum, 2003). Furthermore, when consumers do not have prior knowledge of the qualities of a product, packaging design is a central means of communicating product attractiveness (Honea and Horsky, 2012). An example of an indirect product experience is online stores, which have become increasingly common in recent decades (Mulpuru, 2012). The key difference in shopping in an online store compared to a physical store is that the actual physical product is not encountered until after a purchase decision is made. Thus, the purchase decision must be made based on experiences with the representations of the product (i.e., images, text, video, and 3D models). Many websites feature the possibility of zooming in/out and rotating 3D product models to simulate direct product experiences — so-called ‘virtual product experience’ (Jiang and Benbasat, 2007). Another approach, which is mainly used by online retailers in product categories such as cosmetics and fashion, is to offer customers a virtual try-out based on uploaded images of themselves (Cho and Schwarz, 2006). Thus, rather than merely observing the representations of products, consumers may, in various ways, be provided with opportunities to interact with product representations (Schlosser, 2003; Fiore et al., 2005). The design of the store environment may also be seen as an aspect of product communication, and it is a topic that has received considerable attention in marketing research. Such studies have focused on the effects of visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile cues, and their findings include that arousing colours can stimulate or stress consumers to
1909
Anders Haug
increase the likelihood of impulse purchases; uplifting music can promote prosocial behaviours and guide perceptions of ‘store personality’; and spacious as opposed to crowded or busy layouts can heighten consumers’ pleasure in retail settings (see review by van Rompay et al., 2012). In addition to the store design, the surrounding products may also influence the product experience. This issue is captured by the concept of ‘hedonic contrast’, which refers to the phenomenon of sensory stimuli being perceived as more intense when preceded by a weak stimulus and less intense when preceded by a strong stimulus, provided that the stimuli have a significant degree of resemblance (Cogan et al., 2013).
2.4 Product consumption A central part of the consumption process is the consumers’ experience of a product. In regard to this, Desmet (2003) defined five overall types of emotional responses to products: instrumental, aesthetic, social, surprise, and interest. Instrumental emotions (such as disappointment and satisfaction) relate to whether a product is perceived to allow the user to achieve his/her objectives. Aesthetic emotions (such as disgust and attraction) relate to the potential of a product to delight or offend the senses. Social emotions (such as indignation and admiration) relate to whether a product is perceived to comply with socially determined standards. Surprise emotions (such as amazement and unpleasant surprise) relate to the perceived novelty of a design. Interest emotions (such as boredom and fascination) relate to a perceived challenge combined with a promise. According to Desmet, this classification shows that a focus on generalized pleasure, as in Green and Jordan (2002), for example, is too narrow; instead, designing for emotion requires an understanding of several types of emotions. Based on a literature review, Crilly et al. (2008) similarly defined three categories of cognitive responses to products: aesthetic impression, semantic interpretation, and symbolic association. Aesthetic impression describes the sensation that is elicited by the perception of attractiveness (or unattractiveness) in products. Semantic interpretation describes what a product is perceived to communicate about its function, mode of use, and qualities. Symbolic associations describe the perception of what a given product says about its owner or user, i.e., the personal and social significance attached to the design. As noted by Crilly et al. (2008), other researchers have developed similar tripartite classifications. There is often a close link between evaluations of the appearance and use of product. For example, Norman (2004) argued that attractive products work better, referencing the findings of Japanese researchers who studied different layouts of controls for ATMs. The study found that for ATMs that were identical with regard to function, operation, and the number of buttons, attractively arranged buttons and screens were perceived as being easier to use. The relationship between function and appearance may also go in the opposite direction. For example, there is evidence that tactile information can affect the aesthetic evaluation of artefacts (Jansson-Boyd and Marlow, 2007). On the relationship between product interaction and aesthetics, Shusterman (2000) drew a distinction between analytical aesthetics and pragmatic aesthetics. The former focuses on the aesthetics of appearance while the latter is concerned with context and use. In the pragmatist view, the aesthetics of an artefact emerge out of a dynamic interaction between
1910
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes
a user and an artefact. Moreover, in this perspective, aesthetic experience is closely linked to both the analytic mind and the bodily experience. In the context of pragmatist philosophy, Ross and Wensveen (2010) defined aesthetic interaction as consisting of four principles: (1) has practical use while also being rewarding to use in itself because of its beauty, (2) has socio-cultural and ethical dimensions, (3) has satisfying dynamic form, and (4) actively involves the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bodily, cognitive, emotional, and social skills.
3. Coordinating design with production and consumption processes As mentioned in the Introduction, this paper addresses the issue of aligning product design processes with production and marketing processes to address consumers in a satisfactory manner. This overall distinction between design (or R&D), production (procurement, manufacturing, distribution, etc.), marketing (market analysis, advertising, retail management, etc.), and consumption (or market) in relation to product development is commonly applied in, for example, marketing and innovation literature (Martin, 1994; Wilson et al., 1995; Griffin and Hauser, 2003). Given that the focus of this paper is design management, it is the role of design in relation to the three other functions that constitutes the basis for the framework development. As mentioned in the subsequent section, the development of new consumer products involves both the production of physical products and the production of communication about them (e.g., advertising and product descriptions) to be consumed by relevant consumers. As mentioned, this can be formulated as four basic types of processes, which the design function needs to consider: 1) product production, 2) product consumption, 3) communication production, and 4) communication consumption. The strength of this distinction, as compared to a distinction between production, marketing, and consumer processes, is that it provides a more basic perspective on the processes taking place from product idea to consumersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; use of products. More specifically, communication about a product is not only produced by marketers, but also by consumers. Thus, employing a distinction between the four basic process types, as opposed to functional units, avoids categories with behavioural overlaps. The defined four processes have a set of mutual relationships: 1) Before consumer-targeted communication (e.g., advertising) about a product is produced, production processes will typically have been initiated or at least considered. 2) Before communication about a product (e.g., advertising) can be consumed, obviously, this communication needs to be produced. 3) Before a product is consumed (i.e., purchased and used by a consumer), in most cases, some information about the product is acquired by the consumer (e.g., the productâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name, brand or price). 4) The consumption of a product also typically gives rise to communication about it, e.g., in the form of consumers sharing their product experiences. The observations above give rise to the following process sequence: Based on existing understandings and studies of relevant consumers and markets, the production of a product
1911
Anders Haug
is initiated or at least considered. At a certain stage of the product production process, the product it is communicated to relevant consumers â&#x20AC;&#x201D; typically through advertising and retail stores. Some of these consumers consume such messages, which in turn may lead to consumption of the actual product. This use of the product may lead to new communication about the product (this time driven more by users and independent media), which may lead to new interpretations, which in turn lead to new consumption, and so on. Thus, as outlined here, the production domain is only active in the initial part of the process, while communication production, communication consumption, and product consumption can take place repeatedly in an iterative sequence. The process sequence is illustrated in Figure 1. Subsequently, the relationships between design and the four processes are discussed.
Figure 1 Coordinating design with production and consumption processes
3.1 Product production The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;product productionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; process refers to the interplay between the design function and a client (internal or external) with the intention of producing certain products. As part of this relationship, the client prescribes certain requirements, while the design function provides the client with the designs to be produced. The role of design management in relation to product production, besides ensuring the creation of a design with appearance and functionality qualities, includes preventing that the design makes the product too expensive or confer what may be considered unethical production characteristics. In relation to the former requirement, the client would obviously object if the design were to make the product too costly. However, the better design managers understand this aspect, the less resource demanding the design process becomes, as it reduces the need for client-designer communication. In relation to ethical aspects, certain design choices may require the use of materials or production methods that have negative effects on the environment and on working conditions. There are many examples of products receiving bad publicity and even being subjected to boycott campaigns due to ethical concerns.
1912
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes
3.2 Communication production The ‘communication production’ process first concerns the interplay between the design function and marketers. In the communication production process, the first loop of the iterative sequence, described in Figure 1, involves consumers being informed that a new product is available, typically by marketers through adverts and in-store presentations. In the second and subsequent loops, which occur after consumers have consumed the product, the communication shifts from being mainly, if not exclusively, driven by marketers to being driven by consumers and independent media. Thus, instead of communication aimed at placing the product in the most positive light, a new form of communication now emerges, often with a more realistic slant. This may take the form of consumers exchanging product experiences within their personal social spheres and web forums as well as product reviews in magazines. The need for new marketing communication in subsequent loops emerges in cases where the company realizes that the initial marketing messages did not have the desired effect, giving rise to a need for adjusted marketing messages. The role of design management in relation to communication production concerns ensuring that product designs correspond with the brand identity and enable marketing messages about these products to stand out. More specifically, even if a product design is of high quality, if it is not in line with the brand identity, it may confuse or appear unappealing to relevant consumers — and if a product (i.e., both the product and its brand) does not have certain features that make it stand out, marketing it may prove difficult. With regard to the communication production phase, the distinction between different loops is of particular importance, since the design function needs to consider both how the product can be marketed and what form the expected consumer-driven communication about the product may take. The importance of this distinction should not be underestimated, since even if a product may be easy for marketers to position, their marketing messages may be undermined if the product experience fails to live up to these messages, or if it differs from expectations in other ways. For example, a smartphone may be marketed as having unique functionalities, performance or physical attributes, but if it is cumbersome to operate, has poor basic functions or low durability, consumers will probably produce negative communication about it.
3.3 Communication consumption The ‘communication consumption’ process relates to the understanding of how product communication will be received by consumers. In the communication consumption process, as mentioned, the first instance involves the consumers, typically through marketing messages, forming opinions about products; this in turn determines whether they investigate further and maybe even acquire the product — while in the subsequent loops, the communication aimed at consumers shifts from being produced by marketers to being produced to a larger degree by consumers and independent media. In this context, it should be noted that although a marketing department can control what communication they send
1913
Anders Haug
to consumers, obviously, they cannot control what information consumers actually consume. The role of design management in relation to communication consumption concerns ensuring that product designs, upon closer inspection, stand out and conform to consumers’ taste. More specifically, while adverts offer a general presentation of products, consumers will often obtain more specific information before making a final purchasing decision, such as information about price, materials, functionalities, etc. For example, if a laptop design has an appealing and original appearance, this may help it stand out in marketing campaigns, but if its processing power is significantly weaker than the competitors’ products, consumers who were initially interested may lose interest when they take a closer look at the specifications.
3.4 Product consumption The ‘product consumption’ process relates to the design function’s ability to anticipate customers’ experiences when observing, trying, and using a product. From an overall perspective, the role of design management in relation to product consumption is to ensure the creation of designs that lead to good product experiences. The product design cannot be seen in isolation, however; as previously mentioned, it needs to live up to the marketing messages that accompany the product to avoid disappointing the consumer. If a marketing campaign promises a certain user experience, which the product fails to deliver, there is a considerable risk of disappointment, which may lead to bad publicity and decreased brand loyalty. Furthermore, consumers may have other expectations for a product that lie beyond what the marketers communicate about the product. Specifically, if consumers expect a product to have certain features or qualities that it proves not to have in practice, this would lead to disappointment and the potential for bad publicity. For example, although marketing campaigns and product descriptions do not describe the seating comfort of a chair, consumers would obviously nevertheless expect a relatively comfortable experience.
4. Empirical examples In this paper, it is argued that product designs are more likely to fail commercially when there is a lack of understanding of their relationships with each of the four defined processes, as described in Figure 1. In other words, the design process needs to be efficiently coordinated with the four defined processes. To support this claim, for each of the four processes, Table 1 describes four empirical examples of product failures. To illustrate the breadth of the framework’s usefulness, the examples given are from two very different categories of consumer product design: fashion and consumer electronics. While the former has a dominant emphasis on appearance, the latter product category is often judged to a high degree on functionality. The examples were chosen with the purpose of using a set of widely known cases to illustrate the application of the proposed framework for explaining product failures — as opposed to attempts of testing its representativeness or similar
1914
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes
purposes. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is not for the author to evaluate whether these claims are justified or not, merely to show that such understandings exist. Table 1 Examples of claimed design related problems Fashion
Consumer electronics
Too pricy
Fashion brand considered too expensive (Abercrombie & Fitch) (Lutz, 2013)
Disc player too expensive for target group (Sony Minidisk player) (Faulkner, 2012)
Unethical
Fashion brand accused of unethical working conditions (Nike) (Birch, 2012)
Consumer electronics company accused of using supplier that produces significant environmental pollution (Apple) (Kaiser, 2013)
Poor brand correspondence
Discount retailer failing to sell more exclusive fashion items (Target’s Neiman Marcus collection) (White, 2013)
Smartphone marketed as being hip by non-hip company (Microsoft’s Kin smartphone) (Ganapati, 2010)
Poor marketing features
Fashion retailer failing to position itself on the mass-toluxury fashion scale (GAP) (Gross, 2006)
Smartphones not having standout features to be used in marketing communication (Nokia) (Adhikari, 2012)
No standout features
Fashion collection considered uninteresting (American Apparel) (Hill, 2010)
Smartphone not innovative enough compared to predecessors (Blackberry z10) (Parmer, 2013)
Unappealing features
Fashion item not in the taste of the target group (Levis Type 1) (Bordeaux, 2007)
Lack of games for handheld gaming device (Sony PlayStation Vita) (Groen, 2013)
Unfulfilled marketing promises
Dress looking better in pictures than in real life (H&M) (Everitt, 2014)
Smartphone failing to fulfil promises of being superior to Apple’s iPhone (Google Nexus One) (Bertucci, 2011)
Other unfulfilled expectations
Clothing being of poor quality (multiple brands) (Moore, 2010)
Computer operative system significantly slower than previous versions (MS Vista) (McIntyre, 2009)
Product production
Communication production
Communication consumption
Product consumption
5. Conclusions This paper focused on understanding the role of design management in relation to processes related to production, marketing, and consumption. These processes were organised under four basic categories: 1) product production, (2) communication production, (3) communication consumption, and (4) product consumption. Based on this categorisation, the paper reviewed literature dealing with the role of product design in relation to these four processes. Next, the paper defined a process model describing the relationships between the four processes and the role of the design function. Finally, using sixteen empirical examples, the paper illustrated the importance for design managers to understand the relationships between product designs and these four processes to avoid product failures.
1915
Anders Haug
As demonstrated by the literature review, much of the literature related to the four processes of product production, product consumption, product communication production, and product communication consumption are dealt with separately, while the links between these areas remain somewhat unclear. The proposed framework connects these perspectives, thereby providing a more holistic perspective on the role of the design function. The novelty and strength of the perspective involves moving away from a functional unit perspective towards an understanding that views the role of design in relation to four distinct process types, which can be carried out by different types of actors at different stages of the process from design idea to product use. As described by the paper, three of these four processes may occur in a continuous sequence for the duration of the time that the product stays on the market. It should be noted that although the 16 empirical examples of commercial failures caused by inadequate alignment of the design function with the four defined processes demonstrated the usefulness of the framework, the framework does not account for all the possible causes of product failures. It simply provides a means for understanding the design function in relation to four central processes related to production, marketing, and consumption. In relation to practice, design managers and designers may apply the perspective provided by the framework to achieve a more holistic approach to design projects. As demonstrated by the sixteen empirical examples, the proposed framework provides a means for understanding various reasons for the success and failure of consumer products — and the eight distinctive types of failures (two associated with each process) may serve as a checklist during design projects. In relation to future research, the framework provides a link between different research areas, which may pave the way for a clearer understanding of the role of design management. Furthermore, the framework may support future discussions of the typical organizational divide between design and marketing.
6. References Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), pp. 347-356. Adhikari, S. (2012, July 20). Nokia's failure to Innovate, Business Spectacular, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2012/7/20/technology/nokias-failure-innovate (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Berger, J., and Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains, Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), pp. 121–34. Bertucci, K. (2011, October 3). Top 7 smartphone fails, Gadget Review, http://www.gadgetreview.com/2011/10/top-7-smartphone-fails.html (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Beverland, M. B. (2005). Managing the design innovation–brand marketing interface: Resolving the tension between artistic creation and commercial imperatives, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), pp. 193–207. Birch, S. (2012, July 6). How activism forced Nike to change its ethical game, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2012/jul/06/activism-nike (Accessed 20 October, 2015).
1916
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes
Bodner, R., and Prelec, D. (2003). Self-signaling and diagnostic utility in everyday decision making, in I. Brocas and J. D. Carrillo (eds.), The Psychology of Economic Decisions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 89-104. Bordeaux, A. (2007, December 17). 10 famous product failures and the advertisements that did not sell them, Grow Think, http://www.growthink.com/content/10-famous-product-failures-andadvertisements-did-not-sell-them (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation, Allworth, New York. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). An ethnographic perspective on engineering design, Design Studies, 9(3), pp. 159-168. Buur, J., and Andreasen, M. M. (1989). Design models in mechatronic product development, Design Studies, 10(3), pp. 155–162. Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., and Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: Limits to selfexpression and the perils of lifestyle branding, Journal of Marketing, 75(3), pp. 66-82. Cho, H., and Schwarz, N. (2006). When good pictures make for good products: Consumer misattribution effects in virtual product presentation environments, Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), pp. 637–638. Clarke, J. (2013). Actions speak Louder: Victor Papanek and the legacy of design activism, Design and Culture, 5(2), pp. 151–168. Cogan, E., Parker, S., and Zellner, D. A. (2013). Beauty beyond compare: Effects of context extremity and categorization on hedonic contrast, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 39(1), pp. 16–22. Crilly, N., Maier, A.m and Clarkson, P. (2008). Representing artefacts as media: Modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience, International Journal of Design, 2(3), pp. 15–27. Cross, N. (2006). T211 Design and Designing: Block 2, The Open University, Milton Keynes. Deng, X., and Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The 'location effect' on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), pp. 725–738. Desmet, P. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions, The Design Journal, 6(2), pp. 4–13. DMI (2015). What is Design Management?, Design Management Institute, http://www.dmi.org/?What_is_Design_Manag (Accessed November 5, 2015). Dong, A. (2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication, Design Studies, 26(5), pp. 445-461. Escalas, J. E. and Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning, Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), pp. 378–389. Escalas, J. E., and Luce, M. F. (2004). Understanding the effects of process-focused versus outcomefocused thought in response to advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), pp. 274–285. Everitt, B. (2014, March 26). H&M: High fashion, poor quality, The Voice, http://www.langaravoice.ca/2014/03/26/hm-high-fashion-poor-quality (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Faulkner, J. (2012, September 24). MiniDisc, the forgotten format, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2012/sep/24/sony-minidisc-20-years (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Fiore, A. Jin, H.-J., and Kim, J. (2005). For fun and profit: Hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store, Psychology & Marketing, 22(8), pp. 669–694.
1917
Anders Haug
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), pp. 343–73. Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design Activism: Beautiful, Strangeness for a Sustainable World, Routledge, London. Ganapati, P. (2010, June 30). 4 reasons why Microsoft’s Kin phones failed, Wired, http://www.wired.com/2010/06/four-reasons-why-microsofts-kin-phone-failed (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Green, W. and Jordan, P. (2002). Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability, Taylor & Francis, London. Griffin A., and Hauser, J. R. (2003. Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(3), pp. 191–215. Groen, A. (2013, February 20). Seven signs PlayStation Vita is a failure, Wired, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/20/playstation-vita-failure (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Gross, D. (2006, March 9). The shrinking gap, Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/03/the_shrinking_gap.html (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Hamilton, R. W., and Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers' preferences after direct and indirect product experiences, Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), pp. 546−555. Hill, A. (2010, August 25). The rise and fall of American Apparel, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/aug/25/rise-fall-american-apparel (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Hoch, S. J., and Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience, Journal of Marketing, 53(2), pp. 1–20. Honea, H., and Horsky, S. (2012). The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context, Marketing Letters, 23(1), pp. 223–235. Hsee, C. K., and Zhang, J. (2004). Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), pp. 680–695. Jansson-Boyd, C. V., and Marlow, N. (2007), Not only in the eye of the beholder: Tactile information can affect aesthetic evaluation, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 1(3), pp. 170– 173. Jevnaker, B. H. (2005). Vita activa: On relationships between design(ers) and business, Design Issues, 21(3), pp. 25-48. Jiang, Z., and Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on online consumers’ product understanding, MIS Quarterly, 31(3), pp. 475–500. Julier, G. (2013). From design culture to design activism, Design and Culture, 5(2), pp. 215–236; Kaiser, T. (2013, August 5). Apple’s chinese suppliers in trouble for environmental pollution, Daily Tech, http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Chinese+Suppliers+in+Trouble+for+Environmental+ Pollution/article33103.htm (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Keller, K. L. (2007). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity (3rd edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kozinets, R. V., Hemetsberger, A., and Schau, H. J. (2008). The wisdom of consumer crowds: Collective innovation in the age of networked marketing, Journal of Macromarketing, 28(4), pp. 339-354.
1918
Coordinating product design with production and consumption processes
Kristensen, T., and Grønhaug, K. (2007). Editorial essay: Can design improve the performance of marketing management?, Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9/10), pp. 815–827. Krugman, H. E. (1967). The measurement of advertising involvement, Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(4), pp. 583–596. Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified (4th edition), Elsevier/ Architectural Press, Hungary. Lindahl, I., and Nordin, F. (2011). The interplay of design and marketing: A general model, Irish Journal of Management, 30(1), pp. 1–20. Lutz, A. (2013, August 22). Abercrombie & Fitch desperately needs to fix 3 problems, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/why-nobody-shops-at-abercrombie-anymore-2013-8 (Accessed 20 October, 2013). Markussen, T. (2013). The disruptive aesthetics of design activism: Enacting design between art and politics, Design Issues, 29(1), pp. 38–50; Martin, M. J. C. (1994). Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Technology Based Firms, Wiley, New York. McIntyre, D. A. (2009, May 14). Microsoft Vista, Time, http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898610_1898625_1898627,00. html (Accessed April 20, 2015). Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), pp. 39–55. Moore, M. (2010, March 16). China finds faults with designer clothes, The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7455309/China-finds-faults-withdesigner-clothes.html (Accessed 20 October, 2015,). Mulpuru, S. (2012). US Cross-Channel Retail Forecast, 2012 to 2017, Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York. Noseworthy, T. J. and Trudel, R. (2011). Looks interesting but what does it do? Evaluation of incongruent product form depends on positioning, Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), pp. 10081019. Papanek, V. (1991). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change (Revised 2nd edition), Thames & Hudson, London. Parmer, K. (2013, October 24). Top 5 technology flops of 2013 — so far, The Geeky Globe, http://www.thegeekyglobe.com/technology-flops-of-2013.html (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Pedgley, O. F. (2009). Influence of stakeholders on industrial design materials and manufacturing selection, International Journal of Design, 3(1), pp. 1-15. Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R. G., and Biswas, A. (2006). Attitude basis, certainty, and challenge alignment: A case of negative brand publicity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), pp. 528542. Ross, P. R., and Wensveen, S. A. G. (2010). Designing behavior in interaction: Using aesthetic experience as a mechanism for design, International Journal of Design, 4(2), pp. 3–13. Sanders, E. B. N., and Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-Creation and the new landscapes of design, CoDesign, 4(1), pp. 5-18. Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Computers as situational cues: Implications for consumer product cognitions and attitudes, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1/2), pp. 103–112.
1919
Anders Haug
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York. Shusterman, R. (2000). Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art, Blackwell, Oxford. Smith, R. E. and Swinyard, W. R. (1988). Cognitive response to advertising and trial: Belief strength, belief confidence and product curiosity, Journal of Advertising, 17(3), pp. 3–14. Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39, Social Studies of Science, 19(3), pp. 387-420. Steen, M., Manschot, M., and de Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects, International Journal of Design, 5(2), pp. 53-60. Valkenburg, R. (2000). The Reflective Practice in Product Design Teams (PhD thesis), Delft University of Technology, Netherlands. van Dijk, J., and van der Lugt, R. V. (2013), Scaffolds for design communication: Research through design of shared understanding in design meetings, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(2), pp. 121-131. van Osselaer, S. M. J. and Alba, J. W. (2000). Consumer learning and brand equity, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), pp. 1–16. van Rompay, T. J. L., Tanja-Dijkstra, K., Verhoeven, J. W. M., and van Es, A. F. (2012). On store design and consumer motivation: Spatial control and arousal in the retail context, Environment and Behavior, 44(6), pp. 800–820. Vazquez, D., and Bruce, M. (2002). Exploring the retail design management process within a UK food retailer, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 12(4), pp. 437-448. Wang, D., and Oygur, I. (2010). A heuristic structure for collaborative design, The Design Journal, 13(3), pp. 355-372. Wansink, B., and van Ittersum, K. (2003). Bottom up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption volume, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), pp. 455–463. Wegner, D. M. (1985). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind, in B. Mullen and G. R. Goethals (eds.), Theories of Group Behaviour, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 185-208. White, M. C. (2013, January 2). Epic retail fail: Where did the Target + Neiman Marcus collection go wrong?, Time, http://business.time.com/2013/01/02/epic-retail-fail-where-did-the-targetneiman-marcus-collection-go-wrong (Accessed 20 October, 2015). Wilson, D., Littler, D., Leverick, F., and Bruce, M. (1995). Collaborative strategy in new product development--risks and rewards, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3(3), pp. 167-188.
About the Author: Anders Haug is Associate Professor in Design Management at the University of Southern Denmark. Anders has produced more than 50 international publications related to different areas of design, including industrial design, fashion design, engineering design and retail design.
1920
How Companies adopt different Design approaches KwanMyung Kim Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology kmyung@unist.ac.kr DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.241
Abstract: Product design process cannot be explained without both industrial design and engineering design. However, the two fields have different design approaches toward product design. This study explored different types of combined design approaches that companies adopt with industrial design and engineering design. Industrial designers and engineering designers from six global consumer product companies were interviewed. As a result, three different types of combined design approaches; Industrial design-led design process, engineering design-led design process, and cooperative design process were identified. The companies adopted the processes differently based on their purpose and situations. In particular, Industrial design-led design process cases were strongly implemented by the CEOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; strong support who believed industrial design is the primary route to secure competitiveness of their products. However, engineering design-led process was mainly used for redesign of existing products. In cooperative design process, both design groups work collaboratively in concept design phase. Keywords: corporate design process, industrial design, engineering design, product design
1. Introduction Companies have long taken integrated approaches to design to achieve innovation, while the academic world has researched and educated on industrial design and engineering design as two separate disciplines from a dichotomous view. Products known to be successful and well-designed are not only well-engineered and functioning, but also attractive and easy to use. This implies that well-designed products are achieved by the integrated contribution of engineering and industrial design (Cross, 2008). In the consumer product domain especially, these two design fields are essential to bring successful products in market. As such, product design could hardly be explained without an integrated viewpoint of the two fields.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
KwanMyung Kim
While developing a product, indeed, industrial designers and engineering designers deal with the exterior and interior of a product collaboratively in industry. This leads to different roles and approaches in design process between industrial and engineering designers causing conflicts between the two groups (Cross, 2008; Hubka & Eder, 2012). It is known that engineering design and industrial design have considerably different aspects (Pei, 2009; Persson & Wickman, 2004), and their design strategies are opposite to each other (Eder, 2013; Hosnedl, Srp, & Dvorak, 2008; Pahl, Wallace, & Blessing, 2007). Industrial designers mainly focus product-using functionality, whereas engineering designers emphasize productworking functionality (Kim & Lee, 2010). The industrial designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; role includes enhancing user experience of a product and developing its outside form and interface (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2012). They employ knowledge and skills in aesthetics and ergonomics (Eder, 2012; Pahl et al., 2007). Their role has been expanded since industrial design activity is considered value-driven. They create culture, experience, and meaning for creation (Press & Cooper, 2003). Under the interaction with industrial designers, engineering designers take part in implementing the design concept developed by industrial designers (Sara Persson & Warell, 2003). They provide a means for the product to be functioning, reliable, and manufactured (Hubka & Eder, 2012; Pahl et al., 2007). In the engineering design field, however, industrial design has been traditionally considered as an afterthought. Major engineering literature (e.g. (Hubka & Eder, 2012; Pahl et al., 2007)) has a stance that industrial design is classified as an art-oriented design that considers the aspects of product appearance, such as styling, form, and colour that are set after the technical features of products are determined. When these two different types of designers work together with different approaches, how does the whole design process proceed? To answer this, (Kim & Lee, 2010) suggest two different types of design approaches in integrated mode of design process; inside-out and outside-in approaches. Inside-out approach is one that engineering designers define product-working functionality first following which industrial designers complete productusing functionality, while in outside-in approach, industrial designers define product-using functionality first and then product-working functionality is determined by engineering designers later (Kim & Lee, 2010). Although, these two design approaches are collaborative and close interaction takes place between the two designer groups, however, industrial designers and engineering designers have mainly negative perceived images of each other (Kim & Lee, 2014a). This seems to be caused by intransigence and lack of knowledge between the two groups (Kim & Lee, 2014b). Nevertheless, the two groups are the major parts in product development, especially for innovative product design. Companies may strategically adopt one of the two or another approach for their own purpose and situations. Sometimes, a company may use an inside-out approach to develop a technologically durable product or, an outside-in approach to attract high sensitive young users. Or they may have other significant rationales to apply a certain approach. Thus, it is needed to understand two groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; collaborative design approaches empirically. Therefore, this research focuses on what design processes or approaches do global consumer product companies take and, how
1922
How Companies adopt different Design approaches
do they employ them? With these questions, the author investigated how and why companies adopt different design approaches with industrial design and engineering design. Even though, a company employs industrial design and engineering design in an integrated effort, it is hypothesized that it uses industrial design-led (or outside-in) design process or engineering design-led (or inside-out) design process for certain purpose or context.
2. Research method The author visited six Korean consumer product companies and interviewed in-depth with three industrial designers and two or three engineering designers from each company. In sum, 18 industrial designers and 16 engineering designers were interviewed. The companies were coded as A, B, C, D, E, and F for the study following the visiting order. Company A and F were home appliances manufacturers. Company C and D were mobile communication device manufactures. Company B produced IT products and Company E was a security device manufacturer. They were prominent in their business areas and famous for welldesigned products, notably in South Korea and some of them across many countries. Moreover, the companies remained Good Design awardees for several years. In terms of organizational structure, they had independent product planning, industrial design, engineering design, production, finance and marketing teams that are central to product development in a company. The number of industrial designers was approx. 5 to 10 in company B, E, and F, 10 to 20 in company A, 40-50 in company C, and around 100 in company D. The number of engineering designers among them was more than twice of the industrial designers. Generally, the role of product planning team was to plan new product development and make an annual roadmap of product development based on market research. Thus, industrial design and engineering teams worked closely with product planning team. Apart from company B and F, all companies had separate product planning and marketing teams. The product planning teams in company B and F were responsible for both products planning and marketing, however the other companies had independent marketing teams (both domestic and overseas marketing teams) as well as product planning team. During the interview, design processes that each respondent experienced were asked and audio-recorded. The interview time was about 70 to 100 minutes. The collected interviewed data were transcribed and analysed to identify how integrated design processes of each company proceeded. Although, the transcribed data contained huge and rich information about design activities, events, process, etc. The main analysing point for this study was to ascertain whether industrial design led the overall design process or engineering design. It was proceeded by determining whose tasks were preceded and influential. That is, if industrial designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tasks forewent and their outcomes constrained engineering designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; jobs, it was determined as an industrial design-led design process, whereas, if engineering designers started the work before industrial designers and the result of engineering design restricted industrial design works, it was determined as an engineering design-led design process. A few cases were not categorized into the two cases and rather showed combined
1923
KwanMyung Kim
effort of both designer groups at the initial stage. Thus, they were grouped into cooperative process. Along with this analysis, the context and background of the processes were analysed.
3. Design approaches It was cleared that companies used different design approaches with industrial design and engineering design. Company A, C, and E employed both industrial design-led and engineering design-led design processes for particular purposes. Interestingly, Company B used only industrial design-led design process, where industrial designers’ roles were much emphasized, and Company F used only engineering design-led process. Cooperative process were found in two cases; Company A and D. The purpose and context that the companies used particular processes were followed.
3.1 Industrial design-led design process The Case of Company A Company A applied this process for the first time in 2006 to use its competence at industrial design for developing innovative products including those of new categories that could lead to a new market. The process was institutionalized following the industrial design team’s proposal to the CEO. As per the process, the industrial design team carries out an annual concept design proposal event for future products, selects a superior design developed here, and decides on commercialization. At the time of the interview in 2011, a total of 3 products were reported to have been developed via the process. The company’s process is characterized by its industrial design team developing design concepts of products independently without any external interference through the proposal event. The design concepts selected in the proposal event are used for reverse product planning, where the product planning team finds a target market for the design concept. This is totally different from the well-known process from the textbook, where the target market is identified based on market research, and products are planned and developed for the market. In a reported case of product development, they had to make the interior parts, and accordingly the exterior form, bigger in order to implement desired performance in the second phase, where engineering designers decided on the product’s functionality and reviewed its feasibility. Industrial designers decided such modification of the form would destroy the overall style concept and slightly scaled up the exterior form from the initial design to maintain the morphological concept. In this process, industrial designers’ roles are most important. Products are planned and developed in line with the concept of usability and the exterior form defined by industrial designers. Clearly, industrial designers are exclusively in charge of the overall concept development guiding the direction of product implementation, while engineering designers implement the concept developed by industrial designers through technical solutions. Even
1924
How Companies adopt different Design approaches
though this phase may be regarded as another concept design phase (i.e. engineering concept design phase) in light of the existing concept of engineering design, industrial designers play dominant roles in deciding on product concepts in the entire process as they set up the direction of product development in the initial stage, whereas engineering designers are to devise interior working function principles matching the concept and exterior form decided by industrial design and ultimately to ensure the operability. This is quite inconsistent with the existing engineering design process (e.g. (Dym, 1994; Haik & Shahin, 2010; Pahl et al., 2007)), where engineering designers are assumed to play extensive roles in concept design. Then, what made this process emerge? Basically, the CEO’s strong design-oriented policy seems to have exerted significant influence. Interviewees mentioned that the CEO adhered to a strong design-oriented management and considered industrial design an important tool for developing innovative new products. An industrial designer: “We can clearly say that designers take the initiative. Most of all, the design division is under immediate control of the CEO. Once we gave design data to the engineering team, where they arbitrarily changed the design for mass production. The CEO said, ‘Give me the mock-up,’ and found it totally different. Then, we dumped all moulds and made it from scratch. Afterwards, the design division has come to exercise powerful influence.” An industrial designer: “The CEO said, ‘From now on, when you designers decide to apply a certain material, you find a supplier or other entities capable of making it happen proactively before it is too late. Relying on the lab is likely to end up in low surface quality.’ So we have tried hard to proceed with CMF (colour, material, finish).”
In this company, the industrial design division shares a building with the CEO, while the engineering design division is located in a different place within a 30 minute drive, which indicates industrial design undertakes overarching roles and functions. Most interestingly, this company relies exclusively on industrial design’s creativity for product development without product planning, which is completely opposed to the conventional belief that product development starts by identifying market needs via scientific and systematic market research and analysis. This implies that new products are developed not by market needs or technological innovation but by certain pictures designers draw in their minds. The Case of Company B Unlike others, Company B was only using the industrial design-led design process to develop both modified versions of existing product designs as well as new products. As industrial designers decide on the initial interior layout of parts as well as the exterior form, they undertake the role of engineering designers to some extent. As engineering designers hardly engage in the process, the industrial designers’ intention is definitely reflected in the initial design development. As a result, the industrial designers become influential and take the initiative in decision making, whereas engineering designers’ roles are reduced. Firstly, the product planning department decides on a product specification. The industrial design team receives the 3D CAD data about the parts matching the specification from the
1925
KwanMyung Kim
product planning team or engineering design team, and lay out the parts while deciding on the exterior form. Thus, they have knowledge about how to lay out the parts and how the layout affects the form. The engineering designers wait for the industrial designers to decide on the exterior form. Upon receipt of the 3D CAD data, they check the interior layout of parts and feasibility. From this moment, the engineering designers fully engage in the design process. Although, the industrial designers decide on the interior layout considering the exterior form, problems remain if the gaps between the interior and exterior parts are too narrow to produce. Therefore, the product’s interior and exterior are modified and developed in this process, where engineering designers decide on the definitive interior layout while industrial designers determine the definitive exterior form. The questions about this company include how the process of industrial designers deciding on the exterior and interior of a product at the same time began and why nothing but this process exists. At first, the process was started by a strong design-first policy in which industrial designers designed the exterior form freely without considering the interior parts, while engineering designers laid out parts inside the form. In the mid-2000s, the former CEO recognized that industrial design would be important for successful product development and enforced a policy of ‘adjusting interior parts to outside design no matter what.’ Afterwards, the process has been established in a way that industrial designers develop the exterior form and at the same time lay out the interior parts to solve the problems arising when engineering designers arrange the parts inside the exterior form designed by industrial designers. As design is valued more than any other considerations, and as industrial design teams get influential, some tasks of other departments directly linked to those of the industrial design teams in the process have become incorporated in the job description of industrial designers. That is, industrial designers’ roles and responsibilities have extended to planning and design. Industrial designers’ competence in fulfilling the tasks that used to be thought of as those of engineering designers is attributable to their understanding of the interior layout of parts and using the same 3D CAD tools as engineering designers. Using the same tools, industrial designers can effectively present alternatives to problems raised by engineering designers. The Case of Company C In the mobile phone market, communication service providers occasionally ask for development of new models in a short period of time or put the design out to competitive tender. It is critical to design a product meeting the service provider’s requirements, produce a design mock-up, and participate in the tender, or to respond to the service provider’s demand promptly. Thus, when a communication service provider’s demand or tender is expected, industrial designers embark upon the design and decide on the exterior form without product plans, specification, or layout data. Strictly speaking, external demands or tender plans are considered the inputs for initiating a product design despite
1926
How Companies adopt different Design approaches
the absence of internal inputs, which is distinct from the condition under which Company A operates. Notably, the company develops variant models of existing products by changing their exterior styles, which is also different from Company A, which uses industrial design to develop new products. This process is viable partly due to the nature of mobile phone market, characterized by short cycles of product development, abundant reference products, and insignificant model changes, which enables industrial designers to decide on exterior forms and product sizes based on the existing reference products without product plans or design specification needed for starting a product design. As it is required to tender for design contracts promptly with a design concept, industrial designers have to produce desirable design outcomes in a very short period of time. Therefore, they complete the exterior form of a product in a short time without any official form, evaluation, or approval. In some cases, they decide on the exterior forms and produce mock-ups within 10 days with a view to winning the contract with the communication service provider. An industrial designer: “We often make it happen in a short time as the service providers demand things at short notice in many cases. Skipping sketch rendering and the like, we embark on CAD drawing based on reference phones and send out a phone in three days. At least we have time for producing a mock-up. In case companies are capable of doing that, it takes at least four days to mock up a phone.”
Once the communication service provider confirms the design, formal product planning and the process of feasibility testing by engineering designers follow. In this phase, industrial designers coordinate with engineering designers to respond to required design modifications, while engineering designers decide on the interior layout. In reviewing the feasibility, engineering designers try to keep the exterior design as it is to the maximum extent as the design has been confirmed by the service provider. In some cases, the exterior design needs to be changed. The overall characteristics and flow of the detail design phase do not differ from those of Company A. Still, the process runs so fast that the design is on the verge of mass production within a month. This process is viable against the backdrop of short product development cycles, abundant reference products already developed, and industrial designers’ rich experience of homogeneous product design as well as the lack of abrupt changes in product forms, sizes, or functionality. Given the tough competition in industry and the need for short-term development, the company’s design team has adopted a design bank concept where plenty of design mock-ups are kept, from which specs and concepts meeting the demands from service providers may be chosen.
1927
KwanMyung Kim
The Case of Company E This company employs a process to develop new models without reference products. Once industrial designers develop the exterior design of a product, engineering designers implement a product in line with the design to the maximum possible extent. With no reference products, designers roughly decide on target sizes and proceed with concept design. Then, following a formal decision made on commercialization, engineering designers embark on engineering design concept phase for implementation. In this process, they exchange data to decide on the exterior form and the interior part layout. An industrial designer: “New projects hardly have some layouts. More often than not, we just develop a design, expecting them to take care of the rest.” An engineering designer: “When developing new products, product planners and designers meet, where designers propose and present an exterior form. Then, we lay out circuits or parts inside the form before confirming and proceeding with feasible aspects. Or, we suggest some parts need scaling up in reverse.”
This process differs from that of company A in that engineering designers give no inputs whereas product planners provide rough data about the direction of design and that development of new products follows the company’s development plan.
3.2 Engineering design-led design process The Case of Company A This process is most comparable to this company’s standardized process mentioned by interviewees. Engineering designers lead product development. Still, the importance of exterior forms created by industrial designers is emphasized. This process is used to redesign the next version of a product based on the existing platform of line-up products, or to develop products at the level of a mask change. The process starts by preparing a product planning document based on the annual product roadmap. Then, product planning, engineering design, and industrial design departments have a product planning meeting all together. During product planning, engineering designers decide on the functional and dimensional specification as well as the preliminary layout, while industrial designers use the 3D layout data received from the engineering design team to decide on the exterior form. In this process, industrial designers continuously receive necessary information from engineering designers. Industrial designers undertake idea sketches, 3D CAD modelling, rendering, design evaluation meetings, and the mock-up selection event to decide on the exterior form design while engineering designers keep evaluating the exterior form developed by industrial designers, and give them advice as advisors. Engineering designers receive the 3D CAD data from industrial designers and test any collision with the layout and feasibility, while at the same time refining the layout so that the interior functions work properly. Overall, despite the preliminary layout serving as the basic information that determines the exterior and interior of the product, both design teams keep interacting with each other to exchange
1928
How Companies adopt different Design approaches
feedback, by which process the preliminary layout becomes the definitive layout while the design sketch develops into the definitive exterior form. Once the definitive design mock-up and layout are determined, they go on to the detail design phase. The Case of Company C This process is comparable to this company’s standard process as well. As a rule, the standard process clarifies the period. In fact, the actual development period is shorter than the specified one in the standard process, according to interviewees (product planning: three months + development phase: eight months). Interestingly, this company divides the product development process largely into ‘product planning phase’ and ‘development phase.’ The product planning phase involves industrial designers defining the exterior form, engineering designers reviewing the interior layout, mocking up, and the design evaluation meeting. The product planning phase is followed by the development phase, where engineering designers implement the product based on the detail design. The development phase continues up to the testing phase before the mass production phase. Another distinct aspect specific to this company is the official system called a ‘concept meeting’ where as part of the ‘product planning phase’ the product planning team leads a weekly discussion on the advancement of exterior design and interior layout with professionals from relevant departments, i.e. industrial designers, engineering designers, product planners, quality controllers, circuit developers, and hardware developers involved in product development. They discuss and coordinate the interior layout changes and the feasibility of the exterior design developed and refined by industrial designers. That is, in industrial design concept and engineering design concept development phase, multidisciplinary development team experts join to develop an optimized form and layout, minimizing any potential problems that might arise in subsequent phases and increasing the process efficiency. An engineering designer: “Usually, multiple departments meet weekly. When something comes up and a decision need be made offhand, related departments meet separately once or twice a week or even daily to discuss whether a design can turn into a real product in terms of sizes to materials, like, about some metal exterior design. Overall, they review the full length, the full width, the thickness, and the specification. Then, the circuit team double-checks the design later on. That’s how things go here.” An engineering designer: “We co-work with the design team at the concept meeting. That doesn’t mean once we give a box (a preliminary rough layout), we just work on the layout only at each session of 10 meetings. That is, after meeting twice or three times, a design gets into shape. Then, we put the design on the layout. With the layout, we scale up or down the size. The meetings go on for co-working on any change of the layout, I mean, discussing whether some parts are in or out, like whether to round it or tuck it in a bit. We optimize things at the concept meeting.”
This process seems effective for dealing with tough market competition, short product cycles, and variations of products sharing many platforms.
1929
KwanMyung Kim
Both product planning and project managing teams play significant roles in leading the concept meeting systematically. The Case of Company D This process starts when the product planning team proposes a product based on the annual product roadmap. Then, engineering designers give the initial layout data called ‘box data’ to industrial designers. The ‘box data’ refer to the simplified box-shaped 3D CAD data about the sizes of interior parts. Interestingly enough, once industrial designers decide the design based on the box data will turn out to be uncompetitive in the market, they return to product planning for the spec to be refined. That is, they assess the morphological value of the design right from the start of the design process. Once the industrial design process starts, they exchange data with engineering designers. Another distinct aspect specific to this company is that experienced and bold advanced engineering designers are deployed to the design department to keep checking the feasibility of design concepts under development. They find out applicable new technology and engineering methods to implement the design concepts presented by industrial designers, while changing and developing the layouts. The advanced technology development function is structured to highlight new concepts of design based on preliminary layouts. The Case of Company E This company used this process in two cases. Firstly, some performance issues such as heating found in the existing model for sale should be sorted out in the next model prior to its exterior form design. In this case, a layout is set up to first determine necessary space, followed by exterior form design. Secondly, for a model whose functionality is considered overarching, its layout is first determined followed by its exterior design. Industrial designers also focus on its appearance rather than a new usability concept. The Case of Company F This company is characterized by industrial and engineering design teams belonging to an R&D (Research and Development) division and sharing a workspace. Thus, before a product development is proposed, product planning, engineering design, and industrial design professionals join together to discuss and start basic research. Once the product planning department proposes a product development, engineering designers decide on a preliminary layout based on previous models and pass it on to industrial designers, who in turn design an exterior form receiving data from engineering designers constantly. Engineering designers keep checking the feasibility and give feedback to industrial designers. This process takes place more personally and closely compared to other companies as both design teams share a workplace.
1930
How Companies adopt different Design approaches
3.3 Cooperative design process
The Case of Company A Company A tried this process most recently. This process was applied because a few design outcomes from ‘design proposal events’ did not proceed to mass production despite good concepts or ideas. The design concepts from design proposal events failed to develop into mass production because no technological support followed to implement the design concepts proposed by industrial designers. An industrial designer in the design team recognized the problem, visited the advanced technology development team, and proposed implementing a new concept together, which was how this process started. An industrial designer: “I had worked on purifiers for years. Then, I felt like trying a new advanced product and made a part. I had to run here and there. There are a new product team and an advanced technology team in the R&D centre. I tried to propose co-working to come up with ideas for a new product last year. It occurred to me that a new product would require a team effort between the engineering team, the product planning team, and the design team rather than design proposal events. We did a couple of projects like that.”
As the advanced technology development team is in charge of developing new technology proactively, it is less involved in development for mass production, able to more freely and proactively cooperate with industrial designers, and less resistant to adoption of new technology than the ordinary development team. Accordingly, when industrial designers propose a new way to use a product and a novel form, the advanced technology development team cooperates by providing technical support to enable the newly proposed form and functionality. As such, they share ideas and create a synergy effect to develop the form and layout. Such efforts are recognized and well received in the company as well as highly spoken of by the CEO. This process is characterized by individual initiative, willingness, passion, and efforts by industrial designers followed by the advanced technology development team’s support, which led to success without any preset time constraint. Therefore, this process is hardly available to industrial and engineering designers who are directly involved in development for mass production and thus find it hard to spare time. The advantage of this process lies in the fact that industrial designers break away from the form-based design and come up with a new idea considering the context and usability of a product. Also, this process makes it possible to proceed with design ideas that engineering designers cannot try due to performance or feasibility testing. Conclusively, a new concept industrial designers and engineering designers agree on can be implemented in this process. The Case of Company D This process concerns a product development not present on the annual product roadmap, where industrial designers propose a design concept while advanced technology development engineers provide technology as part of a bold product development initiative. This company used this process to develop an innovative new product leading to market
1931
KwanMyung Kim
success, which facilitated the company’s adoption of the new product development process driven by both design and advanced technology development teams. An engineering designer: “That’s what happened to a phone which had a great market success. The design team came up with an idea for an extremely slim slide phone and we cooperated with the team for the model. When we sent the model to the development team, they just said they could never take or do it because the risk would be so high. They didn’t take it and rejected it over and over. So, we were like as they wouldn’t take it, we would do it. After all, we struggled a lot. We did it though. We made a product based on the initial design rendering and spec. When we did it, developers were like ‘Uh-oh, you did it after all those troubles.’ Afterward, they became less resistant to what the design team reviewed and sent and took design plans that would otherwise be rejected because of what they called riskiness.”
It is interesting that engineering designers from the advanced technology development team stay together with industrial designers. Thus, industrial designers and those from the advanced technology development team can work as a team, which is suggestive of a few things. First, the existing product development process has so many constraints that industrial designers and engineering designers cannot develop innovative new products. Engineering designers in charge of mass production are under pressure because they should ensure their items pass the performance and reliability tests by the time appointed, which hinders them from trying anything bold or challenging. Also, the innovative design concepts presented by industrial designers can never be implemented without technical support. In this respect, allowing go-ahead to industrial designers and engineering designers from the advanced technology development team to share the workspace and supporting them with a new process will further increase the potential to develop innovative products.
4. Discussion Companies adopt industrial design-led design process, engineering design-led design process and/or cooperative design process according to their goals and situations. These are the part of their effort to create maximum competitiveness within their situations. Industrial designled process is applied to produce innovative products with new concepts that achieve aesthetic and usability appeal. This approach was implemented by the CEOs’ strong will for acquiring competitiveness of their products by utilizing the sophisticated sensitiveness and user-centred method of industrial designers. This approach will be useful when a company secures high level of technology in design engineering. If it is poor at technology, engineering designers could not implement the design concept provided by industrial designers. Engineering design-led process is mainly used for redesign of existing product. It implies that the companies adopted this approach to improve product performance quickly reducing potential conflicts with the appearance of a product. Both approaches inherently cause conflicts between the two groups because one designer group’s tasks preceding become to constrain the other’s. In this regard, cooperative process, where industrial designers and engineering designers’ collaborative work in concept design phase can be a good alternative. Especially, Company D provides a solution direction on this
1932
How Companies adopt different Design approaches
issue. The engineering designers were dispatched on purpose to industrial design department. As a result, both groups of designers increased the level of mutual understanding and developed cooperative process. Furthermore, engineering designers support industrial designers by persuading other engineering designers stayed independent engineering offices apart from them. Regardless of what approach a company takes according to its situation, the success in product design is dependent on the effective collaboration of industrial designers and engineering designers. In this regard, interdisciplinary education of students who will be involved in product development as an industrial designer or an engineering designer is an important issue. Typical design or engineering education hardly supports this goal. Design education was started in South Korea in the early 1960s from the area of applied art with the aims to support export-driven industrial development in government sector, and with the focus of package designs of products to add aesthetic value. Indeed, its influence has been lasting until today. Nearly, all design schools belong to art schools in South Korea. Product design education is regarded as an art-oriented subject. However, a few universities have brought design departments with engineering fields. Moreover, mechanical engineering departments barely run design-related education. This results in a dichotomized view to design and engineering in South Korea. Indeed, the term â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Engineering designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; was introduced quite recently in Korea. Recently, it emphasized that the integrated education of design and engineering should provide holistic experience of product development process as well as disciplinary knowledge and skills (Kim et al., 2012). Fortunately, Korean government has invested its efforts to change the current art-based design education to be interdisciplinary one by combining design with engineering, business, or other disciplines. This will help companies to avoid conflicts between the two groups in product development. In order to practice the combined design approaches effectively, companies also need to understand the knowledge level of designers and engineers who will work together.
5. Conclusion Industrial design and engineering design departments work most closely on product design in companies. Design process cannot go forward if these two departments are obscured. Only either one cannot complete product design. However, industrial design and engineering design have been traditionally considered, taught and studied separately. Particularly in South Korea, art-based industrial design education has been dominated and engineering design has not been well educated. This study viewed product design process as an integrated whole process of industrial design and engineering design and aimed to ascertain how the two fields work in the holistic processes. The author interviewed in-depth with industrial designers and engineering designers from six global consumer product manufacturers in Korean context. As a result, three different types of design approaches were identified.
1933
KwanMyung Kim
In industrial design-led design process, industrial designers with no external interference or inputs develop new product design concepts and then engineering designers implement them. Industrial designers never consider technical aspects of interior parts in the concept design phase, which leads to a series of tedious adjustments of design for feasibility in connection with engineering designers. In some cases industrial designers develop the exterior form concept while at the same time laying out interior parts. However in engineering design-led design process, engineering designers make the interior layout based on specifications from the product planning teams, based on which industrial designers define the exterior form. In cooperative process, industrial designers and engineering designers personally collaborated from the start to implement innovative concepts. The context and purpose of the processes are also different. Sometimes they are used strategically by companies and other times they are applied naturally due to internal and external circumstances. Industrial design-led design process is used in two contexts: 1) when companies are to develop new products distinct from existing products (Companies A and E), and 2) when lots of reference models are available with short product cycles (Company C). Sometimes industrial designers free of engineering designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; influence define the exterior form and mode of use. This process applies when industrial designers work on new products or redesign existing ones (Company B). Engineering-led design process is used to modify existing products to launch updated products. Mostly, product development scheduled according to annual product development roadmaps follows this process, where unlike the other three processes engineering designers play prominent roles from the outset. Cooperative design process is used to develop innovative products when industrial designers with a good design concept in mind receive technical support for implementing the concept from advanced technology development engineering designers. Companies should effectively utilize industrial design and engineering design. The research results provide useful insights for companies when they plan to adopt certain strategies. However, to support companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design management better, deeper understanding of each approach, such as strengths and weaknesses is needed. Also investigation of conflicts, causes of conflicts, and resolution strategies in these processes will support the development of better design management strategies. Extending the research issue based on this, the pedagogy of integrated education of design and engineering education is substantial. Finally, further study needs to explore other countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cases to see if the three design approaches are applicable in general. Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF2015S1A5A8010614)
6. References Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: strategies for product design.
1934
How Companies adopt different Design approaches
Dym, C. L. (1994). Engineering design: a synthesis of views: Cambridge University Press. Eder, W. E. (2012). ENGINEERING DESIGN VS. ARTISTIC DESIGNâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;A DISCUSSION. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. Eder, W. E. (2013). Engineering Design vs. Artistic Design: Some Educational Consequences. Online Submission. Haik, Y., & Shahin, T. (2010). Engineering design process: CengageBrain. com. Hosnedl, S., Srp, Z., & Dvorak, J. (2008). Cooperation of engineering & industrial designers on industrial projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the DESIGN 2008, 10th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Hubka, V., & Eder, W. E. (2012). Design science: introduction to the needs, scope and organization of engineering design knowledge: Springer Science & Business Media. Kim, K., Kim, N., Jung, S., Kim, D.-Y., Kwak, Y., & Kyung, G. (2012). A Radically Assembled DesignEngineering Education Program with a Selection and Combination of Multiple Disciplines. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(4), 904-919. Kim, K., & Lee, K.-p. (2014a). Don't Make Art, Do Industrial Design: A Voice from Industry. DMI Review. Kim, K., & Lee, K.-p. (2014b). Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers; Causes of Conflicts, Resolving Strategies, and Perceived Image of Each Other. Kim, K., & Lee, K. (2010). Two types of design approaches; regarding Industrial design and engineering design in product design. Proceedings of DESIGN. Pahl, G., Wallace, K., & Blessing, L. (2007). Engineering design: a systematic approach (Vol. 157): Springer. Pei, E. (2009). Building a common language of design representations for industrial designers & engineering designers. Persson, S., & Warell, A. (2003). Relational Modes between Industrial Design and Engineering Design a Conceptual Model for Interdisciplinary Design Work. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Asian Design International Conference. Persson, S., & Wickman, C. (2004). Effects of industrial design and engineering design interplay: An empirical study on tolerance management in the automotive industry. Design 2004: Proceedings of the 8th International Design Conference, Vols 1-3, 1151-1160. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000235886600169 Press, M., & Cooper, R. (2003). The design experience: the role of design and designers in the twentyfirst century: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2012). Product design and development (Fifth Edition ed.): McGrawHill/Irwin. About the Author: KwanMyung Kim is an Associate professor at Graduate School of Creative Design Engineering Design at UNIST. With 14 years of industry experience, he brings practical knowledge into academic research. He is interested in integrated product design.
1935
This page is intentionally left blank
Challenges in co-designing a building Min Hi Chun University of Reading m.h.chun@pgr.reading.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.274
Abstract: This paper explores the challenges faced in implementing Co-Design approaches to building design. Co-design approaches have been increasingly applied in building design over the last decade. They call on building designers to engage users more actively by asking them to express their experience and knowledge directly throughout the design process. However there are some concerns as it radically changes how we design, what we design, and who designs. The paper explores these by reviewing the literature around the development of the architecture profession and comparing participatory approaches to others and concludes that there are a number of challenges in co-designing a building, including changes in the role of actors in the design process and issues around managing conflicts between the interests of different users in a multi-user building project. The questions that are raised here will be explored further through a case study of userengagement in a hospital design project. Keywords: Architecture profession; co-design; design process; building design
1. Introduction Co-design approaches have been increasingly applied in building design over the last decade. They call on building designers to engage users more actively in all stages of the process as co-designers, asking them to express their experience and knowledge directly in the design process (Rizzo, 2010). The term co-design, according to Sanders and Stappers (2008), refers to the collective creativity of collaborating designers across the whole span of a design process and in a broader sense, it refers to the creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). In other words it is understood as citizen power in the processes of decision-making moving towards significant social reform and means for citizens to have real power to shape their environment. This is based on the principle that the environment works better if citizens are active and involved in its creation and management instead of being treated as passive consumers (Sanoff, 2000). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Min Hi Chun
According to Sanders and Stappers (2008), bringing co-design into the design process radically changes how we design, what we design, and who designs. As a result, the tools and methods used in the design process will need to change, the design and research stages will blur together and new types of designers and researchers with special expertise in the early stages of the design process will be introduced, among other things (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). Therefore, implementing co-design approaches in the architectural design process raises challenges for future architecture practice. This paper explores a number of issues relevant to the application of co-design approaches in the built environment: What is the impact that co-design approaches have on the role of architect in the architectural process? What kind of tools and methods are utilized in co-design approaches to design a building? What is the impact co-design approaches have on the building design outcome? To explore these questions, this paper will firstly review the literature around co-design in architecture. It will then discuss the architecture profession and its role, and then compare co-design approaches to scientific approaches and more traditional approaches across three dimensions: how architects design a building, what architects design and who designs. The paper will then discuss the challenges that are faced in co-designing a building.
2. The Architecture Profession Before discussing the impact of co-design in the building design process this paper will explore the architecture profession and its roles. As noted by Samuel., et al (2014) there is a lot of confusion about architecture and what architects do. This section will address this issue by looking at the literature on the development of the architecture profession and its role in the UK.
2.1 The development of the architecture profession in the UK Architecture is probably the oldest established design profession and serves as a model for design in other professions and has, as a result, been described as the ‘mother profession’ within the family of design professions (Schön, 1983). Prior to the mid-eighteenth century the majority of buildings were designed and built by builders with no input from architects, who only tended to be engaged in the building and design of major monuments such as churches and palaces. As there were no formal institutions governing the architecture profession at this time, architects were trained in a number of different fields including as craftsmen such as stonemasons, painters and carpenters and as engineers. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) was established in 1834 by a number of leading architects of the time with the aim of increasing, controlling and unifying standards
1938
Challenges in co-designing a building
of practice within the architecture profession (Lawson, 1980). Prior to this, there was no established route for becoming an architect in the UK and wide variation in the type and quality of education received by architects and, as a result, in standards of practice within the profession (Crinson and Lubbock, 1994). The initial Royal Charter of RIBA (1837) set out its main aims as “…the general advancement of Civil Architecture, and for promoting and facilitating the acquirement of the knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith…”. Over the next 100 years, RIBA played a central role in the development of professional standards in the architecture profession, tightly regulating its members and requiring extensive training to be completed before entering it to reflect the fact that it is a role that requires judgement and an ethical responsibility to act on behalf of society (Duffy and Rabeneck, 2013). By 1882, RIBA introduced compulsory qualifying examinations for its members (Crinson and Lubbock, 1994) and these regulatory developments culminated in the creation of the statutory Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom and the Board of Architectural Education by Parliament in the 1930s.
2.2 The role of architects in the UK Sir John Soane wrote in 1788 that the role of the architect is ‘to be the intermediate agent between the employer, whose honour and interest he is to study and the mechanic whose rights he is to defend’ (Darley, 1999). In defining ‘the employer’ as the client and ‘the mechanic’ as the construction industry, he was arguing that an important role architects need to play is exercising even-handed judgement between the desires of the demand side – what their clients want - and the constraints faced by the supply-side of the construction industry – what builders, craftsmen and suppliers can realistically deliver within the resources available. However the role of the architect changed significantly following the establishment of RIBA. Architects increasingly restricted their activities to ‘designing’ rather than ‘making’ and were often not directly connected with either the clients or makers. Once a design is produced, they withdraw from the scene (Lawson, 1980). RIBA (2005) require architects to “apply high standards of skill, knowledge and care in all their work (and) apply their informed and impartial judgment in reaching any decisions, which may require members having to balance differing and sometimes opposing demands (for example, the stakeholders’ interests with the community’s and the project’s capital costs with its overall performance)”. An important question is whether we can be optimistic and trust architects’ professional knowledge and their judgement about what makes for a successful design outcome. Alexander (1964) challenged our optimistic response towards the traditional design approach as well as the designer’s role and asked how drawing-based design processes could replace centuries of adaptation and evolution embodied in vernacular products. He proposed a method of structuring design problems that would allow designers to see a
1939
Min Hi Chun
graphical representation of the structure of non-visual problems. This required the whole design process to become more open to inspection and critical evaluation. More recently co-design approaches call on architects to facilitate users to act as codesigners in all stages of the design process and also to effectively collaborate with other disciplines. These approaches are characterized by the way in which it cuts across traditional professional boundaries and are based on the principle of not privileging the expertise of the designer over that of the user.
2.3 Participatory architecture The beginnings of the participatory design movement in the UK can be traced to at a conference called Design Participation held by the Design Research Society in Manchester in 1971. Cross (1971) states in the book summarising the proceedings of the conference that “Professional designers in every field have failed in their assumed responsibility to predict and to design-out the adverse effects of their projects. These harmful side effects can no longer be tolerated and regarded as inevitable if we are to survive the future…There is certainly a need for new approaches to design if we are to arrest the escalating problems of the man-made world and citizen participation in decision making could possibly provide a necessary reorientation” and later suggests that participation should not only be at the moment of decision but also at the moment of idea generation (Cross, 1971). The idea of user participation in architectural design with the aim of integrating users’ needs and desires in the design and planning process has been around since 1960s. For example, Walter Segal developed a method for self-build housing and demonstrated this in the UK and Ireland. The Borough of Lewisham asked him to use his methods to design a self-build social housing project with people who were on local housing list in 1978 ( Broome, 1986; Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2009; Hofmann, 2014). Segal’s work also influenced the participatory approaches used by Peter Hübner in designing school buildings in Germany and also had an impact on the design of a student housing project at Stuttgart by students, the Landau Cultural Centre and some other projects by Peter Sulzer (Blundell Jones et al., 2009). Currently academia and design practices are evidencing more user participation in the design process as predicted by Jungk (1971); for example, there is increasing stakeholder engagement in planning and design healthcare building projects. In the past, user engagement was limited to seeking external input at specially defined moments; more recently its use has been expanded with more active user engagement throughout the whole design process, asking users to express their subjective experience and knowledge directly in the design process. These approaches are based on an assumption that the built environment works more effectively if citizens are actively involved in its creation and management instead of being treated as passive consumers (Sanoff, 2006).
1940
Challenges in co-designing a building
2.4 Typology There are several different design approaches utilized in the built environment. Lawson (1980) categorised them into three different types distinguished by methodological differentiation in the design process: design by drawing; design by science; and collaborative approaches. Duffy and Rabeneck (2013) identifies three approaches based on differences in how architects prioritise the conflicting demands of clients, industry and the wider world: shape makers (who prioritise aesthetics and innovation), serving commercial entities (focusing on the “look” of new products) and collaborators with other professionals to produce better buildings (focusing on improving the quality of designs through the measurement of results). Samuel et al (2014) uses a similar means of classification to identify three approaches: cultural architects aim to create iconic attractions that are built around ideas that come from the world of art and performance; commercial architects prioritise the requirements of business and advances business needs; and social architects create environments to transform the way we feel and think by engaging people in the design process. As this paper will address the impact of co-design approach in the design process, Lawson’s classification of design approaches based on the methodologies used is more suitable.
3. Who designs? As mentioned above, this paper will use Lawson’s categorisation of design approaches utilised in the built environment: design by drawing; design by science; and collaborative approaches. It will compare these three different approaches across three dimensions: who designs, what we design and how we design.
3.1 Design by drawing In the design by drawing approach, architects and designers use their own knowledge and experience to create buildings, beginning with abstract ideas and transforming them to concrete physical formations through their cognitive design activities (Dursun, 2007; Lawson, 1980; K Sailer, et al 2007). In this approach, the client and users have to respect the authority of the architect and trust that the provided design option is the most effective one because there is no way for them to objectively challenge a design. An architect, as a professional with expert knowledge that their clients do not have, plays a manipulating role in clients’ very risky, expensive long term investment while clients’ and users’ roles are very limited and neglected in the entire process of designing and making the building (see Table 1).
1941
Min Hi Chun
Table 1 Actors’ role in the design process Type
Architects’ role
Researcher’ role
Concept of user in design process
Real users’ role in design process
Design by drawing
Expert
No role
Imaginary user
No role
Design by science
Expert
Translator
Informant
Informant
Expert/ Facilitator
Facilitator
Co-designer
Designer
Collaborative approach
3.2 Design by science Design by science approaches try to improve the utilitarian design of the building. They provide more critical and objective evidence about the relationship between human behaviour and spatial configuration to support the decision-making process of designers and architects. But it gives space for designers and architects to evaluate notion between functional matters and their creative development of building design. Therefore architects and designers remain as experts, with researchers collecting and interpreting human behaviour data in the existing setting which they bring to the designer who then uses it to inform the creative development of their design. Thus clients and users play a passive role in the design process as an informant – users are involved in the process but only indirectly through observation (see Table 1).
3.3 Collaborative approach Collaborative approaches are based on a movement that cuts across traditional professional boundaries (Sanoff, 2006). Users are involved in the creation and management of the design rather than being treated as passive agents as in the other approaches. Users are asked to express their experience and knowledge directly in a design process that does not privilege the expertise of the designer over that of the user. As we can see from table 1, this transforms the role of the designer into one of facilitator rather than expert, with users playing an active role as a co-designer in the design process (see Table 1).
4. What do architects design? The Dutch architect Hertzberger (1991) said that ‘everything we do has consequences for people and their relationships…The art of architecture is not only to make things beautiful – nor is it only to make useful things, it is to do both at once – like a tailor who makes clothes that look good and fit well’. Similarly, Schön (1987) described the architecture profession as bimodality between being a utilitarian profession concerned with the fundamental design and construction of settings for human activity and an art that uses the form of buildings
1942
Challenges in co-designing a building
and the experience of passage through the spaces and media of aesthetic expression. Thus the outcome being sought by architects are buildings that are both visually beautiful and distinctive, and where the organisation of space within them make sense for users and allow the building to effectively fulfil its purpose.
4.1 Design by drawing According to K Sailer., et al (2007), more traditional approaches (in Lawson’s term design by drawing) to building design are highly open and intuitive processes which leaves clients, users and architects themselves uncertain about what the outcome will be. As described by many scholars, the design process is a process of making (Schön, 1983), a trial-and-error approach which is experimental in nature (Van Schaik, 2005) and based on learning by doing where the problem and solution emerge together (Lawson, 1980). This means that it requires highly professional judgement with architects using their experience and intuition to create buildings that meet clients’ and users’ needs. In the design process, architects are both using their subjective knowledge and experience to create aesthetic value and using their understanding of utilitarian design to create buildings that will effectively fulfil their purpose based on their ‘professional judgement’ (see Table 2). Table 2 Design objectives and the type of space incorporated into the different approaches Type
Design objective
Space
Design by drawing
Architects’ creative aesthetic design
Architects’ subjective space
Design by science
Architects’ creative aesthetic design & scientific utilitarian design
Architects’ subjective space & Users’ objective space
Collaborative approach
Architects & Users’ creative design
Architects & Users’ subjective space
But an emerging question is what this professional judgement towards utilitarian design is based on? If this critical judgment is based on the experience and intuition of the architect, where does it come from and how do they acquire it? As mentioned earlier, the relationship between architects and clients ends when the project finishes and they are not explicitly looking backwards by carrying out systematic evaluations about how effectively their previous projects met their design objectives once built. How then do architects make a judgement about what works or not? The problem of more traditional design processes lies in this uncertainty on architects’ professional judgement towards their design.
4.2 Design by science Scientific approaches are a response to this uncertainty about architects’ professional judgement towards their design. They seek a more systematic evaluation of the success or
1943
Min Hi Chun
otherwise of building design by, for example, using data based on observations of collective human behavioural in previous research, environment variables and spatial analysis. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) was developed in the 1970s as a method to analyse efficiency and building performance which is widely used in facility management but was not used in architectural research and design until relatively recently. Some Ergonomists and workplace design practices started using POE to study existing clients’ environments to build an evidence base about the spaces, behaviours and space usage patterns of that organisation. This evidence is used to suggest design solutions that better fit the clients’ character and needs rather than solely relying on the intuition and experience of the individual designer (Jenso, M. Hansen, G K. Haugen, T, 2004; K Sailer, et al 2007; K Sailer,et al 2010). Space Syntax takes this even further by using a mathematical description of spatial configuration and collective human behaviour data to advise designers and architects at an early stage in the design process as well as to predict the likely behaviour of building users if the proposed design option goes ahead (K Sailer, et al 2008; K Sailer, et al 2010). It seems that scientific approach is trying to contribute to the utilitarian design part of the architects’ role. It provides more critical and objective evidence about the relationship between human behaviour and spatial configuration to support the decision-making process of designers and architects. But it also provides space for designers and architects to use their professional judgement to make a trade-off between functional matters and their creative development of the aesthetic components of building design (see Table 2).
4.3 Collaborative approach In contrast to the indirect involvement of users through analysing data about human behaviour in the built environment used in design by science approaches, collaborative approaches try to overcome the problem in the briefing and the design process by involving users directly in the design process through collaboration between architects, researchers, clients and users. Users are actively engaged in all stages of the design process and asked to express their subjective experience and knowledge directly. To do so, this approach quite often includes a whole range of new techniques – workshops, gaming and virtual reality (Garde and van der Voort, 2009; Iversen and Dindler, 2014; Nilsson, et al 2011; Vaajakallio, Lee, and Mattelmäki, 2009) - to identify the crucial aspects of the problem or positive aspects of the existing space and building, make them explicit, and suggest alternative courses of action for comment by the non-designer participant (Lawson, 1980). Therefore it is trying to incorporate users’ subjective space and building into architects’ subjective aesthetic and utilitarian design (see Table 2). A key question is how do architects, clients and users know how the design that emerges from these processes will either make sense for users or allow the building to effectively fulfil its functions? Further, how can architects be certain that their creations are visually beautiful not only for themselves but for the building users, their clients and the wider
1944
Challenges in co-designing a building
public and are considered to do so over the life of the building? Finally, how can we be sure that users themselves know what it is they really need from the space and the building? As noted by Hillier (2004), it is very difficult to talk about our relationship with space in the built environment as space is non-discursive and we do not have an adequate language to describe it: we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think of space, we think with space. This leaves a clear risk that the result of co-design processes will be a building that the clients and stakeholders desire rather than one they need as there is a strong chance that they do not understand exactly what it is they need from space and buildings.
5. How architects design buildings: the briefing and design process 5.1 Design by drawing Building projects start with the client approaching someone for professional advice about the possibility of creating a new building. The clients and the design team discuss general information such as their requirements and the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initial idea of what they want (Tunstall, 2000). Architects then produce the building designs based on their understanding of the situation and feed this back to the clients. For this purpose, architects generally produce the drawings including plans, elevations, sections and rendered perspective drawings by hand or Auto CAD. A three-dimensional real model of the building or a virtual computer model often accompanies this. However, according to Granath (2001), the communication with users and clients with architectural objects is very hard as it is difficult to determine whether the suggested design will really facilitate their future activities. This is due to the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s requirements and needs often being affected by their familiarity with their current situation and the natural bias towards the status quo that this leads to. The inadequacies of their existing arrangements are often not recognized and change is resisted because their previous experience has apparently not been bad or they have not been able to step back and look at their situation dispassionately. Sometimes, even the good points or advantages of their situation are obscured because they have been used to doing things in their own particular way (Tunstall, 2000). As Collinge and Harty (2013) point out the briefing phase, gauging and understanding stakeholder interests is often problematic for architects and it is often difficult to effectively incorporate stakeholder communication into the design process.
5.2 Design by science The existence of these issues is not a recent problem. As mentioned earlier in this paper, scholars such as Alexander (1964) pointed out the importance of developing more structures and tools to allow designers to more effectively visualise design problems and sharpen their conception of what the design process involves. This approach calls on the design process to be more open to inspection and to critical and scientific evaluation.
1945
Min Hi Chun
Recently ergonomists developed evidence-based design approaches which use data about collective human behaviour in the built environment to understand usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs and use analysis based on this to support decision making process in the design process. These approaches use various analytical tools and computer generated visualisations such as Space Syntax, Social Network Analysis, pre-and post-occupancy evaluation and Generative Design. There also have been significant developments in evidence-based healthcare design and planning strategies in the NHS in the UK. For example, the NHS commissioned the development of an evidence database and different design tools to support the design process of NHS healthcare building projects, including ASPECT (A Staff/Patient Environment Calibration Tool), AEDET (Achieving Excellence Design Evaluation Toolkit), IDEA (Inspiring Design Excellence and Achievements) and more recently DQI (Design Quality Indicator) for health for design quality improvement (Phiri, 2015).
5.3 Collaborative approach In contrast to design by science approaches, collaborative approaches call on direct user engagement in the design process to overcome the problems in the briefing and design process faced when using design by drawing approaches. As Latham (1994) and Sanders and Stappers (2008) suggested, users, clients and designers must discuss issues and solutions together in the design process to produce better buildings. This approach uses new techniques for better communication and engagement with clients and users to generate new ideas and visualise future spaces and buildings. For example, an on-site â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;design festivalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; event can be used to engage users and clients in generating ideas by, for example, using post-it notes to collect suggestions on a large three dimensional model of the project, issue lists to help people priorities concerns and possible solutions themselves, and interactive media to record comments and analyse findings on a digital map and so on (The Architecture Foundation, 2000). Techniques such as workshops, gaming and a virtual reality setting are also applied to identify the crucial aspects of the problem or positive aspects of the existing space and building, make them explicit, and suggest alternative courses of action for comment by the non-designer participant (Lawson, 1980). It would therefore claim to incorporate the user more closely in the process, and to not privilege the expertise of the designer over that of the user (Lawson, 1980: p30).
6. Discussion The architecture profession is both aiming to produce aesthetic value in the buildings they design and organising the space within them to accommodate human activities. An architect is both a creative artist who needs to design a building that is visually beautiful and distinctive to other buildings to create originality and a utilitarian profession who needs to create buildings that are able to accommodate human activities, make sense for the people who use it and fulfil its functions effectively. The problem facing the architecture profession is ensuring that both of these outcomes can be achieved, which is not certain to be the case in the design by drawing approach.
1946
Challenges in co-designing a building
There have been a number of different developments in design approaches aiming to tackle these issues, such as the design by science approaches and collaborative approaches outlined in this paper. In design by science approaches, researchers use a range of techniques to understand the needs of users and architects and designers use this evidence about the objective components of space and buildings to help ensure the buildings that they design fit the people who will be using them. By doing this, these approaches try to bridge the uncertainty about architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; professional judgment towards their design and increase the clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; trust towards the design outcome for their expensive long-term investment. In collaborative approaches, users are actively engaged in the design process to incorporate their perceptual and cognitive evaluations of space and buildings. These approaches use a range of techniques to allow users to express their subjective spatial experience and desires. By doing this, usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; subjective conceptions of space and building are incorporated into the design process. The question is why this subjectivity matters: both what it can add to the design process and the potential risks that using such approaches could give rise to in how effectively the building fulfils its functions. There is growing emphasis on the impact of the built environment on subjective wellbeing, for instance, in spatial design of housing for ageing populations. As Halpern (1995) mentioned, the ability to control the environment is of great importance as the negative impact of environmental stressors is greatly reduced when people feel that they have control over them. The involvement of people is important not only because of the acceptability of final decisions but also because the process of involvement itself. Samuel et al (2014) also state that the importance of process-orientated participatory practice for wellbeing and stressed that participatory practice is a key part of the architects role. However, this approach shifts a focus from the role of the building itself and its design quality to the design process and the performance of the organisation that uses the building, meaning that the focus is often on the integration between the design of built space, technical systems and organisation of work (Granath, 2001; Mills., et al 2015).
7. Conclusions and next steps This paper explored the challenges faced in implementing co-design approaches to building design. It explored the impact that co-design approaches have on the role of actors, the design outcomes and tools and methods by comparing it with other approaches. The paper found that there are at least three significant challenges involved in using co-design approaches to design a building. Firstly, there are challenges in managing the changing role of actors in co-design approaches compared with more traditional approaches. The architecture profession is highly skilled and qualifying to become an architect requires extensive training and subject to the successful completion of a number of examinations need to be passed with the aim of ensuring that all architects are able to exercise good professional judgement and their ethical responsibility
1947
Min Hi Chun
to act on behalf of society. If co-design approaches are to be successful, architects need to be able to effectively integrate usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lived experience with their own professional judgement on functional matters to be able to create buildings that can effectively fulfil their functions. A further question is what kind of skills architects need to successfully co-design a building with users and how that differs to that required in more traditional approaches? Secondly, there are challenges for architects and designers in deciding which of the various tools and methods developed in participatory architecture to use at different design stages 1 and for different types of project. According to Sanders and Stappers (2014) there are three different types of participatory method - cultural probes, toolkits and prototypes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and these are aiming for different outcomes and are used at different stages of the design process. For example probes and toolkits are for the early stage of the design process, and prototypes are used in the design and construction stage of the process. Thirdly, there are challenges in ensuring that a high-quality design outcome is achieved in co-design approaches. As this approach tends to focus less attention on the role of the building itself and its design quality, how can architects and designers involved in the project manage the design quality and ensure they discharge their professional responsibility to create buildings that can effectively fulfil their functions. A number of further challenges can also be identified. For example, it may be difficult for architects to manage the input of different users into the design process where there is conflict between different user groups. The co-design process would be relatively straightforward if there is one user group (e.g. in a house building project) but more complicated if there are several different user groups in the same building project with conflicting needs, (e.g. in a hospital building). Deciding how to prioritise different user interests where they are in conflict with one another and trade them off against each other is a difficult task. Another challenge is ensuring that those users who are engaged in the design process and the opinions they express are representative of the entire user group. This paper explored the challenges faced in implementing co-design approaches to building design through reviewing the literature around the development of the architecture profession and by comparing different design approaches. The questions that are raised here will be explored further through a case study of user-engagement in a hospital design project. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my reviewers for their very helpful comments and advice on earlier drafts of this paper.
8. References Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Oxford University Press. Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D., & Till, J. (2009). Architecture and Participation. Tayor & Francis. 1
For example, RIBA Plan of Work 2013 organizes the building design project into a number of key stages; Stage 0 (Strategic Definition), Stage 1 (Preparation and Brief), Stage 2 (Concept design), Stage 3 (Developed design), Stage 4 (Technical Design), Stage 5 (Construction), Stage 6 (Handover and close out), Stage 7 (In use).
1948
Challenges in co-designing a building
Broome, J. (1986). THE SEGAL METHOD.pdf. The Architect’s Journal. Collinge, W. H., & Harty, C. (2013). Evolving designs and stakeholder contributions to the briefing process. Procs 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, (September), 137–146. Creative Spaces/ a toolkit for participatory urban design. (2000). The Architecture Foundation. Crinson, M., & Lubbock, J. (1994). Architecture: art or profession? Manchester University Press. Cross, N. (1971). Design Participation. Academy Editions Ltd. Darley, G. (1999). John Soane: An Accidental Romantic. Yale University Press. Duffy, F., & Rabeneck, A. (2013). Professionalism and architects in the 21st century Professionalism and architects in the 21st century. http://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.724541 Dursun, P. (2007). Space syntax in architectural design. Space Syntax Symposium, (1990), 12. http://doi.org/10.1068/b030147 Garde, J., & van der Voort, M. (2009). The Design of a new NICU Patient Area: Combining Design for Usability and Design for Emotion. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/502/ Granath, J. (2001). Architecture-Participation of users in design activities. Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, 1–5. Retrieved from http://www.design4change.com/LinkedDocuments/Architecture - Participation of users in design activities.pdf Halpern, D. (1995). Mental Health and the Built Environment. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Hertzberger, H. (1991). Lessons for Students in Architecture. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010 Publishers. Hillier, B. (2004). Space is the machine. Space Syntax. Hofmann, S. (2014). Architecture is participation. Berlin: Jovis. Iversen, O. S., & Dindler, C. (2014). Sustaining participatory design initiatives. CoDesign, 10(3-4), 153– 170. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.963124 Jenso, M. Hansen, G K. Haugen, T, I. (2004). 050421 Usability of buildings-Hong-Kong-rev. Latham, M. (1994). CONSTRUCTING THE TEAM. Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. Elsevier Ltd. Mills, G. R. W., Phiri, M., Erskine, J., & Price, A. D. F. (2015). Rethinking healthcare building design quality: an evidence-based strategy. Building Research and Information, 43(February 2016), 499– 515. http://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2015.1033880 Nilsson, B., Peterson, B., Holden, G., & Eckert, C. (2011). Design Med Omtanke: Participation and sustainability in the design of public sector buildings. Design Studies, 32(3), 235–254. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.002 Phiri, M. (2015). Design Tools for Evidence-Based Healthcare Design. Routledge. RIBA. Charter and Byelaws (1837). RIBA. Royal Institute of British Architects: Code of Professional Conduct (2005). Rizzo, F. (2010). Co-Design versus User Centred Design: Framing the differences. In Notes on Doctoral Research in Design. Sailer, K., Budgen, a, Lonsdale, N., Turner, a, & Penn, a. (2008). Evidence-based design: theoretical and practical reflections of an emerging approach in office architecture. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/87859/ Sailer, K., Budgen, A., Lonsdale, N., & Penn, A. (2007). Changing the Architectural Profession – Evidence-Based Design , the New Role of the User and a Process-Based Approach. “Ethics and the Professional Culture,” 1–11.
1949
Min Hi Chun
Sailer, K., Budgen, A., Lonsdale, N., Turner, A., & Penn, A. (2010). Pre and Post Occupancy Evaluations in Workplace Environments. Journal of Space Syntax, (July). Samuel, F., Awan, N., Butterworth, C., Handler, S., & Lintonbon, J. (2014). Cultural Value of Architecture in Homes and Neighbourhoods. Retrieved from http://www.culturalvalueofarchitecture.org/#!database/cj5l Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. Codesign-International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 10(February 2015), 5–14. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183 Sanoff, H. (2006). Multiple views of participatory design. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, (1965), 131–143. Retrieved from http://jfa.arch.metu.edu.tr/archive/02585316/2006/cilt23/sayi_2/131_143.pdf Schön, A. D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tunstall, G. (2000). Managing the building design process. Butterworth-Heinemann. Vaajakallio, K., Lee, J., & Mattelmäki, T. (2009). It has to be a group work!: co-design with children. … on Interaction Design and Children, (October 2015), 3–6. http://doi.org/http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1551788.1551843 Van Schaik, L. (2005). Mastering Architecture. Becoming a Creative Innovator in Practice. Chichester: Wiley-Academy.
About the Author: Min Hi Chun is a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading carrying out research in user engagement in hospital building design projects.
1950
SECTION 12 DESIGN PROCESS
This page is left intentionally blank
Form as an abstraction of mechanism Lewis Urquhart* and Andrew Wodehouse University of Strathclyde *lewis.urquhart@strath.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.78
Abstract: There is an emergent body of research linking the nature of form to design, functionality and user experience. This paper builds on these recent studies to propose a new approach connecting conceptual-design with advanced manufacturing techniques. Using the properties of work materials and advanced forming manufacturing processes, radical approaches to design and production could be open to designers and engineers, offering novel modes of user experience. By firstly reviewing the literature on product form and its bond with the concepts within the fields of user interaction and user experience, a number of â&#x20AC;&#x153;functional mechanismsâ&#x20AC;? are introduced that could potentially be integrated into this new and more homogeneous manufacturing framework. Keywords: Form, materials, interaction, manufacturing
1. Background Modern manufacturing technology presents designers and engineers exciting possibilities in the expression of form and function. Prominent examples include increasing sophistication of computer numerically controlled (CNC) forming technology, incremental sheet forming and 3D printing technologies. These processes present very good capabilities in terms of geometric forming options â&#x20AC;&#x201C; particularly 5 axis CNC milling machine configurations, which have the ability to create complex freeform surfaces directly applicable to many consumer products. Despite the manufacturing parameters being relatively well understood, what is less closely considered within the design research community is how these processes can be used to produce particular product experiences for the user. The central aim of this work is to address this by proposing a new framework for manufacturing practices where mechanism and functionality can be articulated through form and material properties. Bridging the gulf between design knowledge and the more technical knowledge associated
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
with manufacturing engineering, potentially creating novel experiences for the users of products. “User experience” (UX) is an area of research that is still being developed and systematised (Vermeeren, Law, & Roto, 2010). Previously, a designer was said only to deal with the “aesthetic elements” of a product and plan how to construct its form. For the great designer and artist Bruno Munari, a designer was a “mediator between art and society” (Munari, 1966). Recent developments suggest this view is shifting somewhat – changing to a product interaction perspective, where the success or failure of a product rests on its interaction and experiential qualities. Interaction design (ID) is the process of designing whereby the user interaction with the product is expressly focused upon and enhanced. The modern approach was pioneered by Bill Moggridge in the 1980’s, developing concurrently with advances in computer technology, encompassing not just interaction with physical objects but elements of human-computer interaction (Moggridge, 2007). The developing Computer Aided Design (CAD) technology additionally allowed designers to experiment with form and function in different ways, to some extent expanding the control the designer had. It can be argued that CAD technology has had a significant impact on the development of ID by facilitating advanced processes such as CNC machining and additive manufacturing – expanding the lexicon of form that could be feasibly manufactured. Form, however must be meaningfully defined in order to understand this process fully.
2. Defining form Form is an abstract concept and is thus difficult to define absolutely. Generally it can be described as the geometric boundaries of a particular object. More specifically, form can be abstracted to an idea known as curvature continuity. Curvature continuity is a geometric concept that makes up part of the theories of smoothness in mathematical analytics. What is called G-0 continuity is “positional”, where two surfaces share a single defined edge. G-1 continuity is “tangent” where the surfaces share an edge but there is no discernible break in the transition from one surface to the next. G-2 continuity, or “curvature” continuity is defined by surface planes having equivalent rates of curvature before joining – in this way the points of surface transition become theoretically undefinable (Foster & Halbstein, 2014). Figure 1 illustrates the differences between the geometric structures, listed as C0, C1 and C2 respectively. These geometrical definitions are a ubiquitous feature of CAD programming.
Figure 1: Curvature continuity, taken from “A Periodic Table of Form” (Holland, 2009)
1954
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
In an objective sense, the C2 curve has the smoothest surface. This has been directly related to design within the framework of “concinnity”. Two types of concinnity are considered, objective – which speeds the process of pattern finding or intelligibility of interacting with a product form example and subjective – defined as logical emotional cues that speed up the mental processing of an object’s meaning (Coates, 2014). A sphere can be said to have the maximum amount of objective concinnity in a three-dimensional environment given its bilateral symmetry across any central axis (Coates, 2003).
2.1 Relating form to design Some methods have chosen to take an emotive approach to the construction of form in the knowledge that successful products engage the user at an emotional level (Crilly, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2004). At the cognitive level, emotions serve as an “adaptive function” that can be affected by interaction with form – this event is conceptualised as an appraisal (Arnold, 1960). Over the past three decades, research has accumulated illustrating the importance of form in the context of user experience and how successful products are economically (see Bloch, 1995). Recent work has suggested that the form of an object articulates “interaction aesthetics” and “interaction affordances” (Xenakis & Arnellos, 2013). The interaction aesthetic influences the selection of best action possibilities with respect to an object’s characteristics through a process of dynamic presupposition of interaction.
3. Relationships with User Experience 3.1 Historical context Form and function have a very close relationship in design – one often informing the other. The radical design philosophies of the Bauhaus school in 1920’s Germany tried to purge the notion of the form informing the function in any sense, dogmatically committed to the rationalist idea that form must follow the function (Droste & Bauhaus-Archiv, 2002). What is ironic is the powerful aesthetic that emerged from the Bauhaus and other modernist movements – the pieces became more recognised as articulations in form than an expression of function. Many design movements throughout the history of mass produced consumer goods have influenced aspects of what has come to be known as user experience. The iconic Burgon and Ball, “Drummer Boy” sheep shears of 1730 (Figure 2), a design which has remained largely unchanged for over 270 years, are an excellent example of innovation that delivered a uniquely functional user experience. Industrial developments in metal forming in early 18th century England meant that sheet metal could be manipulated in such a way as to induce elastic feedback through hot rolling techniques. The function was in many ways derived from the form. Interestingly, it is the manufacturing process and material properties that allow the form to be expressed at all. The processes can be seen as a harbinger of functional and usability potential. A similar effect can be seen in the work of the Bauhaus school two centuries later through the work of two of its most prominent designers.
1955
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
Figure 2: Burgon and Ball sheep shears, circa 1730
Marcel Bruer and Mies van der Rohn created some of the most radical chair designs ever seen by utilising the new tubular steel components. Bruer’s “Model B32” chair for example used a revolutionary cantilever support to carry the weight of the sitter (Fiell & Fiell, 1999). Van der Rohn’s chair from the same period used a similar principle (Figure 3). Of fundamental importance is how these new expressions of form delivered distinct avenues of user experience underpinned by particular interactive elements. Also shown is David Mellor’s 700 series chair produced almost fifty years later, illustrating the lasting influence of the Bauhaus school’s techniques.
Figure 3: Marcel Bruer, Cesca armchair, 1925 (left) Mies van der Rohn, MR chair, 1927 (middle), David Mellor, Abacus 700 series chair, 1975 (right)
3.2 Interactions in design Form can express particular interaction properties; the Burgon and Ball sheep shears for instance (functionally) relied heavily on elastic feedback which was quite directly defined by the form of the sheet metal. The study and application of Interaction Design have since influenced a huge number of consumer products. The principle is presented as a five dimensional model: 1) Words, representing semantics or meaning of the user’s interaction; 2) Visual representations, referring to elements that are not within a product, mainly graphics and typography; 3) Physical object or space, referring to the tangible means of control i.e. mechanical controls or digital interfaces; 4) Time, simply how much time the user spends during a given interaction; 5) Behaviour, defined as the users’ reactions to particular interaction elements implicit within a design (Moggridge, 2007). The five dimensions have applications across different fields and for different product types, digital systems as opposed to mechanical components for example. One of the central concepts is kinetic feedback. In a mechanical sense, feedback has been shown to be hugely
1956
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
important with respect to user interaction with products. Some work has shown for example how simple haptic feedback mechanisms using vibration can help guide a user to greater understanding of the product (Rogers, Sharp, & Preece, 2011). A notable example is a device developed dubbed the “MusicJacket” that uses this principle to help prospective musicians learn the violin (van der Linden, Schoonderwaldt, Bird, & Johnson, 2011). Other work has used haptic feedback to improve keyboard typing experiences, considering user behaviours and not simply functional aspects of the design (Wu & Smith, 2015).
3.3 Form and affordances The concept of affordance has a close connection to form, interaction and geometrical relationships. With respect to the physical form of an object, research has focused on how users attribute meaning to a geometric structure. This was originally conceptualised by James Gibson in the 1970’s as part of his work on visual perception. Gibson described an affordance as “action possibilities” latent in an object or environment (Gibson, 1979). Norman (1988) and Gaver (1991) additionally expanded the concept. Norman describes two categories of affordance; real and perceived. “Real” affordances are physical characteristics that allow some kind of operation as opposed to “perceived” affordances which are visual clues regarding how a device or object is used (Norman, 1988). Gaver’s work, alternatively proposes four “situations” of affordance; perceptible affordance, false affordance, correct rejection and hidden affordances (Gaver, 1991). This framework is illustrated below in Figure 4 – a fully perceptible and true affordance is one where an affordance exists and there is information available to establish this truth.
Figure 4: Situations of affordance – adapted (Gaver 1991)
The concept has continued to be explored extensively in a design context partly due to the prominence the graphical interface now has in modern civilisation. The graphical interface
1957
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
and indeed, its relationship with physical components will be an important consideration for future designers. Norman (1999) points out for example that there are both logical and physical constraints associated with affordances, understanding of which will be valuable. The concept of affordances in design can generally be seen as a critical component in any functional interaction and has implications for any theories of interaction and form.
3.4 Eliciting emotion As described earlier, emotions serve as a form of adaptive function that can be affected by interactions with objects. More specifically, an appraisal event is defined as a response to both an object’s form and function, acting as a precursor to an emotional reaction (Frijda, 1986). Research work in this area has been growing steadily in recent decades (Desmet & Hekkert, 2014). Seminal work by Norman for example has proposed three forms of emotional design; the visceral, the behavioural and the reflective (Norman, 2004). Other models have focused on a number of key parameters that emotive response is a function of; appraisal, concern, product and emotion (Desmet, 2003). Principally, it is clear that the user’s emotive experience of a designed system can have a profound effect on the overall success of a product. Alberto Mantilla’s salt and pepper shakers (Figure 5) are a paradigmatic example of emotion used to enhance a product experience with the form explicitly expressing love and compassion. One study has proposed that positive emotive responses can be derived from how the form relates to the function. If, it is suggested, the form seems to articulate “exciting” features, then the design will have a more positive response at the emotional level, inducing a so called “WOW!” response from the user (Desmet, Porcelijn, & van Dijk, 2005).
Figure 5: Hug Salt & Pepper Shakers, Alberto Mantilla
4. Defining functional interactions A number of examples have been explored in the previous sections concerning how form can influence and in some cases define the function of a product. Modern technological
1958
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
products rely heavily on a large range of mechanistic structures in order to function fully. For example, the push-button - despite being a ubiquitous electro-mechanical component – has only come to prominence over the last century where huge arrays of consumer goods started to require systems of mechanical feedback. By looking at a range of consumer products, this section will identify a number of tangible mechanical/functional interactions that play important roles in modern design and have since acquired some cultural significance.
4.1 Interaction mediums and mechanisms By broadly examining a small range of consumer products, it is clear that mechanistic structures and components play a significant role in the nature of modern design. This section will identify a range of discrete interaction mechanisms and mediums and deconstruct their respective significance in a user interaction context. Other work has already gone some length to categorise distinct functional controls understood from the perspective of affordances (You & Chen, 2007) but, it is limited to the deconstruction of a single product with multiple command switches (stereo cassette recorder). The approach taken here will look at a wider range of products from a more functionalist perspective. Four distinct interaction mechanism classes were identified; pressing configurations, folding configurations, twisting or turning configurations and compressible configurations. 4.1.1 Pressing configurations One of the most commonly seen mechanisms within consumer products and industrial technology is a pressing mechanism. The push-button has become a ubiquitous component, universally understood – as You & Chen (2007) put it, the structure of the object has “pressability”. This relates to Gaver’s (1991) framework for affordances; a button displays perceptual information, intelligible to a user, and presents an affordance opportunity creating a real perceptible affordance. Below shows a small sample of consumer products in which button-like mechanisms play an important role (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Buttons used in consumer products (Clockwise from top left – Apple iPod, Nokia push-button mobile telephone, standard calculator interface, emergency stop button, Toshiba laptop keyboard)
1959
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
As a mechanical and electrical component, the button is incredibly modular taking on a huge variety of forms. It has been suggested that the form of a push button, when recognised, has distinct semantic meaning depending on its configuration within a product structure or a piece of information that explains what the button does (a play or pause symbol for example). In understanding the form of the object, a user can then manipulate it accordingly and receive feedback of a certain form (Krippendorff & Butter, 1984). The extent of the buttonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cultural significance can be seen in the prevalence of skeuomorphic design archetypes where a digital interface might mimic real-world objects (Derboven, De Roeck, & Verstraete, 2012). 4.1.2 Folding configurations Collapsibility and space saving features are a common trait in many modern day products. The furniture manufacturers Ikea for instance aim to flat pack all of their designs. The ability to fold to either adapt the form of an object for functional reasons or as a space saving measure can be a vital characteristic for the success of a design. At Figure 7 a variety of folding structures are displayed. One of the most commonly used examples of a folding structure is that of the modern laptop computer. Due to the demands of modern-day work, computing power needed to be portable. The simple fold down the middle of the product, usually facilitated by a simple hinge mechanism allows the computerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total surface area to reduce by half. This effect is seen more radically in the case of collapsible chairs, lamps or perambulators which can reduce in size by approximately three quarters.
Figure 7: Folding mechanisms used in consumer products (Left to right â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Anglepoise lamp, Apple Macbook computer, spectacles collapsing)
Notably, the folding structure of these products in many ways articulates the form of the product. In a collapsed state, the form is latent within the object. When a book, a lamp or a chair is manipulated or unfolded, a new form is articulated that also provides a function for the user, new affordance options and windows of user experience. 4.1.3 Turning configurations Variety in component and product form can be associated with distinct meanings and distinct emotions for the user (Desmet, 2012). Turning or twisting structures are often used within the design of electronic interfaces to articulate specific functions or produce a subtle emotional experience, a volume control dial often uses a twisting mechanism as opposed to
1960
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
a button push for example. A number of examples are shown at Figure 8. The twisting of a digital camera lens creates functional feedback in the form of focusing the image that the user is observing through the screen interface. Similarly, the turning of a door knob facilitates the door opening or the turning of knobs on an instrument amplifier will alter aspect of the soundwaves produced. Turning mechanisms are also used as a directional modulator in robotic automation systems or TV and computer monitors for example.
Figure 8: Twisting mechanisms used in consumer products (Left to right â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Nikon SLR digital camera focusing, turning door knob, instrument amplifier knobs)
4.1.4 Compressible configurations Compressibility is an essential element of many products, although it is seen less often than pressing or folding structures. The principle elements are object change, movement or deformation caused by a certain mechanical event. An armchair for example achieves particular aspects of its function by allowing its structure to compress when a weight is applied. Other examples shown at Figure 9 derive their function purely from the ability to compress and manipulate their forms in particular ways â&#x20AC;&#x201C; when a small amount of compressive force is applied to open scissors, the product will facilitate cutting, and similarly a stapler will complete a mechanical operation that releases a staple when a compressive force is applied.
Figure 9: Compressive mechanisms used in consumer products (Left to right â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Biro pen release mechanism, scissors, latch mechanism on a bag strap, stapler)
There are other examples that could be examined within the classes of functional mechanisms in addition to the examples explored in the previous sections. These were selected on the basis that they are very commonly seen in a wide range of consumer goods.
1961
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
This goes some way to help categorise distinct functional characteristics that have a strong connection to user interaction, and these are summarised in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of interaction classes Class of Interaction
Characteristics
Product examples
Pressable configurations
Movement or deformation of the component structure
Push-buttons; mobile phones, cameras, computer keyboards, music devices, interface systems
Folding configurations
Collapsibility of the structure, modulation in shape following an axial plane
Anglepoise lamps, books, laptop computers, folding chairs
Turning configurations
Component can rotate around a central axis
Camera lens focus, door handle, water taps, hi-fi volume control
Components can be squeezed together or deformed to achieve a particular end
Seating, scissors, staplers, springs
Compressible configurations
4.2 Linking form to manufacturing processes What is noticeable about the examples cited in section 4.1 is in most cases the mechanistic structure has only been delivered through the combination of discrete component parts. In a sense the structure or form of the object is not fully homogeneous – a function cannot be produced from the form alone but relies on an assemblage of components. Attempting to abstract mechanism, or an assemblage that produces mechanism by purely using material properties and advanced processing techniques is beginning to be explored in both the practical design world and within academia. One study has explored emotion and interaction in design by exploiting elastic properties of the manufacturing materials - using elastic movement as a means of emotional expression (Niedderer, 2012). The study focuses on manipulating silver through advanced laser welding techniques to enhance its elastic or spring-like properties facilitated by the silver’s relatively low modulus of elasticity. Niedderer (2012), using design emotion focused work from other authors, creates three variations of a design for a fruit bowl – each one utilising the aforementioned elastic properties in distinct ways, but in each, the essential property of elasticity articulates the function of the product. Similar work by Neri Oxman (2012) has proposed a much more technical approach to design where the production materials have adaptive functions, created in a single 3D-printing process. The approach is named “Material Computation” and presents a radical approach to form finding by utilising digital analysis of material properties as a function of environmental and structural performance (Oxman, 2012). One of the prototypes Oxman has developed is a chaise longue named “Beast” produced using an advanced multi-material 3D printing
1962
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
process where the form becomes adaptable to the user, relieving pressure at key compression points.
4.3 The possibilities within advanced manufacturing processes This work has focused on a number of important aspects in design, namely form, function and interaction potential latent within the structure of products. However, as stated previously, these interaction qualities usually are derived from an assemblage of smaller component parts as opposed to a more homogeneous structure. Niedderer (2012) and Oxman (2012) have shown some of the potential for applying advanced material understanding and state-of-the-art processes to achieve new expressions in form. This section will explore the possibilities within advanced manufacturing technology, opening new avenues of form and function. The design phenomenon can be illustrated graphically, where the production process becomes the route or medium of form creation (Figure 10). The character of the form then leading to particular interaction qualities that affect the user.
Figure 10: Proposed design framework
4.3.1 Additive manufacturing Additive manufacturing is one of the most exciting new technologies that is being studied today. It is of particular interest here given its scope in terms of form creation. The process gradually builds a component in layers giving it excellent geometric potential. There are a huge variety of additive manufacturing processes each with weaknesses and strengths. However, in the context of this study some variants have the potential for strong interaction qualities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; novel approaches that are not feasible given other techniques. Multi-material additive manufacturing for instance has a huge amount of potential. The principal quality is the ability to vary material properties where materials can be functionally graded, varying in hardness, flexibility, stiffness, surface texture and colour with the LENS additive process for example (Gao et al., 2015). Exploiting these processes has successfully produced radical pieces of art and multi-component assemblies with compliant (component-less) joints (Meisel, Gaynor, Williams, & Guest, 2013). Additional features include the printing of fully
1963
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
functioning electrical assemblies such as integrated circuits, sensors and other components with piezoelectric properties (Gao et al., 2015). 4.3.2 Computer Numerical Control Manufacturing systems utilising Computer Numerical Control (CNC) range in uses and complexity. Two process have been identified that utilise CNC techniques â&#x20AC;&#x201C; machining and Incremental Sheet Forming (ISF) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which are of interest in this study. The geometric and functional potential of both of these processes have not been explored fully. ISF process is newer and by its nature less predictable, but could potentially offer a broad range in terms of geometric forming options and embedded functional behaviour. In the case of machining, the process has a foundation in positional geometry where a cutting tool is commanded by a computer programme to perform a particular operation in a specifically defined special location (Madison, 1996). A cutting tool can work in multiple axes depending on machine configuration and this presents significant geometrical control for manufacturers, including the creation of freeform complex surfaces (Lasemi, Xue, & Gu, 2010). This offers interaction opportunities in the construction of metal components in particular. Would it be possible to machine very finely a component and achieve functional characteristics from its form? ISF differs fundamentally in not being a subtractive process but uses gradual deformation in sheet metal to form parts. ISF machines are typically integrated with CNC systems and are capable of producing extremely complex geometries in sheet metal although the process is constrained by shear stress properties of the work metals (Bambach, Cannamela, Azaouzi, Hirt, & Batoz, 2007). One research effort, focusing on the formability of aluminium using ISF has been carried out concluding that the formability of a sheet depends greatly on the material strain path (Shim & Park, 2001). Similar work has tested uniformity of sheet metal thicknesses and created a theoretical model of thickness strain distribution post forming (Kim & Yang, 2000). The study used complex geometries akin to freeform surfaces to test the validity of the model and was able to derive an accurate picture of strain distribution, this is shown below where the darker sections indicate higher strain forces (Figure 11). Might it be possible to isolate regions of a sheet metal using ISF to create mechanistic features, elastic flexibility in specified areas that have been subjected to a specific strain distribution for example?
Figure 11: Strain distribution on section of formed part using varying ISF forming methods (Kim & Yang, 2000)
1964
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
5. Towards abstracting mechanism into form A number of interactive mechanisms were identified that are commonly seen in modern consumer products including pressable, folding, turning and compressible structures. Firstly considering pressable structures - as detailed earlier the most common example of this phenomenon is the push-button. With respect to the framework introduced, what we must ask here is whether advanced processes can be used to create the mechanistic properties of a button in a single material â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the mechanism latent within the form of the component. Two examples have been proposed and are shown below (Figure 12), using thin-walled structures to induce flex characteristics. Using materials with distinct properties such as a low elastic modulus, particular forms â&#x20AC;&#x201C; using defined form guidelines like the three modes of curvature continuity described in section 2 - could be created that would potentially exhibit mechanistic qualities. Structures similar to the ones presented could conceivably be created using any of the advanced manufacturing processes mentioned in section 4.3 and experimental work would be required to determine which form, material and which process would give positive results. The proposed pressable structures shown at Figure 12 could conceivably be manufactured a number of ways. Subtraction from a piece of solid material (metal or plastics) would present challenges in terms of attaining thin walled cross sectional areas but may be the most economically viable option. The parts could also be made by additive manufacturing or using ISF, however, these pose respective problems in terms of structural integrity of the work materials and geometric capability of the process (see Ceretti, Giardini, & Attanasio, 2004 for more detail). Such an experiment would be valuable, both to test the capabilities of CNC technology and also to examine the functional characteristics of the formed components.
Figure 12: Pressable structures
Foldable structures were the second interaction mechanism identified. Creating a homogeneous part that can fold in the manner of a hinge poses some fundamental problems mostly in terms of fatigue life. Multi-material 3D printing has the potential to create such structures as has already been demonstrated by Meisel and others (2013) with the development of compliant joints. Subtractive CNC machining methods could also be applied here and such a study (especially with a focus on metal machining) would be a worthwhile conceptual examination. The concepts in Figure 13 could theoretically fold over themselves but would need to be carefully considered structurally and mechanically. It can be envisioned that a structure similar to those shown would replace the casing of a laptop computer; making the object more homogeneous, a function latent within the form.
1965
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
Figure 13: Folding structures
Lastly, compressible structures and turning structures were proposed as interaction mechanisms. These forms pose some challenges and are not as frequently seen amongst consumer products. With respect to compressible structures, it is proposed that something akin to a folding structure, subtracted from a piece of solid material using CNC machining methods could conceivably create a compressible structure (see Figure 14a). Such a component would pose challenges in terms of fatigue life, but an investigation examining the use of different materials and form variations may be worth considering. Multi-material additive manufacturing could facilitate a turning mechanism of some description. Considering the bottom image Figure 14b, if a component part was manufactured using an additive process with a flexible material variant positioned centrally, a simple twisting or turning movement could be achieved. There is scope to utilise these formations in sectors such as consumer electronics, reducing parts and making available novel forms of interaction for the user of a device. Additive manufacturing techniques are also suited to creating compressible structures â&#x20AC;&#x201C; if a component had gradations in structural hardness, discrete compressible sections could potentially become part of a larger homogeneous structure.
Figure 14: Compressible (a) and turning (b) structures
1966
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
6. Conclusions This paper initially examined the literature concerning the theories of form and user experience and introduced a categorisation of differing interaction modes with consumer products by focusing on a number of key mechanisms. These types of interactions were categorised as a function of a reliant mechanism and defined as “configurations” that facilitated a particular user interaction; pressable configurations, folding configurations, turning configurations and compressible configurations. From here an examination of several state-of-the-art processes was carried out. There was an explicit focus on processes that provided excellent geometric capabilities (CNC machining and additive techniques) and those that could very directly change the properties of the workpiece (ISF and multi-material additive techniques). With respect to these manufacturing techniques, a number of form explorations were proposed with the aim of creating mechanistic but homogeneous structures from forming material in a particular way. Pressable structures that flex and deform could be produced using a very accurate CNC machining process or ISF. It was proposed folding structures could be created with accurate CNC processes, however the geometric structure would have to be considered very carefully and both compressible and turning forms could be created using additive techniques, producing homogeneous mechanistic configurations. More work is needed in this area of engineering. The relationship between materials, key manufacturing processes and form is too often ignored. We therefore propose focusing primarily on how variations in form and manufacturing process can enhance design functionality and user experience. Successfully integrating these would expand the lexicon of design understanding and the possibilities within the engineering of mechanisms.
7. References Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and Personality, Volume 1. Columbia University Press. Bambach, M., Cannamela, M., Azaouzi, M., Hirt, G., & Batoz, J. L. (2007). Computer-Aided Tool Path Optimization. Strategies. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16. doi:10.2307/1252116 Ceretti, E., Giardini, C., & Attanasio, A. (2004). Experimental and simulative results in sheet incremental forming on CNC machines. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 152(2), 176– 184. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.03.024 Coates, D. (2003). Watches Tell More Than Time: Product Design, Information, and the Quest for Elegance. McGraw-Hill. Coates, D. (2014). Advances in Affective and Pleasurable Design (p. 535). Independent Publisher. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001 Derboven, J., De Roeck, D., & Verstraete, M. (2012). Semiotic analysis of multi-touch interface design: The MuTable case study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(10), 714–728. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.05.005
1967
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
Desmet, P. M. A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. Design Journal, The, 6(PART 2), 4–13. doi:10.2752/146069203789355480 Desmet, P. M. A. (2012). Faces of product pleasure: 25 positive emotions in human-product interactions. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 1–29. Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2014). Special Issue Editorial : Design & Emotion. Desmet, P. M. A., Porcelijn, R., & van Dijk, M. (2005). How to design wow. Introducing a layeredemotional approach. Proceedings of the Conference Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven, (2005), 71–89. Droste, M., & Bauhaus-Archiv. (2002). Bauhaus, 1919-1933. Taschen. Fiell, C., & Fiell, P. (1999). Design of the 20th century. Taschen. Foster, S., & Halbstein, D. (2014). Integrating 3D Modeling, Photogrammetry and Design. Springer Science & Business Media. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The Emotions. Cambridge University Press. Gao, W., Zhang, Y., Ramanujan, D., Ramani, K., Chen, Y., Williams, C. B., … Zavattieri, P. D. (2015). The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Computer-Aided Design, 69, 65–89. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2015.04.001 Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Reaching through Technology - CHI ’91, 79–84. doi:10.1145/108844.108856 Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition (Vol. 20). Psychology Press. Holland, G. (2009). A periodic Table of Form: The secret language of surface and meaning in product design. Kim, T. ., & Yang, D. . (2000). Improvement of formability for the incremental sheet metal forming process. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 42(7), 1271–1286. doi:10.1016/S00207403(99)00047-8 Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1984). Product Semantics: Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form. Innovations, 3(1984), 4–9. Lasemi, A., Xue, D., & Gu, P. (2010). Recent development in CNC machining of freeform surfaces: A state-of-the-art review. CAD Computer Aided Design, 42(7), 641–654. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2010.04.002 Madison, J. (1996). CNC Machining Handbook: Basic Theory, Production Data, and Machining Procedures. Industrial Press Inc. Meisel, N. A., Gaynor, A., Williams, C. B., & Guest, J. K. (2013). Multiple-Material Topology Optimization of Compliant Mechanisms Created Via PolyJet 3D Printing. Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 980–997. doi:10.1115/1.4028439 Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing Interactions. MIT Press. Munari, B. (1966). Design as Art. Penguin Books. Niedderer, K. (2012). Exploring Elastic Movement as a Medium for Complex Emotional Expression in Silver Design. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 57–69. Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43. doi:10.1145/301153.301168 Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books.
1968
Form as an abstraction of mechanism
Oxman, N. (2012). Material Computation. Manufacturing the Bespoke: Making and Prototyping Architecture, 256–265. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction Design: Beyond Human - Computer Interaction (Vol. 6). John Wiley & Sons. Shim, M. S., & Park, J. J. (2001). The formability of aluminum sheet in incremental forming. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 113(1-3), 654–658. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(01)00679-3 van der Linden, J., Schoonderwaldt, E., Bird, J., & Johnson, R. (2011). MusicJacket—Combining Motion Capture and Vibrotactile Feedback to Teach Violin Bowing. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 60(1), 104–113. doi:10.1109/TIM.2010.2065770 Vermeeren, A., Law, E., & Roto, V. (2010). User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. Proceedings: NordiCHI 2010, 521–530. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868973 Wu, C.-M., & Smith, S. (2015). A haptic keypad design with a novel interactive haptic feedback method. Journal of Engineering Design, 26(4-6), 169–186. doi:10.1080/09544828.2015.1030372 Xenakis, I., & Arnellos, A. (2013). The relation between interaction aesthetics and affordances. Design Studies, 34(1), 57–73. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.05.004 You, H., & Chen, K. (2007). Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Design Studies, 28(1), 23–38. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.002
7.1 Image references Images sources online with permissions are as follows, including the image description and the source site; - Burgon and Ball sheep shears: http://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/ideal-instruments-burgon-ball-sheepshears?cm_vc=-10005 (with permission from Burgeon and Ball) -
Marcel Bruer B32 chair: http://www.knoll.com/ (with permission from Knoll)
-
Mies van der Rohn armchair: http://www.knoll.com/ (with permission from Knoll)
-
David Mellor chair: With permission from and provided by David Mellor Design
-
Hug salt and pepper shakers: With permission from and provided by Alberto Mantilla
All other images are either original photos or drawings by the authors or taken from freely available stock photographs. All images are free for commercial and personal use, do not infringe on any copyright and are sourced from the following online sites; - https://www.pexels.com/ The images sourced are as follows; Apple Macbook -
http://www.freeimages.com/ The images sourced are as follows; Apple iPod, Nokia phone, standard calculator, emergency stop button, modern scissors, stapler, Nikon camera, instrument amplifier
1969
Lewis Urquhart and Andrew Wodehouse
About the Authors: Lewis Urquhart is an Engineering Doctorate student in the department of Design Manufacture and Engineering Management. His research primarily focuses on unifying manufacturing engineering with understanding in user experience and design interaction. Andrew Wodehouse is a Senior Lecturer with research interests in product interaction, creativity and design innovation. He has led EPSRC, AHRC, KTP and Carnegie Trust projects across these areas.
1970
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process: An Ethnographic Study in Architectural Practice in Egypt Ramy Bakira* and Sherif Abdelmohsenb,c a
Arab Academy for Science and Technology The American University in Cairo C Ain Shams University * ramy.bakir@gmail.com DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.133 b
Abstract: Design and building technology are widely separated in the architectural professional practice, an issue often discernible in developing countries. Architects mostly acknowledge building materials and technology as facilitators for design near final design stages; a process that might dismiss many of the benefits that could have been attained were it engaged early on within a framework of informed appropriation of technology. This paper presents the findings of an ethnographic study that investigates how this gap could be bridged by means of understanding how nanotechnology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both as process and product â&#x20AC;&#x201C; affects designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rationale early on in the design process. The study provides a thick description of the design decision making process of a group of architects working on a residential project in an architectural firm in Egypt, and how it was affected by nanotechnology design knowledge at early design stages. Keywords: Integrated Design Process; Nano-enhanced applications; Architectural Practice in Egypt; Ethnography
Introduction Nano-enhanced applications have been affecting the field of building technology for nearly two decades now, and have ever since been responsible for enhancements that overarch several crucial architectural attributes, such as structural engineering (Bartos, et al 2004), aesthetics (Ritter 2006), safety (Leydecker 2008), and environmental performance (Bakir 2013). Such applications were developed based on nanoscience and nanotechnology, and have been used in numerous buildings worldwide, and even in developing countries in Africa This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
(Bakir 2011). These enhancements were feasible due to the ability to control matter on the molecular scale. This allowed nano-enhanced materials to be tailored from the bottom-up, hence crossing the fundamental limits of the traditional top-down material creation approach (Leydecker 2008), enduing designed artefacts with enhanced performances. Research in both material science and architecture has widely discussed these direct gains and properties (Zhong 2012). The scope of such research however primarily addresses applications and their use in construction (Bittnar, et al 2009), and/or the benefits gained in performance (Torgal and Jalali 2011). There is little focus on understanding the impact of a more efficient integration of nano-enhanced applications at early design stages. This paper attempts to provide a thick description of the design decision making process to understand how nanotechnology – both as process and product – affects architects’ design decisions, with the ultimate goal of understanding the relationship between technology and design as a whole. We investigate how the injection of nanotechnology design knowledge in early concept design stages affects decision making by conducting an ethnographic study involving members of an architectural firm in Cairo, Egypt. With limited access to archival data and research pertaining to the current state of architectural practice in Egypt, it was imperative to conduct a qualitative study to establish a clear and grounded understanding of the day-to-day practices in architectural firms and the rationale behind design decision making upon introducing nano-enhanced applications in early design stages.
Case Study and Approach The case study chosen for this investigation had to fulfill specific criteria to be considered as a representative sample. First the design firm had to have an established process of design, while willing to participate in a study that requires interventions from outside researchers. It was anticipated that these interventions would represent a burden on participants timewise due to the frequent presentations by the authors, let alone the cultural acceptance of being monitored during day-to-day practice. As for project typology, a large residential project was chosen to represent the substantially larger portion of current construction work in Egypt, which is mostly built by developers. Accordingly, the selected design firm was a firm that was established in 2008 as part of an international network launched in 1997 in Doha, Qatar. The Cairo office had developed since 2008 into a mid-size multidisciplinary design firm with nearly 30 personnel, providing consultancy services in urban design and landscape, architectural design, and interior design, for different projects in Egypt and the region. The selected project was a 10-storey residential building with a total area of nearly 31,000m², on a plot of 5,200m². The client was a well-established real-estate developer who contracted the firm to design a project in the Nasr City area in Cairo, Egypt. The client sought a project with a new approach that would allow them to compete in the market for high/middle-income buyers.
1972
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process
The study started with the pre-concept stage after contract preparation, where the client requested two alternatives for plot utilization; one as an integrated residential complex with shared facilities, and the other as segregated stand-alone buildings. Each proposal was assigned to a senior architect, with a special project coordinator assigned to the team to facilitate client interface. The research was initiated upon launching the pre-concept phase of the project, where most of the beneficial impact of nanotechnology was anticipated, due to the flexibility and creativity at this stage.
Data Collection Procedures This study adopted ethnographic field observation and interviewing as a strategic qualitative methodology (Fischer and Finkelstein 1991) to understand the impact of nanotechnology on the design decisions and rationale of architects, especially in early design stages. Ethnography was originally used in social sciences, was particularly practiced by cultural anthropologists, and has grown to include other domains in the last five decades (Berg 2001). Due to the lack of information relevant to the current state of architectural practice in Egypt, this study has hence found ethnography an appropriate tool to understand the nuances behind the process of design decision making in the authorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own community. We also used participant observation (Guest, et al 2013), where one of the authors was actively involved as part of an architectural design team. He was assigned to design tasks, conduct research, and assist with client presentations. This allowed for in-depth and precise observation of the social and technical interactions occurring in the workplace, and for collecting meaningful and instant feedback from participants during their decision making process. We will refer to this author thereon as the participant author. Participant observation as an ethnographic field method used since the 19 th century currently allows ethnographers to critically engage the ethnographic frame with their own participation (Denzin 2005), which would allow this study to carry out the intended injections where needed and monitor reactions. Conducting this study required nearly daily visits to the design firm. The duration of those visits relied on the progression of the project and the availability of design team members. As part of the design team, the participant author also had access to client meetings, which was beneficial in terms of observing nuances of architect-client interaction. No interviews were made with client representatives, and the client feedback received was conveyed by both the design manager and project coordinator. The time frame for the study was approximately three months, and was carried out in the period between June and September, 2015, starting from the pre-concept stage towards the delivery of three alternative proposals for the concept of the residential building. The data collected was in the form of general field note observations, audio and video digital recordings of all interactions made with personnel of the design firm and the client, images of sketches, and copies of digital files used throughout the design activities. A total of 43 interviews and meetings sessions were attended, of which a total of 24 hours were
1973
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
transcribed and analyzed, including 5 hours of meetings within the firm, 15 hours of interviews, and 4 hours of client meetings.
3.1 Field Observation Upon launching the study, preliminary informal meetings were held with Cairo office partners (P1), (P2) and (P3), and then with all participants to establish rapport, understand backgrounds, brief all about the study and its goals, and to obtain consent. Once the project under study was selected by the Operations Manager (P1), coordination began with Project Coordinator (C1), where a complete brief of the project and client needs was obtained. The author was then introduced to both senior architects (S1) and (S2), who had nearly 10 years of experience each and were responsible for the two alternatives agreed upon with the client in the kickoff meeting. (S1) was responsible for the integrated residential complex proposal, and (S2) was responsible for the segregated buildings proposal. Images of preliminary sketches, video recordings of both at work, and copies of documents of previous work were collected. The participant author was also granted full access through (C1) to all AutoCAD and REVIT files used for inception and for the communication of ideas and calculations in the project. The author maintained nearly 3-hour long daily visits to the firm in the first stage of the project, and field notes were constantly taken. These sessions allowed for not only monitoring project progress and decision making, but also for getting a better picture regarding firm dynamics, individual and collective positions and preconceptions, work practices, and social structures. Such observations were crucial to understand the full social context of the study and its influence on design decisions. An important intervention conducted by the participant author was introducing basic information related to nanotechnology and nano-enhanced applications to participants when needed or requested. This was in the form of presentations injected at different stages of the project. The purpose of these presentations was to demonstrate the basic technical aspects or explanations regarding nano-enhanced applications and their uses. Notes were taken of any comments made by participants during these presentations.
3.2 Interviewing Interviewing was one of the main tools that allowed participants to express their individual positions and feedback, besides their individual perception regarding information received from the injected presentations. The total number of conducted interviews was 23, where open ended and semi-structured interviews were conducted with (P2), (C1), (S1), and (S2) throughout the design process due to their key roles and significance. Open ended interviewing allowed for non-intrusive and undirected questions, where each interviewee was left to lead the line of thought. This allowed the participant author to better understand the rationale behind the decision making process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted towards the end of each design stage, after presentations, and towards the end
1974
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process
of the study, with the purpose of acquiring more feedback regarding specific points of interest that emerged from earlier interviews and field observations. The 23 interviews totaled about 15 hours, all of which were fully transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Each interview averaged almost 39 minutes. All interviews were audio recorded, and in some cases video recorded if they included sketches or work done in REVIT or AutoCAD. All interviews â&#x20AC;&#x201C; except for one interview with (P2) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; were conducted within the firm. All the interviews with (S1) and (S2) were conducted at their corresponding workplaces to avoid distractions, to use time efficiently, and to maintain a more comfortable setting for the interviewees. Some interviews were carried out in meeting rooms for privacy purposes, especially if the topic involved other team members, as was often the case with (C1).
3.3 Meeting Sessions The participant author attended nearly all project meetings, which amounted to 20 meetings, 15 of which were internal meeting sessions. Most of the meetings were one-onone meetings between (C1), (S1), and (S2) on one end and (P2) on the other as the project manager. Internal meetings totaled nearly 10 hours, 5 of which were fully transcribed and analyzed due to their relevance to the study. The meetings were 40 minutes in length on average. Two other sessions were external meetings with the client and their different departments; technical, development, and sales, where (P2) and (C1) were the design firm representatives, and totaled almost 4 hours, all of which were transcribed. The remaining three meeting sessions were design workshops held by (P2) and attended by 6 junior architects (J1) through (J6), to resolve issues that arose after the first external meeting with the client. Workshops totaled nearly 6 hours, none of which were transcribed. All the interviews and meeting sessions were transcribed solely by the participant author and were archived in a database for handy retrieval and access, using Microsoft Excel 2007 for quick and easy retrieval, and were visually represented along the duration of the project to facilitate analysis (Figure 1).
1975
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
Figure 1 Timeline of the study, showing all meeting sessions among participants in the project
Coding and Analysis This research adopted grounded theory coding as a basis for analytic induction, where emergent phenomena are identified from the observed data and respondents through a series of steps that would â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;guarantee a good theory as the outcomeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1998). The basic idea in these steps involves the continuous examination, comparison and reading of multiple sources of data such as field notes, interviews and memos. This process was conducted and maintained in search of emergent patterns. Those patterns were then translated into sets of concepts that were transformed into codes and then categorized into themes. According to grounded theory coding, the analysis and coding process usually occurs in parallel to data collection. Data examination and coding are done for all notes and transcripts and used for subsequent interviews, with findings that shed light on earlier ones. Two main methods were conducted to arrive at a set of emergent phenomena; open coding and axial coding. The goal of open coding was to identify how architects reacted and interacted differently with nanotechnology design knowledge throughout the process. Transcripts and field notes were continuously analyzed, and conceptual dimensions of these reactions were developed as memos alongside the transcripts. Concepts were established from the memos and were then classified into thematized codes describing how the team perceived and approached nano-enhanced applications. Other codes were developed that address specificities of the type of project, the design process maintained in the firm, and client needs and
1976
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process
requirements. None of these were classified with the first set of codes describing reactions to nanotechnology, but were developed later alongside the field study. Upon recurrence of the same coded themes, and cessation of new significant codes, the stage of axial coding was initiated. This involved a refinement of the themes established in the open coding stage and an in-depth study of the connections between them. This allowed for the thematization of a second set of codes that helped describe the impact of nanotechnology on the design process in light of its context. During several iterations of revision of the transcripts and memos, several codes were developed, revised, added, or eliminated. Higher level patterns of relationships between the different themes allowed for the identification of several phenomena describing the effect of nanotechnology on early design stages, and the role of its specific context in influencing that effect.
Verification Inter-rater reliability was used to verify the established codes and categories. Typically, inter-rater reliability is a process where concurrence is established among more than one coder in the attempt to find rigor concerning the methods used to code and interpret the results. The goal of this process is to identify the degree of similarity in judgments between independent reviewers with a considerable agreement that indicates high inter-rater reliability (Touliatos and Compton 1988). The reviewer for our study was a researcher with a masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree in the field of health care design and architecture. She was familiar with qualitative analysis, ethnography, and grounded theory coding, and had previously used them in her own research. The reviewer was first introduced to the research problem, and scope and goals of the study. The case study was then explained in full detail while keeping all identities confidential. In order to provide the reviewer with sufficient insight into the meaning and context of use of the developed codes, a brief guide of all codes was provided containing a short explanation of what each code represented in addition to several examples extracted from multiple transcripts. Three sample transcripts of interviews with three different participants were provided. The reviewer was asked to read the sample transcript carefully, check appropriateness of the provided codes and use any additional codes if needed. A discussion was then initiated to validate the coding scheme according to the interpretation of the reviewer. For the open coding phase, the discussion involved the different interpretations of the reviewer for the established categories and phenomena. Other rather heated arguments involved alternative understandings of the relationships between the codes and their graphical visualization methods. The codes were then accordingly rearranged, and specific relationships were revisited based on the reviewer feedback. The final phase of discussion went more in depth through the coding guide line by line and code by code to verify best fit and a revised labeling of the codes and their higher level
1977
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
categories. Once a considerable level of concurrence was achieved concerning the established categories, they were adopted for the rest of the analysis and description.
Thematized Codes and Emergent Phenomena The identified emergent codes were first seen by the authors to mostly describe the impact of nanotechnology design knowledge on design decisions. Some codes described how participants perceived knowledge, such as Technical Suitability. This code described a specific approach by one participant who observed potential uses of specific nano-enhanced applications in the design due to their compatibility with his already established design goals. Overarchingness however described how another participant chose to look holistically at the properties made possible by nano-enhanced applications and searched for ways to utilize them. Those two codes were seen as disparate, and accordingly were classified under separate themes. For instance, the codes Technical Suitability and Hierarchal Perceptions were classified under the theme Compatibility that described how different backgrounds, preconceived ideas and goals drove a participant at a specific point in the design process to simply select a best fit from the available nano-enhanced applications. Overarchingness, Process Vs. Product, and Design Tool were classified however under the theme Utilization that described how participants appreciated the abilities made possible, their diversity and scope of potential application, and went further to understand nanotechnology as a process rather than a group of products. Both Compatibility and Utilization, along with other themes, were seen as facets describing the emergent phenomenon of Perception of Nanotechnology, which helped identify the different ways by which participants perceived nanotechnology. Such perceptions were later found to have an important impact on how those participants chose to respond to nanotechnology in subsequent design activities. The rest of the codes describing the impact of nanotechnology design knowledge on the design decisions were seen to belong to two other emergent phenomena: Design Affordance of Nanotechnology; which described how each participant intended to use nano-enhanced applications through their design decisions; and Resistance to Nanotechnology; which described the different manifestations of resistance and the reasons that often led to rejecting the consideration of nano-enhanced applications in the design process. Both of those phenomena, along with Perception of Nanotechnology, constituted a set of phenomena describing the impact of knowledge related to nanotechnology on the study. However, we observed other issues â&#x20AC;&#x201C; constituting another set of phenomena â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that were more related to the project context and were also found to be of impact on design decisions. We identified two phenomena: Client Accommodation; which described client satisfaction based on perception of their needs embodied in design decisions, and Interruption of Information Flow; which identified specific issues related to information flow within the design team, as well as between the team and client. The five identified emergent
1978
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process
phenomena within the two main sets (Reaction to Injections, and Context of Design Decisions) are illustrated in Table 1, along with the full list of themes and codes: Table 1 Taxonomy of Emergent Phenomena Phenomena
Themes
Codes
Feasibility
Established; Importance of the Visual.
Compatibility
Hierarchal Perceptions; Technical Suitability; All roads lead to Rome.
Perception of Nanotechnology Borrowing Attributes
Novelty; WOW/Ambiguous; Fashionability.
Utilization
Process Vs. Product; Overarchingness; Design Tool.
Adoption
Environmental Solutions; Customizable Tectonics; Spatial Flexibility; Area Efficiency of Artefact; Privacy.
REACTION TO INJECTIONS CONTEXT OF DESIGN DECISIONS
SET 2:
SET 1:
Design Affordance of Adaptation Nanotechnology
Freer Design Decisions; Deeper Design; Being Inspired.
Appropriation
Reciprocal Relation; Tectonic Cohesiveness; Compressibility.
Cost Benefit
Affordability; Market Limitation; Logistics.
Socio-cultural
Not In Egypt
Resistance to Fear of the Nanotechnology Unknown
Design Gate Keepers; Fear of the unknown.
Procrastination
Maybe the next stage.
Incongruence
Project; Typology.
Owner Complexity
Conflict of Interest; Ambiguity.
Client Future Client Accommodation
Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s all about the sell; Seeking the New; The Environmental Benefit.
Miscommunication Concealment; Duality. Interruption of Information Flow
Client Feedback Leakage
Miscommunication; Managerial blockage; Overloaded experts.
Operational Segregation
Boxed Process; Team Placement; Logistical Constraints.
The following sections describe in more detail two of the most salient phenomena identified in the study, each belonging to one of the sets mentioned above: Design affordance of nanotechnology, and Interruption of Information Flow.
1979
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
6.1 Design Affordance of Nanotechnology Based on the comparison of data from meetings and interviews, specifically with (S1), (S2) and (P2), the following themes emerged in relation to the reaction of participants to nanotechnology, as illustrated in figure 2: 1) Adoption: where participants chose to simply make use of specific nano-enhanced applications to achieve already established goals; 2) Adaptation: where specifics in the design approach of participants were modified to accommodate the abilities made possible by nanotechnology; 3) Appropriation: where the perception and understanding of participants towards nanotechnology as a process and product allowed them to recognize unachieved abilities and sought their fulfilment. These themes were evident in the approaches of (S1), (S2) and (P2) following the presentations conducted by the participant author to introduce the research goals and basic capabilities of nano-enhanced applications. (S1) for example expressed a considerable degree of freedom of design, rather than just the direct use of nano-enhanced applications for goal satisfaction. Nano-enhanced electrochromatic glazing solutions allowed for more customizable and flexible levels of privacy for the residential units, which in turn allowed (S1) to “free the architectural line" drawn. While designing the building masses, he was able to focus on the image the client needed and other issues regarding the context, rather than simply being constrained by issues usually faced in previous experiences regarding privacy. (S2) expressed a need for extra information regarding the environmental details and specifications of nano-enhanced insulation materials such as nanogel and phase change materials. Upon retrieval and presentation of the requested data, (S2) demonstrated forms of Adoption by considering the direct use of workable nanogel panels for heat insulation for the walls. After analyzing the specifications however, (S2) moved into another form of Affordance where he demonstrated Adaptation by conducting a zoomed-in exercise of “deeper Design” to design a door that would allow for ventilation but without acoustic transmission. (P2) illustrated how nanotechnology allowed him to think as a “sculptor”. The ability to design the performance and look of the material from the bottom-up “inspired” him to imagine a more seamless building that depended less on the assembly of different parts, and allowed for a “less pixelated” facade design. (S1), (S2) and (P2) also expressed a need for other possible applications and specific scenarios of performance that were not known to them nor presented by the participant author.
1980
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process
Figure 2 The three themes related to design affordance of nanotechnology throughout the design process: Adoption, Adaptation and Appropriation
6.2 Interruption of Information Flow Upon analyzing phenomena related to the context of the design process, we observed defects in the information flow between participants and other key players in the project. We put forward two main themes in this regard: 1. Client Feedback Leakage, where client feedback loops to managerial and design teams within the design firm failed to resonate with each other throughout the different stages of the design process; 2. Operational Segregation, where internal feedback for technical assistance between the design and construction teams and other personnel was rarely established. We noticed that when specific ideas regarding design proposals were introduced by the design team members to (P2), he would postpone discussing them and rather focus on other aspects of the project, namely its built-up areas and calculations. Other team members thought however that these ideas were relevant to client needs. A contractual clause related to scope of work seemed to always force (P2) to discard some of those ideas. We found later that the specificities of that clause were not clear enough because the client needs were miscommunicated to the managerial team in the briefing stage. This led to several forms of miscommunication between the client and design team. The lack of coordination between (P2) and (P1) thereafter did not allow for project updates and logistical follow ups to be fully addressed. This put the project under further logistical stress, thus hindering chances of complementary developed ideas.
1981
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
Based on the transcripts, specific loops of information flow were observed to be the locale for this miscommunication. Client Feedback Leakage was identified as a significant theme that could be traced to the initiation point of the project; namely the Contract. As shown in figure 3, three main entities (client, managerial team, and design team) are engaged in a state of flow of information that leads to the creation of three other sub-entities: the contract, the logistical plan, and the designed artefact. In this process, the Contract is drawn by the client and managerial team. Accordingly, the managerial and design teams prepare a Logistical Plan allocating time and personnel for the project. Then the Designed Artefact is developed between the design team and the client. According to this continuous feedback loop, design decisions are affected if the chain was broken at any point of time.
Figure 3 Feedback loop between the three main players in the project: Client, design team and managerial team
We identified other manifestations of interrupted flow of information, where the lack of internal communication for technical assistance between the design team and construction team was evident in earlier design stages. As highlighted by (C1), Team Placement was identified as playing a role in such segregation. Issues such as “the design team is in their den upstairs”, “...there is a whole department downstairs, why don’t they ask?” seemed to shed light on this segregation. Boxed Processes was also identified as another form of interrupted flow of information, where design team members would perform tasks as instructed by seniors without “walking the extra mile” and “without trying to think outside the box”. Logistical Constraints manifested in lack of personnel availability and cash flow also reduced chances of a more integrated design approach, as “departments are barely able to manage the projects coming in”. These themes played a role not only in hindering some of the potential benefits of nanotechnology, but also in hindering other design decisions. These hindrances led to client
1982
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process
dissatisfaction and forced the design team to use a more integrated approach in later design phases.
Discussion: The “Design Gates” Narrative It was anticipated at the onset of this study that it would simply unveil forms by which nanotechnology is received by architects in early design stages, and especially in a developing country like Egypt. The study succeeded in revealing to a great extent how nanotechnology was perceived and potentially used and/or rejected by the participants, while revealing some of the technical reasons behind design decisions. However, due to the richness of the emergent concepts stemming from the dynamics of the observed natural setting – related to both the internal interactions among participants and external interactions with the client – it was apparent that there was an interplay of two sets of phenomena. On the one hand, the direct technical needs of the project and the perception of the potential benefits of nanotechnology were only partially responsible for the architects’ inclination towards affording, resisting, or even degrees in between. On the other hand, the context of the natural setting and the dynamics of the design process played a considerable role in shaping those inclinations. Upon further correlations between the events related to the aforementioned manifestations, we developed a narrative that attempts to capture how the five emergent phenomena associate with one another, while explaining some of the changes in participants’ positions recorded throughout the duration of the study. Through several readings into the emergent phenomena and comparisons to events and incidents evident in the transcripts, it appears that socio-cultural dimensions demonstrated different levels of control over design decisions through several points in the project, as described below: 1) Managers/team leaders: The perception of individuals of higher authority in the team would lead to hierarchical retention of valid ideas seen as irrelevant; 2) Teams: With the segregation of teams, certain knowledge thresholds are maintained, keeping them from transfusing knowledge from one team to the other, and thus hindering the development of integrated solutions; 3) Individuals: Educational background, technical experience, talent, position in firm, and social abilities were all individual aspects that allowed for the different perceptions of value within nanotechnology, and accordingly different design decision throughout the design process; 4) Firm processes and logistical plans: Certain design checkpoints were created in the firm that normalized the potential diversity of approaches. This was due to the continuous evolution of the firm, and its effort to maintain its quality and brand while at the same time planning to increase its project capacity; 5) Contract and Brief: The financial capability and socio-cultural background of future users of the building represented an element of control over the process, through the owner
1983
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
and their complex structure of departments. That control was manifested in the contract/brief document. We perceive these multi-layered points of control as “Design Gates”, which appear to control and alter design decisions. Although they were informed by specific design knowledge, they create an even more complex context that the design team managers appeared to control, yet are subservient to. These gates have not only affected how the participants perceived nanotechnology and then – regardless of that perception – controlled whether they could use the applications or not, but also have manipulated every other design decision. They played a role in their approval and/or rejection regardless of their appropriateness and validity. The design decisions hence seem to rather respect a matrix of conceived ideas that fit in the criteria of the “Design Gates” and their location in a power structure. This power structure enforces internal and external constraints, thus creating logical yet managed causalities that facilitate control over design decisions. Figure 4 below demonstrates the scale of the first set of phenomena within the larger and more controlling second set of phenomena.
Figure 4 Impact of nanotechnology within the complex context of the project and its “Design Gates”
Further Work The main argument of this paper is that technology is integral to the creative phase of the design process. The positions discussed above indicate areas of potential theoretical investigation that could help further understand and develop the integration between technology studies and design research in light of social theories, especially in developing
1984
Integrating Nanotechnology in the Design Process
countries with their specific social, cultural, and economical specificities that drive many of their design decisions in their own distinctive manner. Acknowledgement: Our sincerest thanks go to the participants who provided us with an opportunity to join their teams to conduct our research and gave us full access to all the required data.
References Bakir, R. (2013) The Impact of Nanotechnology on the Environmental Design Process, in proceedings of Building Simulation Cairo 2013 Conference: Towards Sustainable & Green Built Environment, Cairo, Egypt. Bakir, R. (2011) Impact of Nanotechnology on Building Technology, Master’s thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. Bartos, P.J., Hughes, J.J., Trtik, P. And Zhu, W. (2004) Nanotechnology in Construction, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK. Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th edition), Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Bittnar, Z., Bartos, P.J., Nemeck, J., Smilauer, V. and Zeman, J. (2009) (eds.) Nanotechnology in Construction 3: Proceedings of the NICOM 3, Dordrecht: Springer. Denzin, N. And Lincoln, Y. (2005) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd edition), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Fischer, M.D. and Finkelstein, A. (1991) Social knowledge representation: a case study, in Fielding, N.G. and Lee , R.M. (eds.), Using Computers in Qualitative Research, Sage, London, UK, pp. 119 – 135. Fore, D. (2008) The Entomic Age, Grey Room, 33, pp 26–55. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Transaction, Chicago. Guest, G., Namey, E. and Mitchell, M. (2013) Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Ingram, J., Shove, E., & Watson, M. (2007). Products and Practices: Selected Concepts from Science and Technology Studies and from Social Theories of Consumption and Practice, Design Issues, 23(2), pp 3–16. Leydecker, S. (2008) Nano materials in architecture, interior architecture, and design, Walter de Gruyter. Ritter, A. (2006). Smart materials in architecture, interior architecture and design, Birkhäuser Architecture. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd Edition), Sage Publications. Torgal, F. & Jalali, S. (2011) Eco-efficient construction and building materials, Springer Verlag, London, UK. Touliatos, J. and Compton, N. (1988) Research methods in human ecology/home economics, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Zhong, J. (2012) (ed.) Smart materials and nanotechnology in engineering, Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Smart Materials and Nanotechnology in Engineering (SMNE 2011), Durnten-Zurich: Trans Tech Publications, Wuhan, China.
1985
Ramy Bakir and Sherif Abdelmohsen
About the Authors: Ramy Bakir is Assistant Lecturer at the Arab Academy for Science and Technology, Cairo, Egypt. He has been studying the relationship between nanotechnology and architecture since 2004, and is currently a PhD student at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. Sherif Abdelmohsen is Assistant Professor and Director of the Design Computing and Fabrication Laboratory at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. His research interests include qualitative methods in design research, parametric design, building information modeling, space layout planning, digital fabrication, and responsive architecture.
1986
Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm. Émeline Brulé* and Frédéric Valentin Télécom-ParisTech *emeline.brule@telecom-paritech.fr DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.160
Abstract: Several design practitioners claim to follow an open design philosophy, using open sourcing material, models or tools. But there has been little work on framing the properties of artefacts produced that way, nor on studying how “openness” influence design processes (Aitamurto, Holland & Hussain, 2015). In this paper, we propose to investigate Open Design through examples of prosthetic hands. These highly specific and personalized devices have to answer highly sensitive social, personal, subjective and functional requirements. They perfectly illustrate the challenges the Open Paradigm may help tackling, such as greater inclusivity through the reduction of stigma, access to social participation and empowerment of users in general. First, we build upon the related work to identify properties of openness. We then present the methodology used to review nine different prosthetic hands. Building upon these examples, we frame a critical perspective on openness and how this paradigm encompasses or informs other design practices. We conclude by presenting our current and future work, to provide perspectives on the applications of our essay. Keywords: Open; Prosthesis; Inclusive Design
Introduction The “Open paradigm” has been identified in several fields, from Software to Innovation Studies (Aitamurto, Holland & Hussain, 2015). The open data and open research philosophies have gradually come to question all research disciplines and their publication practices. Moreover, open design has been gradually discussed in design research (Aitamurto et al., 2015; Thackara, 2011; Van Der beek, 2012). Historically, the open paradigm seems to be rooted in three different movements: the needs for industrial standards at the beginning of the 20th century, the ideal of an Open Society, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
1987
Émeline Brulé and Frédéric Valentin
theorized by Popper in the verge of World War II and the Open Source Software movement, born in the eighties (Goëta, 2015). The open paradigm’ emergence is linked to two different but intertwined issues: the interoperability of telecommunication systems, and the utopia of a perfect democratic society through the access to knowledge. The Open Knowledge Foundation has defined openness as a paradigm enabling access and availability, re-use and redistribution, as well as universal participation (Open Knowledge, 2015). In design, Aitamurto et al. (2015) have recently articulated open design practices as deployed during needs finding, ideation, creation and fabrication, as well as during the distribution and circulation of designs. Their definition covers open hardware projects, participatory design practices, as well as highly customizable, if not self-produced, artifacts. Nevertheless, the effects of open processes on the artifacts thus produced have not yet been widely studied. Our paper proposes to investigate openness’ properties through nine examples of prosthetics. Building upon our review of literature, we outline openness (1) as the inclusion of people and their values during the project framing and ideation process; (2) as space left to users in the formalization process (choice of functions, interactions, aesthetics...); openness may be limited by (3) the level of technical knowledge required to understand and modify a product or (4) the difficulty of access to the fabrication equipment; and may allow (5) a high level of variability and originality of the resultant artifact. We therefore propose a model to discuss the openness of a production, as a critically addressable characteristic of an artifact.
Review of Literature 2.1 The open paradigm in History, Arts and Design. As stated in our introduction, the “open paradigm” emergence seems to be linked to two different, but intertwined issues (Goëta, 2015): the interoperability of telecommunication systems, openness being a necessary value for some innovations (Cruickshank, 2014), and the wish to create an equal and democratic society by granting full access to knowledge. Several researchers outlined openness as a democratic process. For example, Aitamurto et al. (2015) have recently articulated open design practices as “deployed in the following stages: 1) listening in, 2) interacting and creating with co-designers and the crowd, and 3) sharing with other co-designers and the crowd.” In other words, open design practices concern needs finding, ideation, formalization and fabrication, as well as the distribution and circulation of designs. It echoes Van der Beek’s reading of Blauvelt (Van der Beek, 2012), who highlights how design has been shifting from delivering a product to setting the conditions for its design. The interest of numerous researchers for Do-It-Yourself practices in the design of technologies (Hurst and Tobias, 2011) or community-based participatory design are good examples of this paradigm shift. They have proved to be empowering for a large variety of publics (Druin, 2002; Halskov & Hansen, 2015), although their limits are
1988
Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm.
worth considering. For example, Kensing and Blomberg (1998) as well as Bowen (2010), show that participation in the design process might be limited by social issues surrounding a project (see also Cruickshank, 2014, p.44), by the methods used or by the required knowledge to collaborate freely. Initially, open design has been described as the application of open source principles to design, as stated by Ronen Kadushin in his Open Design manifesto (2010). Following this conception, the designer provides digital blueprints of her designs allowing them to be used (produced), modified and shared. However, recent descriptions of open design seem to be more interested in the implications for design practice of a shared design process (Aitamurto et al., 2015; Van Der beek, 2012). Even If open design can be linked in many ways to the development of IT and personal CNC (Atkinson, 2011), it is to be acknowledged that there have been numerous design projects before the birth of said digital fabrication techniques (Cruickshank, 2014, p.4). For example, Enzo Mari’s Autoprogettazione (1974) aimed at allowing anyone to build basic furniture, using wood and nails. Mari distributed his blueprints as free leaflets, encouraging people to start their own production and to modify his models. Open source projects (on both hardware and software levels) also make a claim at democracy and interoperability, which have an impact on the distribution and circulation of resultant products. (We acknowledge the philosophical differences between open source and free software. However, as this is not the focus of this paper, we will not expand on this matter.) Open source projects encourage people to drive it further, to tinker and to get implicated (see for example the Open Source Initiative: http://opensource.org/history), either by documenting or technically contributing. But they also present issues: the knowledge required to make changes may be high, the community may not be as welcoming as claimed (Toupin, 2014) or the necessary equipment may not be accessible to all. There have also been researches on openness in artifacts and products. Umberto Eco (1962) focuses on works of art and artistic practices to define “an open work”. For Eco, it relies on the spectator interpretation, generating more information than is originally contained in the piece, by allowing various interpretations depending on the public, the situation, etc. Thus, if every work of art is in some respect “open,” some are designed in certain ways that they encourage interpretation, either mechanically (what Eco refers to as “work in movement”) or conceptually, thus being intentionally more open. If Eco does not directly cite objects from the realm of design (although he does mention the case of organisable bookshelves), we argue that it describes quite well ludic design artifacts (Gaver et al., 2004; Mivielle & Gentès, 2012). As stated by Gaver, ludic design should avoid “clear narrative of use” and stay “open-ended” (Gaver et al., 2004), i.e. enabling the user’s participation through artifact’s interpretation and actuation. Mass customization (as first defined by Joseph B. Pine (1993)) also relates to Eco’s work, as it seeks to allow variations in the production of artifacts through shared tool kits and flexible designs that can be reconfigured (Salvador, De Holan & Piller, 2009).
1989
Émeline Brulé and Frédéric Valentin
2.2 Design and prostheses. Even though prostheses (such as prosthetic hands) are designed to meet a specific and narrow range of cases, they are to address different bodies, and need to be fitted to each individual. Prosthetics have never been mass-produced, but they are no longer fabricated individually either. They are “fitted” by medical professionals: most are generic models with few customizable components (see examples 1, 2 and 3). But body variability may be addressed from three perspectives: (1) a “one size fits all” philosophy, i.e. products aiming at universality (Salvador, et al., 2009); (2) the addition of variables in design, much like accessibility features; (3) inclusive design, which aim to design for a very low number of users with highly specific needs. If there have been decorated prosthetics in the past (see for example this Victorian-era prosthetic arm showing fine decorated metal work at the Museum of Science, London: http://tinyurl.com/jfxgseh), human-like models are often preferred for social acceptability (Pillet & Didierjean-Pillet, 2001). Nevertheless, it is to be acknowledged that there are few studies on the aesthetic aspect of prosthetics (Sansoni, Wodehouse & McFadyen, 2015). Radical aesthetic propositions are quite recent, as the interest of fashion for prosthetics increased: from Alexander McQueen’s creation for Aimee Mullins to the Alternative Limb Projects, prosthetics may now come in a large variety of forms. We observe shift in prosthetics recognition, from the mere replacement of a limb, aesthetically and practically bound to mimic human organs, to creative exploration by figures such as Aimee Mullins. The fact she proudly wears non-mimetic prostheses, either in mainstream media or in artistic collaborations proposes to invert the stigma (see for example Cremaster cycle 3 (2002) by Matthew Barney, where she act wearing prosthetic cheetah legs or acrylic transparent legs (http://tinyurl.com/gowgj4u)). We argue that this desacralization, or “profanation” (Agamben, 2009), of human form through the redefinition of bodies by creative prosthesis permitted to allow for new creative approaches to the design of prostheses. It has more generally been pointed out in every area where design meets disability (Pullin, 2009), and question the ways body and embodiment are taken into account in the design process.
Methodology Our analysis methodology was inspired by McClung Fleming (1974)’s framework, e.g. (1) identification through the description of the history, material, construction, design and function of an artifact, (2) evaluation in regards to similar objects, (3) cultural analysis to elicit its social and cultural conditions of existence and (4) the interpretation of the values thus conveyed. In section 2, we articulated how various design approaches were aiming at, or claiming for, openness. We underlined various open processes, either during needs finding, ideation, creation and fabrication, distribution and circulation of designs and properties of the artifacts themselves, who may or may not allow original customization. We also highlighted that participation in the design process might be limited by larger social issues, by the methods used or the required knowledge to collaborate freely.
1990
Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm.
We thus outline openness (1) as the inclusion of people and their values during the project framing and ideation process; (2) as space left to users in the formalization process (choice of functions, interactions, aesthetics...); openness may be limited by (3) the level of technical knowledge required to understand and modify a product or (4) the difficulty of access to the fabrication equipment; and may allow (5) a high level of variability and originality of the artifact. We chose to work on prostheses because they have always required variability and adaptability. Little discussed in design research as they belong to the medical realm, we saw these examples as the occasion to understand how performative (Van Der Beek, 2012) design can be. These dimensions allow for a contrastive analysis of our examples (considered in terms of material, cultural and semiotic attributes). We first present the four common types of prosthetics hands: myoelectrical, mechanical, passive, and functional. We then analyze personalized or open source counterparts.
Examples of Prosthetic Hands Example 1: Passive cosmetic hand, by Steeper. Steeperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s passive cosmetic hands are realistic prostheses filled with foam and covered with a PVC or silicone glove that gives the hand details (http://tinyurl.com/zgdrvjh). They are presented as lightweight and cost effective, adaptable to various studs. They exist in a finite number of shape and size (five for adults, and five for children), as well as in 19 colours, which means that their fabrication can be automatized. They provide a minimum functionality (pushing, pulling) but mainly aim at reducing social stigma and restore body image by being lifelike. The company does not precise whether or not they included users in the design. Quite probably, it was mostly developed by prosthetists. They may be customizable to some extent (through painting, for example), but this is not the aim of the product. Their degree of originality (in comparison to bodies without prosthetics) is low.
Example 2: Functional hands, by Texas assistive devices Texas assistive devices proposes prosthetic devices for people living with hand dysfunction or amputation. It is composed of a metallic terminal device, called the N-Abler, that comes in a variety of types depending on the type of impairment (hand or arm amputation, etc.). The N-Ablers are compatible with a large series of functional tools, from hooks to gardening, cooking, tinkering, eating or hygiene utensils. These tools may be changed accordingly to the activity the user is engaged in, and cover most of everyday tasks and activities, although the user would need to acquire numerous (and quite expensive) extensions. Texas Assistive Devices describe the N-Abler as a â&#x20AC;&#x153;self-esteem builder,â&#x20AC;? (http://tinyurl.com/gks3eaz) although its social acceptability might be low (Fishman & Kay, 1964; Pillet Didierjean-Pillet,
1991
Émeline Brulé and Frédéric Valentin
2001). The website mostly aims at professional prosthetists, through technical precisions and a loaner offer so they can test it with their patients. The company does not precise whether or not they included users in the design. This type of prosthesis is customizable, within a given set of possibilities. One could easily hack an everyday object to add a tool to the collection. Aesthetically, it is quite far from a body, but its aesthetic is purely practical / functional. Thus, it has a limited originality.
Example 3: Mechanical hand, by Steeper. Steeper's mechanical hand exhibits three fingers (http://tinyurl.com/j23vvg7). When flexing the wrist, the hand is able to grasp an object: the hands are operated using cables and springs, either to open or to close the hand. The hands have a very functional aesthetic: the bare metal make them seem robust, all the mechanisms are visible etc. They are presented as lightweight compared to previous models, come in four sizes (from child to adult), and may be covered by “cosmetic gloves,” i.e. silicone or PVC human like gloves that can be fitted on it, which come in 19 different colors (see example 1). They can be adapted to various wrist systems. Again, it does not seem that users have been involved in the design. The structure of the hand itself is hardy customizable by the user, only the cosmetic glove might be adapted. Furthermore, these gloves exist in four sizes only (there were 10 for cosmetic gloves, by the same company), and the grasping system in prosthetic hands is nothing new. Therefore, the level or originality may be considered as low.
Example 4: Be Bionic, by Steeper. The BeBionic hand, by Steeper, is an articulated electronic device mimicking the structure of the human hand (http://tinyurl.com/jzbewgv). It has a clean, streamlined, science fiction like aesthetic and is available in two colors (black or white). It is designed to handle everyday activities through 14 different patterns: finger pointing, different kind of grasps etc. The hand’s motors react to muscle contraction signals. Its patterns are adaptable by a medical professional using a custom software. If it can be fitted to different types of wrists or wrist mechanisms, it only exists in two sizes: small and medium. It is sold for $11000. That project focuses on efficiency but could not exist without an advanced technical and medical infrastructure. Again, Steeper says nothing about having involved users in the process, although they testify of their use. It is hardly customizable because of its highly technical nature, although the proposed hand gestures can be fine-tuned. The user guide actually states that users should not try to modify their hand in any way. It is very close from the structure of a human hand, while its streamlined aesthetic embodies positive representations of the future. It thus feels familiar and has a low degree of originality.
1992
Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm.
Example 5: Feather Armour, by Alternative Limb Project. Feather Armour is a functional customized prosthetic arm, designed by Sophie de Oliveira Barata and Rowena Vickerman for actor Grace Mandeville, as part of the Altenative Limb Project (http://tinyurl.com/gwcl5pu). Built with metal, feathers, beads, silicone and acrylic resin around a hook, it is designed much like a fashion accessory. Its aesthetic radically differs either from functional or cosmetic prosthesis, but remains comfy and functional as it is designed with respect for the prosthetic medical requirements, fitted by a professional. Its owner explains that she has “worn prosthetic arms that look real and they just get in the way. They look normal, but [she doesn’t] really want to look normal.” (Saner, 2014) Such Alternative Limbs are made to measure, with cost starting at 1000£ (and up). Thus, they are definitely not accessible to all. But their design process highly involves the wearer and the resultant artifact has a high originality level, overturning the stigma through aesthetics. The ideation process did involve the end user a lot, as it was completely custom made. The formalization process may have involved her as well, but mostly for feedback. Modifying it would require crafting skills and high-end materials. If the hand’s function (the hook) is a pretty common type of prosthesis, its visual design does not look like any other.
Example 6: Bambam Prosthetics. Bambam Prosthetics were developed by Nick Richardson during his master thesis at the Maryland Institute College of Art. They are composed of a soft socket made of canvas and a multi-functional terminal device in bamboo, which can be completed by various tools (such as a rake or a hammer (http://tinyurl.com/hs77wvj). Richardson explains that (http://tinyurl.com/ngmkob5) he first used the tools he knew and were widely available around him (plastic, etc.), but quickly realized those means of fabrication would not be available anywhere. As Bambam prosthetics were destined to people living in developing countries (where 80% of the world’s amputees live), they can be manufactured locally, with cheap and widely available materials. At the contrary of traditional prosthetics, the soft socket allows it to be fitted without the help of a specialist. The focus of the design is to meet the needs for functional, durable and low-cost prosthetics and to allow amputees to get back to the workforce in countries mostly relying on farming as a mean of living. The project was exhibited in the Cooper Hewitt Museum, as part of the Beautiful Users exhibition. Although this is a self-initiated project, it seems that Richardson tried to include actual users in the design process. The technical skills and equipment required are widely shared. If there has been researches on the use of bamboo for prostheses (Banerji & Banerji, 1984) and if such use can be traced back to wood legs, the design of the soft pocket and of the arm’s end are new propositions, to our knowledge.
Example 7: Raptor Reloaded, by Enabling the Future. Enabling the Future (http://enablingthefuture.org/) is a global network of volunteers that participates in the conception, production and distribution of various open sourced upper
1993
Émeline Brulé and Frédéric Valentin
prosthetic limbs. They operate mostly in “underserved communities”, providing their prosthesis to children and to people that can’t afford the industrial models. Most of the prostheses proposed are mechanically operated, with the exception of a recent myoelectric model. All the prosthetic hands are designed to be 3D printed, but the volunteer based production principle means that different models of 3D printers and different types of materials can be used, producing different results. The overall aspect of the object does not try to be realistic. The web site states clearly that they do not intend to compete with professionally made prostheses and see their models as “tools” to provide more practicality and deepen social acceptability. The ideation process is shared amongst the community but does not require the user’s participation directly. Monthly “design challenges” now encourage the community to design new devices, inspired by the current designs. The formalization process seems to sometimes involve the user as they are associated during the fabrication and the fitting of the object. Otherwise, it does not seem like the design are highly customizable, except in the use of various colors for some of the children’s prosthesis. As the initiative does not only provide the design, but also the technical means, the users only need to know how to operate (and sometimes repair) the prosthetic hand. However, repairing the prosthesis might require an access to a 3D printer. In terms of originality, the design displays a rather mechanical aesthetic and does not try to hide its origins: it is different from common prosthesis and its basic materials and mechanism encourage modifications (see the Raptor Reloaded on the website page: http://tinyurl.com/hsvjvd2).
Example 8: Bionico. Bionico is an open source project of myoelectric arm, initiated in 2012 by Nicolas Huchet when he discovered fab-labs. Still in prototype phase, it aims at allowing amateurs to build bionic prostheses using affordable material, such as Arduino and 3D printing pieces. A Bionico costs around 200€, far from commercialized models. Despite that, Bionico does not try to compare with high-end models, knowing they involve a great deal of currently unreachable technological advances. Rather, the focus of the group is to gather a community in order to make a myoelectric arm as inexpensive as possible. As expressed by Nicolas Huchet (https://bionico.org/about/), the political and social engagement (sharing knowledge, gathering a community for a more equalitarian world) is the main aim of the project. Currently, the prosthesis remains overall very unpractical, and serves mostly as a proof of concept, but also as an embodiment of the project during public events (where Huchet wears the hand, having himself lost his hand in a work accident). In this regard, the aspect of the hand seems rather efficient: it does look like a prototype, which reflects its DIY roots and makes it familiar to the makers community (http://tinyurl.com/zyce7qv). So we can consider the ideation and formalization process as open, as they involved the community and impaired users. However, various technical skills are required to build it. The same goes for the equipment (3D printers, servomotors, etc.). The design does not try to
1994
Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm.
differ from existing models, but does so in terms of conception - which is reflected in its aspect.
Example 9: Iko. Iko creative prosthesis is the result of Carlos Arturo Torres’ internship at Lego Future Lab. It won Core77’s design award for best “open design”. The prosthesis designed for children allows the user to snap Lego pieces around it and to operate them through its built-in rotary motor. The device was designed to be compatible with any Lego branded set, particularly the Lego “systems” more focused on the construction of mechanism: the material is thus broadly accessible, with a wide range of choices. The designer also designed a little backhoe model as a starter set for the prosthesis. Torres’ focus in this design is its social catalyzing aspect built around the playfulness of Lego, as demonstrated in the designer’s discourse focalizing on its empowering creative and collaborative dimensions. We can observe Torres’ precise attention to Lego’s technical status: “I designed a backhoe LEGO set difficult enough to build where the kid used the people around as co-players”(http://tinyurl.com/oohp82l). The designer tuned the Lego model in certain ways to encourage a given behavior, requiring both a fine understanding of the users’ capacity in terms of knowledge requirements and access to resources. The openness of the project revolves around Lego’s low knowledge requirement and the proximity of parents and potential playmates to fill the difficulty gap intentionally set in the model. The user’ learning process is therefore eased, allowing her to quickly discover the basics required to build her own design, while involved from the beginning in the ideation and formalization process. Parts of the ideation and formalization process is determined by the designer that defines the properties and boundaries of another creative space in which the user is welcome to express his own forms and ideas. The use of Lego bricks ensures the access, and eases the progression towards the required knowledge through the use of an accessible, easy to understand material. While using similar principles as other myoelectric prosthesis (a rotor embedded in the arm), the object gathers the attention out of Lego’s playfulness.
Discussion As Umberto Eco says about works of art, we argue that every artifact is open to some degree. However, some artifacts are designed in such ways that they expand the design space, thus being more open. Therefore, openness is not a binary value (open/closed) but rather something that can be expressed in many ways (affecting different stages of the design process and production) and to various degrees. If we look at those examples from a broader perspective, we can highlight two different design approaches. In some cases, the structure is made to accommodate a few options or variables, but is quite constrained in the possibilities (cases 5, 7 and 8). In others, the design project relies on every single user’s design skills (cases 6 and 9).
1995
Émeline Brulé and Frédéric Valentin
A project’s openness is relative to its context. The open paradigm is not about enforcing the design and use of universal products, or even of universal structures to be adapted, but rather proposes artifacts relevant and adaptable to certain settings. Let’s take, for example, the differences between Bambam Prosthetics (case 6) and the Raptor Reloaded Hand (case 7). Even with a substantial number of volunteers ready to devote their 3D printers, time and knowledge, Enabling the Future’s production is not available to anyone anywhere. Moreover, the Raptor Reloaded still necessitates a fitting and assists a rather limited number of activities. On the other hand, Bambam Prosthetics requires widely available materials and tools and seems to open wider possibilities for customization, but rely entirely on users' or users’ relations’ practical skills. If the latter approach requires a deeper engagement from people, it also may allow them to reach a greater level of agency. Let’s use Iko the Lego hand as an example: it accommodates one’s values, and adapts to self-presentation and agency. Although it is not open source, Iko encourages modifications by its structure itself. It brings a mass produced product (Lego), its easiness of assemblage and its ludic properties towards an inclusive use. The user becomes a “practitioner” of the artifact and of herself. Thus, openness is a property of an artifact (or rather, of an apparatus) allowing a certain degree of involvement by the user. This property can manifest itself in various manners, in regards to the context and intentions. These two approaches to openness, either as the production of a universal artifact or as the involvement of the user’s design skills, questions the relations of power between design production and users. There is to be a balance between the effort and responsibility gained by users and the seamlessness of an open production. It does, of course, have political and ethical implications. Relying on the user’s / practitioner’s skills should not make her bear alone the responsibility of her inclusion in society, but rather to support her in making choices on her own. It should not be reserved to people who cannot afford a more efficient or adequate prosthesis—for example Bionico's designer does not wear it, but has access to a high-end prosthetic hand. It is to question industrial production and to open new ways of making and doing. Our five last examples all push further the possible aesthetic of bodies in contemporary times, much like more traditional prostheses did in their time (Pillet & Didierjean-Pillet, 2001). They invert the social stigma, and affirm other kinds of subjectivities, even though they may not be the strongest or most practical. What our analysis shows, is that the open paradigm expands the design space, questions and renews what a prosthetic hand can be, but also how and by whom it can be done and the conditions of its productions. We argue that openness might be an aesthetic paradigm: through her production, the designer organizes agents and elements to define the specific conditions of existence of a design space, in which the user is invited to participate. Openness can be considered as an aesthetic in the deleuzian sense of the term: an encounter with an object / project that induces a rupture, that proposes new ways of being, living and acting in the world.
1996
Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm.
As stated by O’Sullivan (2010) reading Deleuze and Guattari: “At stake then are two moments in what I am calling the aesthetics of contemporary art: one of dissent (a turn from, or refusal of, the typical) and one of affirmation (of something different). Two operations then: one of criticism, one of creativity. We might call the first parasitical (on an already existing body, for example an institution); the second, germinal (the birth of the new).”
Thus the open paradigm applied to prostheses de-constructs, breaks something of the usual (re)presentations of bodies, before opening the way to the construction of future selves, affirming other views of the subject, the stigma and the world. The open paradigm we have described here might as well be called open perspectives, both on the individual and the community level. Further research will need to be conducted on the perception of openness on all levels of the design process. To do so, we propose to meet the general public of an arts and science center with various probes, to gather insights on their relationships to bodies and imaginaries revolving around bodies and technologies. This will then lead to open ended workshops, on a long-term basis, which will allow for studying the perceptions of openness, and the reactions of the public to various prototypes
Conclusion Through our study, we aimed to develop a framework allowing an analytical and critical discussion of design practices and projects claimed as open. Using this framework, we were able to reconsider the concept of openness from a broader perspective, and to assess a design’s openness regarding to different aspects. Our chosen examples demonstrated the diversity of ways a design initiative can claim openness, depending on context and intentions. We did not aim at evaluating their openness (as they all seem justified, in respect to their situation), but to use them in order to elaborate on the concept of openness and on its potential contribution to design. It appears that openness might set an aesthetic paradigm in which design practice should consider its production as establishing encounters between agents (living and non-living) that reframe the existing world. Design practice in an open manner involves the reframing, the redistribution of the agency through the definition of new design spaces. It necessitates the designer to share her part in the act of design and a part of her responsibility. This paradigm requires from the designer a different approach to her practice and its ends. Users are not considered as a group sharing common traits, whatever the number of people included, but as a diversity of agents we cannot claim to fully understand ― and we thus need to allow them to express their particularities.
5. References Atkinson, P. (2011) Orchestral manœuvres in design. In Open Design Now (pp. 27–34). Amsterdam. BIS Publishers.
1997
Émeline Brulé and Frédéric Valentin
Agamben, G., Kishik, D., & Pedatella, S. (2009) What Is an Apparatus? and Other Essays. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Aitamurto, T., Holland, D., & Hussain, S. (2015) The Open Paradigm in Design Research. Design Issues, 31(4), 17–29. http://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00348 Banerji, B., Banerji, J.B. (1984) A preliminary report on the use of cane and bamboo as basic construction materials for orthotic and prosthetic appliances. Prosthet Orthot Int. 8(2). Barney, M. (n.d.) The CREMASTER. Retrieved March 11, 2016, from http://www.cremaster.net/ Bionico About. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://bionico.org/about/ Bowen, S. (2010) Critical theory and participatory design. In Proceedings of CHI. Citeseer. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/qha6743 BambamProsthetics. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2015, from http://www.bambamprosthetics.com/ Cruickshank, L. (2014) Open Design and Innovation: facilitating creativity in everyone. Ashgate Publishing. Druin, A. (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25. Eco, U. (1962) The Open Work. (A. Cancogni & D. Robey, Trans. 1989). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Fishman, S., & Kay, H. W. (1964) Acceptability of a Functional-Cosmetic Artificial Hand for Young Children, Part I. Artificial Limbs, 8(1). Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/hrg5hl6 Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Gellerson, H., Pennington, S., Schmidt, A., … Walker, B. (2004, avril) The drift table: designing for ludic engagement. Retrieved from : http://www.chi2004.org/ Goëta, S. (2015) les coulisses de l'open data : sociologie de la production et de la libération de données publiques (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Halskov, K., & Hansen, N. B. (2015) The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 81–92. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.003 Hurst, A., & Tobias, J. (2011) Empowering Individuals with Do-it-yourself Assistive Technology. In The Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 11–18). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://tinyurl.com/hgv493t IKO Creative Prosthetic System - by Carlos Arturo Torres / Core77 Design Awards. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2015, from http://tinyurl.com/h5jmazz Kadushin, R. (2010) Open design manifesto. Ronan Kadushin Design. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/ospkl9j Kensing, F., Blomberg, J., (1998) Participatory Design, Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 7: 167–185. McClung Fleming, E. (1974) Artifact Study: a proposed model. Winterthur Portfolio, 9, 153–174. Mivielle, C., & Gentes, A. (2012) What is ludic about ludic design? Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/gnrg4rs O’Sullivan, S., & others. (2010) From aesthetics to the abstract machine: Deleuze, Guattari and contemporary art practice. Deleuze and Contemporary Art, 189–207. Open Knowledge. (2015) Open Knowledge: What is Open? Retrieved November 4, 2015, from https://okfn.org/opendata/ Pillet, J., & Didierjean-Pillet, A. (2001) Aesthetic hand prosthesis: Gadget or therapy? Presentation of a new classification. The Journal of Hand Surgery, (28), 523–528.
1998
Of Open bodies: Challenges and Perspectives of an Open Design Paradigm.
Pine, J.B. (1993) Mass Customization : The New Frontier in Business Competition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Pullin, G. (2009) Design Meets Disability. MIT Press. Redström, J. (2006) Towards user design ? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123–139. http://tinyurl.com/zmjbgcb Salvador, F., de Holan, P. M., & Piller, F. (2009) Cracking the Code of Mass Customization. In Sloan Management Revue. Saner, E. (2014, December 20) Viktoria Modesta, the world’s first amputee pop star : “If you don”t fit in, then don’t fit in’. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/pstv5ks Sansoni, S., Wodehouse, A., McFadyen, A., & Buis, A. (2015) The Aesthetic Appeal of Prosthetic Limbs and the Uncanny Valley: The Role of Personal Characteristics in Attraction, 9(1), International Journal of Design. Thackara, J. (2011) Into the open. In Open design. BIS Publishers B.V. Toupin, Sophie, ‘Feminist Hackerspaces: The Synthesis of Feminist and Hacker Cultures’, The Journal of Peer Production, 2014 Van der Beek, S. (2012) From representatino to rhizome : open design from a relational perspective. In the design journal 15(4), 423-442.
About the Authors: Émeline Brulé is a designer and PhD student at Telecom-ParisTech. Her researches focus on the various implications of the current development of wearables. She has also been working on participatory design and DIY assistive technologies with visually impaired children. Frédéric Valentin is a PhD student at Telecom-ParisTech. Through his research on the relations between design and openness he seeks to understand the particularities of an open work of design. He studied design at École Boulle and École Normale Supérieure de Cachan.
1999
This page is left intentionally blank
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas Deger Ozkaramanlia,b* and Pieter M. A. Desmeta a
Delft University of Technology University of Liverpool *d.ozkaramanli@liverpool.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.165 b
Abstract: Traditional design approaches stimulate the creation of products that make daily interactions more efficient, comfortable, and pleasant. In contrast, provocative design approaches, such as critical design, have a different focus: they aim to challenge the status quo through products that expose assumptions and stimulate discussion. In this paper, we argue that intentionally triggering personal dilemmas is a novel design approach that may be a means to enabling self-reflection. In line with this, this paper proposes three design strategies for triggering dilemmas. These strategies are explained through existing designs and supported by design ideas created using them. Our findings indicate that triggering dilemmas is a counterintuitive design intention, which can be supported by exercises that facilitate perspective taking and stalling moral judgment. We conclude with a discussion on the overlap between triggering dilemmas and other provocative design fields. Keywords: design with dilemmas; provocative design; design strategy; conflicting concerns
Introduction Traditional industrial design often focuses on solving problems (Roozenburg and Eekels, 1995). Smartphones enable managing online tasks without having to carry around a personal computer, or office chairs support sitting comfortably during long work hours. A distinct group of design approaches, namely provocative design approaches, share a goal that is often at odds with traditional design. Provocative design aims to challenge existing norms and attitudes through hypothetical or utilitarian designs that expose assumptions and provoke discussion (Bardzell, et al 2012). Most well known among these approaches is critical design, which uses hypothetical objects to challenge unquestioned socio-cultural norms (e.g., see Teddy Bear Blood Bag Radio by Dunne and Raby) (Dunne and Raby, 2013).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
In addition, adversarial design uses provocative design principles to address political issues (e.g., see Project ZAPPED! by Heidi Kumao) (DiSalvo, 2012), and discursive design uses utilitarian objects embedded in discourse to communicate ideas such as racial intolerance or world hunger (e.g., see Hug salt and pepper shaker by Mint) (Tharp and Tharp, 2013). Finally, reflective design focuses on stimulating reflection on unconscious values through technologies embedded in computing devices (Sengers, et al 2005). In short, we use the term “provocative design” to refer to design approaches that operate in a design space where asking questions is as important as solving problems. Despite offering fruitful ground for addressing social, political, and technological challenges faced by contemporary society, the work on provocative design offers little information about the process of designing for provocation. Mostly, the focus of provocative design lies with the subject of design rather than the process of designing (Bardzell and Bardzell, 2013; Bardzell, et al 2012). For instance, Dunne and Raby (2013) clarify the main goals of critical design and provide many inspiring design examples, but they rarely provide reference to the theory and decisions that informed these examples. Therefore, engaging with provocative design can be very challenging for those who are inspired by it, but do not have a background or training in realizing their intentions. Bardzell and Bardzell (2013) have stated that developing tools and methods for critical design can support its broader adoption. Following this, preliminary guidelines and tactics have been developed to support designers in analysing critical designs (Ferri, et al 2014; Bardzell, Bardzell and Stolterman, 2014). The goal of this paper is to propose design strategies that can be used to intentionally trigger dilemmas as a way of provocation. Provocative design often evokes dilemmas. For instance, Dunne and Raby (2013; p. 89) refer to critical design as way of highlighting dilemmas that can challenge existing belief systems (also see Malpass, 2013; p. 341). Consider, for example, Umbrellas for the “Civil but Discontent” Men in Figure 1. This product combines the symbolic form of a gentleman’s umbrella with the form of a sword. This combination suggests a choice between meeting social expectations and being a sword-bearing man, which may represent a dilemma between acting in a civil manner and acting aggressively. In reality, the design may hardly encourage aggressive behaviours. However, through surfacing such a dilemma, it may indeed stimulate contemplating society’s expectations about civilized people. Many examples of provocative design seem to trigger dilemmas to raise awareness about a topic of interest. Therefore, we propose that identifying strategies for triggering dilemmas can support designing for provocation. Here, we broadly define design strategies as “prompts for mental exercises that can support associative thinking and seeing alternative solutions in idea generation.”
2002
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas
Figure 1 Umbrellas for the “Civil but Discontent” Men by Bruce and Stephanie Tharp for Materious. Photo: Courtesy of the designers.
In this paper, we focus on designing to trigger personal dilemmas (i.e., dilemmas that involve individual goals or values), and define them as the realization that one cannot simultaneously engage in two behavioural alternatives (Ozkaramanli, Desmet and Ozcan, 2016). For instance, one cannot indulge in sweets, and at the same time, expect to lose weight. Such mutually exclusive choices are guided by contradictory desires, motives, or personal values; what we refer to as conflicting concerns. Being marked by indecision and doubt, dilemmas may feel uncomfortable; however, they also serve an important purpose: Hesitation is a way for the brain to slow down mental processes to collect information in order to make better choices (Fleming, 2014). In line with this, products that trigger dilemmas may disrupt or slow down decision making in favour of making informed decisions. Here, we define triggering dilemmas as the intention to raise awareness about conflict among personal concerns through designed products and services that engage the user in a “stop and think” type of behaviour. We used a bottom-up approach to understand how design can trigger dilemmas. For this, we formulated two research questions: (1) what are the qualities of products that (intentionally) trigger dilemmas? And (2) what are the strategies designers can use to trigger dilemmas? To address the first question, we analysed designs that seem to trigger dilemmas in collaboration with two design researchers, which resulted in three main categories. For the second question, we examined how an understanding of these categories could contribute to generating ideas through design workshops conducted with fifteen novice designers. Answering these research questions can contribute to the emerging literature on demystifying provocative design, which may be particularly valuable in contexts where this
2003
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
approach is not intuitively used. We conclude with a general discussion on the overlap between designing to trigger dilemmas and designing for provocation.
Exploration of designs that trigger dilemmas Sixty examples have been collected as input for an analysis session from literature, design blogs, and student projects. Forty of these examples were utilitarian design objects. In addition, we included examples from conceptual art (e.g., Fur Tea Cup by Meret Oppenheim), critical design (e.g., the Hypothetical Lunch Box by Dunne and Raby), and graphic design (e.g., Children Smoking with Adult Arms by Chi and Partners for the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation) to support a richer discussion. We selected examples that seemed to trigger dilemmas (i.e., emphasized a potential conflict between personal concerns) and that were supported by a description as communicated by the designer or the artist. These examples were organized in the form of cards with a picture, a short description, and the triggered dilemma as input for an expert evaluation.
2.1 Expert Evaluation The first author analysed the collected examples in collaboration with two design researchers, whose expertise were on sources of inspiration in design creativity and the influence of designers’ intentions on the aesthetic perception of products. The main goal of this analysis was to eliminate those examples that did not explicitly trigger a dilemma, and to discuss the mechanisms through which the remaining examples triggered dilemmas. In the first part of the session, the experts (including the first author) individually categorized the examples according to four design criticality tactics proposed by Ferri et al (2014)1. These tactics aim to support analysing critical design objects at varying abstraction levels such as reading semantic cues. Because of this, they could provide a solid starting point for discussion. The experts were asked to focus on the following two questions during analysis: 1) Does this example trigger the dilemma specified? If not, does it trigger another dilemma? If not, discard the design. 2) Does this example fit one of the design criticality tactics? If so, which one? If not, put the card aside to be discussed at the end of the session. The second part of the session involved a discussion about the similarities and differences among the categorizations of experts. This discussion was facilitated by the first author, who asked about the points of agreement and disagreement among experts’ categorizations. As a result of this discussion, all experts agreed to exclude the following types of examples from further analysis: (1) Eight examples that were not considered provocative and that did not trigger a dilemma; (2) conceptual art and graphic design examples (both experts commented that possible strategies that can underlie the creation of
1In
contrast to design strategies, which focus on the significant behaviours of designers when ideating, the term “design tactic” refers to a specific organization of significant elements in a designed object. In the case of Ferri et al (2014), design tactic refers to a specific organization of semantic elements in critical design objects (G. Ferri, personal communication, 24 November 2015).
2004
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas
such work would not be relevant for creating design objects with utility); and (3) ten examples that were considered as provocative designs, but they were not thought to trigger a dilemma beyond raising the question “Do I, as a user, agree with the meaning this product is trying to convey?” For the remaining twenty-eight examples, all experts agreed that they could trigger dilemmas in ways that merit further analysis. Table 1 outlines the results of analysing the examples with an anchor example for each group. Table 1 Analysis of design examples based on their potential for provocation and for triggering a dilemma Number of cards
Explanation
Example
Image
8
Examples that do not trigger a dilemma
Tank you by Thierry d'Istria for La Tête au Cube: A vase that embodies the opposing concepts of love and war. Photo: Courtesy of La Tête au Cube.
10
Conceptual art and graphic design examples
Dead Star by Michel de Broin: An installation that is made out of “finished” batteries.
14
Provocative design examples that raise a question but do not trigger a dilemma
Ta Ta Top: A bikini top that aims to promote questioning society’s expectations from women. Photo: Courtesy of Ta Ta Top.
28
Design examples that trigger a dilemma
Thrive Portionware by Sally NG: A series of kitchenware that subtly encourages people to eat less. Photo: Courtesy of the designer.
2005
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
2.2 Three Categories of Products that Trigger Dilemmas The twenty-eight design examples exemplify the type of products that trigger dilemmas; however, they say little about the design approach taken to create such convincing examples. To understand how design can trigger dilemmas, the experts also analysed the behaviour of these examples based on the way they address conflicting personal concerns. This yielded three distinct categories, which are described as follows and illustrated in Figure 2 with examples: Embodied Symbols: Objects that embody symbols or clues that can represent conflicting concerns. Forced Choice: Objects that force the user to make a choice between two behavioural alternatives that cannot be carried out at the same time. Behaviour Barrier: Objects that form a barrier to one of the behavioural alternatives, which is often the habitual or the automatic choice by the user.
Figure 2 Three categories of products that can trigger dilemmas
Sugar Gun lollipop (see Figure 2) carries a metaphor, “eating sugar kills”. Here, the gun may symbolize a short life (a consequence of being unhealthy) whereas sucking on a lollipop may symbolize enjoyment. By combining these two symbols, this product can trigger thinking about conflicting personal concerns, such as the conflict between health and enjoyment. In addition, Dilemma (see Figure 2) is a table piece that can be used as a fruit bowl or a cake plate, which presents two alternative ways to enjoy food: eating healthily or indulging. Here, the design requires the user to make a choice between two behavioural alternatives (i.e., assembling the product as a fruit bowl or as a cake display) without suggesting the “better” alternative. Finally, KitchenSafe (see Figure 2) is a lockable jar that aims to prevent people from accessing tempting objects (e.g., candies, smartphone) for a desired amount of time, programmed by the user. By forming a barrier to a habitual or automatic action, such products can raise awareness about unquestioned choices (e.g., temptations) that rule our everyday life.
2006
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas
Generating design ideas to trigger dilemmas The expert evaluation revealed that design could trigger dilemmas in, at least, three distinct ways (i.e., embodied symbols, forced choice, behaviour barrier), which supports better understanding this particular design intention. We suggest that an understanding of these categories can be helpful in generating ideas to trigger dilemmas, in a context in which it is, in fact, counterintuitive to do so. Therefore, we implemented the categories in a series of ideation sessions with fifteen “unprovocative” designers, i.e., designers who have been trained mainly as creative problem solvers with a structured and methodological approach to designing. As input for the ideation sessions, we (the authors) envisioned the steps that would be necessary to deliberately create design ideas for each category of products. Using backward thinking, we formulated active descriptions that can stimulate new ideas. For this, we emphasized the nuances between the ways each category tackled dilemmas. For instance, we observed that products that embody symbols, such as Sugar Gun Lollipop, stimulate reflection about conflicting personal concerns (i.e., health vs. enjoyment), but do not necessarily require the user to act upon these thoughts. In contrast, the second and the third categories (forced choice and behaviour barrier, respectively) require making a choice among behavioural alternatives, which may link action to reflection. In line with these observations, we formulated the following preliminary strategies: Embodied Symbols: Brainstorm about symbols for each concern in a dilemma, and embody them in an object by modifying one or more of the following: form, function, materiality, interaction, or use context. Forced Choice: Brainstorm about possible choices in a dilemma, and create a product that alternates between mutually exclusive behaviours. Behaviour Barrier: Brainstorm about possible choices in a dilemma, and choose a “habitual” or “automatic” choice. Create a design that acts like a barrier to this choice, while, to some extent, preserving the possibility of achieving it.” The preliminary strategies suggest that choosing appropriate symbols can facilitate creating products for the first category, while the second and third categories necessitate a set of behavioural choices as input. Therefore, we envision these categories to be used in combination with a mind-mapping exercise, during which the participants can brainstorm about appropriate symbols and behavioural choices.
3.1 Aim and Procedure To refine and to further develop the preliminary design strategies, we conducted ideation sessions with fifteen participants who had similar levels of design experience. All participants were either alumni or master level graduate students at the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology. The participants were familiar with the approach of designing with dilemmas; however, the topic of triggering dilemmas was
2007
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
new to them. Four sessions were conducted in groups of three to five participants to enable in-depth discussions. Each session lasted approximately three hours. One day before the workshop, participants received an email about the agenda of the session and two design briefs to choose from. The first brief was about promoting condom use to prevent transmission of sexually transmitted infections (see Baele, Dusseldorp and Maes, 2001). The second brief was about promoting balanced smartphone usage (see Harmon and Mazmanian, 2013). Each design brief included an explanation of the dilemma relevant for the brief and illustrated on the model of dilemmas for designers (Ozkaramanli, Desmet, and Ozcan, 2016) (see Figure 3a and 3b). Both design briefs were phrased in an open-ended way to allow autonomy in specifying situations where triggering dilemmas might be appropriate.
Figure 3 Two models that illustrate the dilemmas relevant for the two design briefs: (a) On the left: conflict between safety and intimacy related to condom usage; and (b) on the right: the conflict between curiosity and kindness related to smartphone usage.
In the sessions, the participants were first introduced to the phenomenon of dilemmas and the three categories of products that can trigger dilemmas. As the categories could be unfamiliar (and rather complex), the participants were asked to group a variety of design examples under the given categories to clarify the nuances among them. Next, the participants were asked to explore the dilemma in the design brief of their choice by creating guided mind-maps.1 For this, they were asked to create two types of mind-maps: one for symbols representing conflicting concerns (e.g., having safe sex vs. trusting my partner) and one for mutually exclusive choices that correspond to the conflicting concerns (e.g., talking about using a condom vs. ignoring the topic). Finally, participants were asked to create ideas by using ingredients of the mind-maps and by incorporating their understanding of the categories. To facilitate analysis of ideas, an 1Here,
we would like to differentiate between open mind-maps, i.e. those where the designers decide what the central concepts to brainstorm about are; and guided mind-maps, i.e. those where the central concept and possibly some of the branches are pre-defined by the researchers.
2008
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas
ideation template was used on which the participants could describe their ideas and the approach they used to create them. The participants were asked to create as many ideas as possible, prioritizing variety and originality more than feasibility. Following idea generation, the participants presented some of their ideas and discussed how they experienced the process of designing to trigger dilemmas.
3.2 Analysis The participants generated fifty-seven ideas in total. Nine ideas were discarded from analysis since they were unclear or unfinished. Remaining forty-eight ideas were categorized according to the three preliminary design strategies the participants intended to use. In addition, all discussions were voice-recorded and transcribed as input for analysis. The information on the transcripts and the idea sketches, supported by the comments on the ideation templates, were analysed with a focus on the opportunities and challenges of using the preliminary design strategies in ideation.
3.3 Findings We structured our findings using two main information sources: reflections of the participants on their own ideation process and evaluation of the final design ideas. R EFLECTIONS ON THE IDEATION PROCESS All participants mentioned that triggering dilemmas was an interesting design intention, yet they also found it very challenging to implement. One participant phrased this challenge as follows: “Although I thought I am not really a problem solver, I went into problem solving immediately. Now I realize that this approach is about taking different perspectives rather than choosing one perspective to follow.” In addition, fifteen ideas, despite being interesting, intended to resolve dilemmas instead of triggering them. For instance, seven participants thought about the same idea of underwear with a secret pocket for condoms to make them easily accessible when needed. During discussions, the participants acknowledged that such underwear might indeed promote using condoms, but might not provoke questioning the topic through triggering dilemmas. The mind-maps helped generating the necessary ingredients for implementing the preliminary design strategies. Specifically, the participants talked about four main benefits: (1) Structuring thoughts: “The mind-maps helped me to structure what my opinion about this design brief is.” (2) Increasing efficiency: “Creating the mind-maps seems time consuming, but when it speeded things up when creating ideas.” (3) Finding inspiration: “Especially the symbols mind-map was really helpful. I was already drawing on the mind-map, and it was easy to get ideas out of there.” (4) Broadening the mind-set: “I was not really brainstorming about phone usage. Instead, I was brainstorming about stimulation vs. mindfulness and that helped me to be more open minded.” Four participants noted that the fourth benefit could also be a disadvantage, since freely brainstorming about symbols or situations could disengage their thoughts from the focus of the design brief: “The jump from the mind-maps
2009
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
to creating ideas was a big one for me; I felt that I missed something, like contextual information, that could connect the ingredients on the mind-map in a meaningful way.” Figure 4 and Figure 5 illustrate example mind-maps created by the participants. Figure 4 shows a mind-map that explores the conflict between curiosity (e.g., check smartphone) and kindness (e.g., ignore smartphone) through brainstorming about the symbols representing each concern. Figure 5 shows a mind-map that explores the conflict between stimulation (e.g., check smartphone) and mindfulness (e.g., ignore smartphone) through brainstorming about possible choices that can fulfil each concern.
Figure 4 Mind-map that explores symbols for the conflict between curiosity (e.g., check smartphone) and kindness (e.g., ignore smartphone)
Figure 5 Mind-map that explores possible choices for the conflict between stimulation (e.g., check smartphone) and mindfulness (e.g., ignore smartphone)
Twelve out of fifteen participants mentioned that using the categories as a starting point for ideation blocked their creativity and commented that the “real” inspiration came from the exercise they did with the categories (i.e., embodied symbols, forced choice, behaviour barrier): “When I tried to pick a strategy to go on with, it was not working. It was too rational. The description of the categories helped me to understand how it works or to check whether my ideas are good or bad. But what worked best was the mind-maps in combination with the exercise we did with categorizing different products.” Another
2010
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas
designer, who was aware of her personal preferences in generating ideas, said: “Well, I decided that I will not look at the strategies when I start. I will first create ideas and when I get stuck, or when I have some ideas, I will go back to the strategies to analyse where they fit, and to come up with more ideas or to improve the ones I have.” Moreover, the designers who did start ideating using the strategies mentioned that it was frustrating to start thinking about one category and to end up with ideas for another: “I wanted to do something for the first category, but when I had an idea, I immediately started thinking ‘is this the right category?’ E VALUATION OF THE FINAL DESIGN IDEAS To better explain insights gained from the evaluation of participants’ ideas, we will refer to six design ideas generated in the sessions and presented on Table 2. Table 2 Six design ideas generated in the ideation sessions Category 1 (Embodied Symbols)
Category 2 (Forced Choice)
Category 3 (Behaviour Barrier)
Sleeping Phone Smartphone cover that displays a sleeping eye when closed; and an awake eye when open.
Love Counter A transparent storage box in which one can keep packaged condoms in one compartment and part of the packaging from used condoms in another.
Breathing Phone A smartphone phone gadget that requires you to breathe slowly and consciously into a tube in order to unlock your phone.
Facebook Book A phone case in the shape of a real book, with title, Facebook.
Open Me Condom packaging that only opens on one side, while the other side has pictures of people with a sexually transmitted infection.
Ta-Du Phone A smartphone application that, when programmed, makes annoying noises when one takes his smartphone out of his pocket in a social setting.
2011
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
Nine out of fifteen participants considered the first strategy to be very interesting, but challenging to implement in the way it was presented. For instance, Sleeping Phone (Table 2) is a suitable example for this category because it symbolizes alertness (i.e., checking phone) and relaxation (i.e., ignoring the phone) in one product. However, we observed that it is important to think flexibly about combining symbols that represent conflicting concerns. The Facebook Book (Table 2), for instance, combines a real book that symbolizes “constructive” curiosity, with the Facebook logo that symbolizes “destructive” curiosity to provoke the question “does Facebook genuinely feed people’s curiosity?” On the ideation sheet, the participant noted, “I used two symbols, but both are related to the concern for curiosity, and none to the concern for kindness. I am really confused now.” Although the participant was satisfied with his idea, he could not rationalize using the first strategy. This remark indicates that designers can refer to the strategies if and when they are needed, instead of following them as a sequence of steps. The second strategy received little attention from the participants compared to the others. This could be due to the challenge of suspending one’s moral judgment when designing, which may particularly be challenging when the “right” choice seems clear (i.e., using a condom). For example, Love Counter (Table 2) does not imply that using a condom is the “right” (or “wrong”) action. Instead, it enables the user to track the consequences of both actions. In contrast, Open Me, implies what the “right” choice is, which was apparent in many ideas based on the second strategy. Using the third strategy enabled the participants to communicate what they thought the “right” choice was. However, when using this strategy, they found it challenging to identify subtle barriers that would not be perceived as an annoying punishment by the users. For instance, the participant who created the Ta-Du Phone (Table 2) commented that he would never want a phone like that himself. However, the participants who discussed the Breathing Phone (Table 2) thought that breathing slowly and consciously before using a smartphone could be a subtle yet provocative barrier. This might explain why the third strategy was used most frequently, while at the same time, many participants mentioned that it was their least favourite strategy.
3.4 Discussion Our findings indicate that triggering dilemmas as a means to design for provocation is a different challenge than finding a creative way to deal with users’ personal dilemmas. Designers who are trained to take deliberate design decisions (defining a target group, a design context, or a clear design goal) may find it uncomfortable to delay these decisions or leave them to the interpretation of the users. In contrast, much of provocative design seems, often by the virtue of their ambiguity, to take comfort in allowing for multiple interpretations by users (Gaver, Beaver and Benford, 2003). It might have been helpful to further emphasize the essence of this design intention by, for example, engaging the participants in a debate or a role-playing exercise about the design brief prior to the ideation
2012
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas
session. Such exercises might have facilitated the sensitive mind-set of taking different perspectives and stalling moral judgment. The ideation sessions broadened our knowledge on the nature of the design strategies that can be helpful in ideation when designing to trigger dilemmas. Bardzell et al (2012) identified several challenges that can influence the critical design process, one of which is about operationalizing critical theory: “Making the leap from descriptive [critical theory] to generative [designing], the designer must make judgments about how to proceed.” (Bardzell, et al 2012; p. 293; brackets added). This has proved to be a challenge in our work as well: our experience shows that designers need a “bridge” between “understanding a dilemma” and “the act of triggering dilemmas”. However, as the word “strategy” may suggest, these strategies need not be concrete, step-by-step instructions similar to those in a recipe book. Neither do we suggest that abstract goals such as “design for provocation” or “trigger a dilemma” can provide a bridge between understanding and generating. Similar to strong concepts proposed by Höök and Löwgren (2012), we envision design strategies to reside on an abstraction level that transcends particular instances while maintaining a generative value. In the context of designing to trigger dilemmas, we define design strategies as a set of creative exercises that can facilitate reflection in action and being sensitive to different perspectives on the subject of design, while suspending moral judgment. We argue that this extended definition of design strategies can work well due to the involvement of three main mental activities during ideation: understanding, recognizing, and generating (see Chi, 2009). For instance, the descriptions of the product categories helped understanding principles that define these categories, classifying various product examples under different categories helped recognizing them, and redesigning those examples to fit under different categories helped generating new design ideas. More importantly, our findings have shown that designers engage in these mental activities in an iterative fashion (vs. a linear, consecutive fashion). In fact, starting the ideation with a specific category in mind did not necessarily led to generating new ideas, whereas techniques such as redesigning a rough idea using the principles from different categories, or using the categories as a lens to analyse first ideas worked better. This active participation of designers in building the strategies they use to generate ideas resembles the central element of constructivist learning theories (Fosnot and Perry, 1996), which, in future research, may form the basis for developing new techniques that can support ideation in the context of designing for provocation An important limitation of the ideation sessions should be mentioned. Both the design briefs and the design approach being proposed were new to the participants, and thus, allowing more time to understand and implement the input; for instance, in ideation sessions with multiple-stages, could have been a more fruitful research format.
2013
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
General discussion The promise of provocative design approaches has often been neglected in traditional product design mainly due to the resulting objects being considered as art and lacking a utilitarian function expected of traditionally designed objects (Malpass, 2015). Therefore, designing to provoke reflection and debate has become an established practice only at few universities such as Royal College of Art, Central Saint Martins, and Design Academy Eindhoven, where it gradually acquired its privileged nature as a practice reserved for the distinct few (Bardzell, et al 2013). Reasonably, if we had conducted the ideation sessions with students or alumni of these institutions, our findings would have been drastically different. However, we believe that designers who are trained in a problem-solving tradition can also benefit from strategies that can support them in designing for provocation. Such strategies can broaden the repertoire of their design thinking and stimulate creativity and willingness to consider the ethical implications of their design intentions. In addition, the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of design and its ambition to deal with complex societal issues have broadened the definition of function in design. This development seems to make provocative design approaches more relevant to traditional design than they may have ever been. In this paper, we argued that triggering dilemmas might be a means to designing for provocation. The two approaches have both similarities and differences. First, a common aim for provocative design is to challenge socio-cultural norms, values, and assumptions, in order to cultivate social awareness, whereas, triggering dilemmas focuses on personal desires, norms, values and aspirations, in service of self awareness. Second, even though provocative design, particularly critical design, takes inspiration from everyday objects, it does not usually result in designs that are bought and used by a general audience. In contrast, we intend products that trigger dilemmas to be utilitarian and embedded in everyday life. We argue that their repeated usage, which may invite interpretation, discussion, and reflection, can be a strength for such products. Third, triggering dilemmas is only one way of designing for provocation, where other means are possible such as creating curiosity and engagement through ambiguity. Because of this, experts who participated in the research categorized some of the products as â&#x20AC;&#x153;provocative designs that do not trigger a dilemmaâ&#x20AC;?. These products do embody arguments and ideas, but these ideas do not necessarily represent personal dilemmas. Finally, we provided insights on the nature of design strategies that can be used to generate ideas to trigger dilemmas. Specifically, we aimed to contribute to the dynamics of ideation and utilized the ingredients of dilemmas (e.g., conflicting concerns and mutually exclusive behavioural alternatives) to formulate preliminary design strategies. The way we defined design strategies, i.e., creative exercises that facilitate perspective taking and stalling moral judgment, can be extended. For instance, Gaver et al (2003) identified three types of ambiguity (information, context, and relationships) and proposed several strategies for each (e.g., point out things without explaining why). In addition, Ferri et al (2014) proposed the design criticality tactics, namely thematic blending, semantic shifts, social transgression, and
2014
Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas
body modification, which can be used to analyse critical designs. Such tactics may also be of great value in ideation as they extend the understanding of the behaviour of provocative design examples. Therefore, studying the generative value of these tactics is an interesting direction for future research. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Odette Da Silva Cardozo and Milene Goncalves who took part in the expert evaluation, Gabriele Ferri who commented on an earlier version of this manuscript, and all research participants who attended the design workshops. Also, we extend special thanks to the reviewers for their insightful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by MAGW VIDI grant number 452-10-011 of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (N.W.O.) awarded to P. M. A. Desmet.
References Baele, J., Dusseldorp, E., and Maes, S. (2001) Condom use self-efficacy: Effect on intended and actual condom use in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28(5), 421—431. doi: 10.1016/S1054139X(00)00215-9 Bardzell, J., and Bardzell, S. (2013, April) What is critical about critical design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing Perspectives, Paris (pp. 3297—3306). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2466451 Bardzell, S., Bardzell, J., Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., and Antanitis, J. (2012, June) Critical design and critical theory: The challenge of designing for provocation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference: In The Wild, New Castle (pp. 288—297). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2317956.2318001 Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., and Stolterman, E. (2014, April) Reading critical designs: Supporting reasoned interpretations of critical design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: One of a CHInd, Toronto (pp. 1951—1960). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557137 Chi, M. T. (2009) Activeconstructiveinteractive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73—105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x DiSalvo, C. (2012) Adversarial Design. MIT Press. Dunne, A., and Raby, F. (2013) Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press. Ferri, G., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., and Louraine, S. (2014, June) Analyzing critical designs: Categories, distinctions, and canons of exemplars. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems: Crafting Design, Vancouver (pp. 355—364). ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2598510.2598588 Fleming, S. (2014) Hesitate! Indecision is sometimes the best way to decide, http://tinyurl.com/lmnu47f, (Accessed 7 November, 2015). Fosnot, C. T., and Perry, R. S. (1996) Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 8—33. Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., and Benford, S. (2003, April) Ambiguity as a resource for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: New Horizons, Florida (pp. 233—240). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/642611.642653 Harmon, E., and Mazmanian, M. (2013, April) Stories of the smartphone in everyday discourse: Conflict, tension and instability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
2015
Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter M. A. Desmet
Computing Systems: Changing Perspectives, Paris (pp. 1051—1060) New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2466134 Höök, K., and Löwgren, J. (2012) Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19(3), 23—41. doi: 10.1145/2362364.2362371 Malpass, M. (2013) Between Wit and reason: Defining associative, speculative, and critical design in practice. Design and Culture, 5(3), 333-356. doi: 10.2752/175470813X13705953612200 Malpass, M. (2015) Criticism and function in critical design practice. Design Issues, 31(2), 59—71. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00322 Ozkaramanli, D., Desmet, P. M. A., and Ozcan, E. (2016) Beyond Resolving Dilemmas: Three Design Directions for Addressing Intrapersonal Concern Conflicts. Design Issues, 32(3) (in press). Roozenburg, N. F., and Eekels, J. (1995) Product design: Fundamentals and methods (Vol. 2). Chichester: Wiley. Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., and Kaye, J. J. (2005, August) Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, Aarhus, Denmark (pp. 49—58). New York: ACM Press. Tharp, B. M., and Tharp, S. M. (2013, June) Discursive design basics: Mode and audience. In Proceedings of Nordic Design Research Conference: Experiments in Design Research, Copenhagen (pp. 406—409).
About the Authors: Deger Ozkaramanli is a Ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology, and a lecturer at the University of Liverpool. Her research focuses on developing tools and methods that support user-centered designers in designing with emotional dilemmas. Pieter Desmet is Full Professor of Design for Experience at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology. He chairs a research group that focuses on the fields of design for emotion and design for subjective wellbeing.
2016
A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation Tamami Komatsua, Manuela Celia*, Francesca Rizzob and Alessandro Desertia a
Politecnico di Milano Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna * manuela.celi@polimi.it DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.176
b
Abstract: Thus far, many contributions in the field of design have described design’s role in the life cycle of a successful Social Innovation (SI). Design, in fact, has been proposed by many authors to be the most suitable approach to developing SI initiatives from their start-up to release. In particular, some authors have proposed Design Thinking as the best methodology for the development of new SIs; while others, promote Participatory Design as the best method to support SIs, heralding its process of collaboration, networking and coproduction. Nevertheless, many research results have demonstrated that the need to find a balance between social and economic objectives is one of the main barriers to SI. This paper discusses these general results as they have been elaborated in the context of the SIMPACT European project and focuses on the value of design competences to better design SI products, services and brands, which is explored through the discussion of two well established cases of SI in Europe. Keywords: Social Innovation; Design Thinking, Design Competences; SI Economic and Social Value
Introduction Europe is currently facing many societal challenges concerning vulnerable groups, from preventing migrant death in the Mediterranean (but not only) to delivering health and social care for an increasingly aging population. In this context, European research is addressing immigration, social exclusion and discrimination, as well as unemployment (specially youth unemployment), by exploring original forms of innovation. Contemporarily, we’re also observing the rise of a “social design” moment characterized by a socially-oriented objective instead of predominantly commercial or consumer-oriented This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
ends. In fact, there is already a widespread acknowledgement of the role of design and its potential in facing societal challenges and helping social innovations (SI) to flourish. In particular, there is an increasing awareness of the impact design has on understanding and framing problems and finding solutions in collaboration with communities, influencing societies and the wider environment (Armstrong et al., 2014 ). According to a recent report from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (2015), we can also talk about Social Design as a design-based practice aimed at collective and social ends, rather than predominantly commercial or consumer-oriented objectives, which operates across many fields of application including the local and central government, as well as policy areas such as healthcare and international development (Armstrong et al., 2014). Despite wide acknowledgement of design as a strategic tool for developing SI initatives, especially Design Thinking, and the urgency in which social issues are rising, design is still underestimated or not considered as a resource in SI praxis; an insight that was drawn from the study of 26 Business Case Studies under the SIMPACT Project, a European Project funded under the 7th Framework Programme. Taking as a starting point one of the main results of SIMPACT, which illustrated how the vast majority of social innovators (80.7%) seek to obtain a particular social objective or a set of social objectives in combination with economic, respectively commercial, goals, this paper analyses and discusses the only two successful cases from SIMPACT benefitting from the role of design competences in shaping the tangible and intangible values of their products or services. In particular, the two cases make evident that creating factors of competitive advantage that go beyond the social mission is necessary to survive in a competitive business environment and exemplify how the application of design competences can contribute towards the development of the social innovatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to generate revenues to be invested in the social objective. The paper is organised as follows: section 2 describes the relationships that have been drawn until now, in literature, between design and SI and section 3 introduces the SIMPACT cases collection, as well as the two cases here discussed as examples of competitive SIs based on a design-oriented attitude. The final section draws some general conclusions and further steps from the SIMPACT project with respect to where we are with the application of Design Culture and design competences on SI
Design and its affinity with Social Innovation Regarding the diffusion of Design and especially of Design Thinking as the most suitable methodological approach to develop successful Social Innovation (SI), the debate here is still superficial and lacks a serious elaboration in the field of design practices and how it can be applied to SI processes.
2018
A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation
In particular, Design Thinking is advocated, today, as the most suitable method to design SI solutions without however distinguishing the strategic level of policy from the operative level of the solutions. If, at the general level, we observe a contradiction between the idea of SI as a kind of bottom-up process and that of design as a process of innovation led through the application of specific design competences (design-driven innovation), we also want to underline one bias that is occurring in the field of SI: that Design Thinking has been applied until now to analyse ex-post processes of SI. In this regard, we have seen a proliferation of studies that has tried to demonstrate how SI development can be described with user-centred design principles, which call for the involvement of end-users and beneficiaries in the development process of the solutions. Moreover, SI has been interpreted thus far by applying the typical process of New Product Development (Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan, 2010) and it has been conceptualised as the development and implementation of new ideas, products, services and programmes to meet social needs (Mulgan et al., 2007). While there is much buzz surrounding Design for SI, real practices seem to be quite distant from the application of basic principles of design. Moreover, it is also true that design shows a high potential for SI mainly for two fundamental reasons: SIs address problems that present high levels of complexity due to their intrinsic correlation with societal challenges; SIs require the involvement of different actors in order to be solved. Regarding the first dimension, these kinds of problems are often chronic and unmet, even if the forms in which they appear are completely new (the problem of migration has always been faced by advanced countries in different historical periods yet if we think of it as it is emerging in Europe these days, we can perceive, for example, the new difficulty that arises from the impossibility to control the flows). As a result, we need the collaboration of new and old expertise to manage them. Regarding the second dimension, the needs SIs address show a high degree of complexity due to the high number of actors involved in their solutions. This factor imposes a process of mediation capable of aligning and forming agreements between the involved stakeholders. This complexity, however, has been largely misunderstood, with the idea that the mere involvement of users in setting ideas and understanding their needs would correspond to the introduction of design and its practices in SI development. This is the idea behind the contribution of Brown and Wyatt (2010) that has merited the introduction of Design Thinking in the context of SI as a strategic tool but that, at the same time, due to its nature, neglects to report the practices and the cultures that operatively transform a solution (a product, a service) into a design-oriented one. Contrary to this perspective, we introduce here the notion â&#x20AC;&#x153;of design culture as a specific system of knowledge, competences and skills that operates within a specific context to develop new products, that mediates between the world of production and consumption
2019
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
and that coordinates multiple factors related to technology, market and societyâ&#x20AC;? (Deserti and Rizzo, 2014). With this respect the introduction of Design Culture and practices within the context of SI do not only rely on the collaborative dimension, between the end users or the beneficiaries and the initiator of the SI. Design Culture brings with it both the capability to strategically meet the needs of the users with the competences to deal with constraints related to all of the factors that affect the process of innovation development (technological, organisational, infrastructural, commercial, etc.). SIMPACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research results have demonstrated that SI is still far away from a conscious application of Design Culture. The majority of the cases showed that constraints still tend to be underestimated; solutions are often drafted and applied before a sound development; and prototypes tend to be considered solutions to be maintained as long as possible, rather than intermediate objects meant to be turned into stable products. But SIMPACT cases have also shown that when design culture applies to SI products, services and goods it can become more competitive and sustainable by better balancing its economic and social objectives. In the next section, we will focus our attention on the SIMPACT case collection and particularly on two cases, in which design did play a role in the solution, either immediately from the initial phases or later on, spurred by a need to be competitive on the market.
SIMPACT cases collection In SIMPACT, we analysed 26 case studies of Social Innovation (SI) that occurred across Europe during recent years, with a specific focus on their economic foundation. Their construction was based on case study methodology, used as a research frame particularly appropriate for examining a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context during its evolution, when boundaries are blurred and not so clearly defined (Yin, 2014: 13). The SIMPACT project adopted a qualitative approach with the aim of exploring a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) over time, through a detailed and in-depth data collection involving several sources of information (Creswell, 2013: 97). In particular, the casesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; analysis advance the understanding of the economic aspects of already-known and described cases, by means of deep qualitative desk research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), during which the authors collected and compared information coming from different sources: scientific publications, non-scientific publications, interviews or presentations of the initiators, websites of the enterprises or initiatives among others. The use of multiple sources enabled the exploration of complex situations, allowing for the gathering of multiple perspectives. The case studies provide SIMPACT with an important means of understanding the economic aspects of social innovation and of grounding Design Thinking by analysing the business models that inform SIs. In the longitudinal studies of the cases prepared in the context of the SIMPACT project, we noticed that if on one side, design thinking has not been
2020
A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation
internalized in SI processes, on the other, when design is present in detailing the offer in SIs, it can increase its possibility to become successful. In the following, we present Progetto QUID and Libera Terra as cases that show the role of design as a tool to make SI goods, products and services that render them competitive in the market.
3.1 Progetto QUID as a case of product design Progetto QUID, an ethical and eco-friendly â&#x20AC;&#x153;Made in Italyâ&#x20AC;? fashion brand, provides an interesting example of the potential role of design in the start-up phase of a social innovation. Progetto QUID is a Type B social cooperative based in Verona, Italy 1. It works off a double value proposition: a) by providing training and employment opportunities in the fashion industry to abused women and b) by offering major Italian fashion brands a way to re-use discarded or left-over stock material through the production of new product lines under a socially responsible brand. The idea behind Progetto QUID stems from the desire of its two founders, Anna Fiscale and Ludovico Mantoan, to help abused women find employment. The location, their personal networks of friends and family and the core team, which other than themselves included two young designers, facilitated the choice of the fashion industry as the most feasible business idea. Progetto QUID is located in Verona, which is at the heart of VeronaProntaModa, recognized by the Veneto Region in 2003 as the Fast Fashion industrial district. The Fast Fashion industry produces clothes mid-season, basing production on items that have had the most success. This strategy directly contrasts traditional fashion, whose clothes are planned and produced entirely before the beginning of the season. Specializing in Fast Fashion allows for lower investment in the styling and prototyping phases but requires a larger organization of highly efficient work to cut production time. Being situated in this district granted Progetto QUID a vast potential network of partners to insert themselves and the ability to feed off the intellectual resources at hand. The social enterpriseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original idea was to re-style clothes from previous seasons to sell in their store; however, this plan proved to be too difficult and provided low margins. After noticing the large amounts of discarded and scrap materials from previous seasons, the team decided it would be smarter to re-use the waste material to create new clothes from scratch. The first materials were donated to them by an important partnership developed with Calzedonia, a prominent intimate apparel company in Italy and the first to introduce Fast Fashion in the sector. The partnership with Calzedonia proved to be very fruitful and beyond providing them with free primary resources, allowed them the opportunity to test their products and learn the skills necessary to work quickly and efficiently. Progetto QUID furthermore, faces additional difficulties compared with traditional fashion companies as they must make do with whatever material they have at hand. The creative team is hence limited in their ability
1
Type B social cooperatives are profit-generating third sector organizations in Italy, in which 30% of the workforce must be composed of disadvantaged people by law.
2021
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
to follow market trends as they are forced to design items based on the material stock provided; quantity is also an issue as the amount of material available is limited making it difficult to leverage popular items for higher yields. On the flip side, items are original and unique due to the nature of their production and hold a high social and ecological value for customers. Under these resource constraints, Progetto QUID’s team can thus be characterized by a bricolage attitude that leveraged a strong ability to transform relational value into economic value. The presence of designers in the start-up phase played an important role in this, allowing the team to remain creative under pressure and not only produce novel contributions with perceived waste but also to be resilient to organizational and strategic change. The success of the social enterprise can thus be attributed to its creativity and ability to acquire resources from its partner network (Calzedonia, in particular) and local territory and use them efficiently to promote their final goal: employment for abused women. Unlike traditional firms who internalize know-how and competencies in the company structure, Progetto QUID relies on the intellectual resources provided by their partner network and local territory. In fact, the cooperative relies on its partner network for most of its resources: intellectual (know-how), primary (donated materials) and some human (abused women who are hired from social services). The cooperative’s core structure is thus amplified by mutual relationships created with supporting structures, suppliers, distribution channels and local, territorial entities; hence their tools and knowledge set is embedded within the local context rather than being limited to the organization alone. Not only do the objectives of the cooperative blur sector boundaries mixing economic and social objectives, but the boundaries of the cooperative are likewise blurred, extending beyond the organizational structure and into the vast network of relations created by the cooperative; a network that holds in itself a relational value of increasing worth. Progetto QUID illustrates the perhaps unique aspect of design culture in social innovations: its potential role in fostering and harnessing the rising importance of relational value in embedding companies in territories and markets.
3.2 Libera Terra as a case of communication and brand design Libera Terra is a network of nine social cooperatives, mostly in Southern Italy, producing organic food and wine on assets confiscated from the mafias. Libera Terra is the concrete result of the advocacy work done by its parent association, Libera, who under the leadership of Don Luigi Ciotti collected one million signatures to petition for the law 109/96 targeting the economic power of the Mafiosi by confiscating their assets and designating them to those subjects—associations, cooperatives, municipalities, provinces, and regions—able to restore them to the citizens through the production of services, activities of social promotion and employment. Libera Terra’s social cooperatives currently manage 1,400 hectares of confiscated lands and employ about 140 people. In collaboration with the Consortium Libera Terra Mediterraneo
2022
A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation
(LTM), established in 2008, the cooperatives produce 60 different products, including pasta, legumes, salsas, honey, cookies, coffee, sweets, juice, olive oil and wine under the brand, Libera Terra (the wine is sold under the brand Centopassi and Libera Terra). LTM was established to consolidate the business strategy of the cooperatives and centralize not only their agricultural planning but also their marketing and brand management. The success of LTM can been seen in a 30% increase in total turnover in 2010, compared to 2009. In fact, the total turnover in agricultural goods alone rose by 34% and the net profit increased by 121%; results which testify the need for centralized coordination (Fiore, 2014). The Libera Terra brand however is owned by the association Libera, to whom they pay royalties. The brands, Libera and Libera Terra, in fact share the same color codes and the word libera, Italian for “freedom”. The joint branding was important especially in the startup phase as it gave credibility to the social cause of the brand, which was the first ploy to attract customers. Importance was placed at the beginning on the social value of the product rather than on the quality of the product, as the products took on the advocacy work and social values promoted by the association and the cooperatives themselves. In 2008, however, at the onset of LTM’s work, an improved brand strategy was of paramount importance in order to create a more solid market: one based on the quality of the products rather than solely on their added social value – a decision made based on the philosophy that pity purchases do not constitute regular purchases. The cooperatives needed a stable market of customers buying their products equally for both the quality and taste and the added social value. LTM thus started making gradual changes, first by modifying the brand’s tagline from “made from lands confiscated from the mafias” to “lands freed of the mafias”, changing the semantic power of the phrase from one which highlights the act of taking away to one being liberated and freed. The second change was made in the branding of its wine products, removing the tagline all together from the front of the bottle leaving only the brand, Centopassi, and placing the Libera Terra brand with the tagline on the back of the bottle, in order to further base consumer choice on the quality of the product rather than the social value. Libera Terra thus highlights the importance of designing artefacts in social innovation capable of communicating the social message while likewise rendering the product or service competitive on the market. It therefore highlights an interesting trait of design culture in social enterprises that not only must mediate between production and consumption but also between different value propositions: balancing the added social value of products and services with their commercial value and thus mediating between the for-profit and non-profit divide. Design culture in social enterprises furthermore must mediate not only internally but externally as well, interfacing with the multiple stakeholders that are a part of the solution.
2023
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
3.3 Cases discussion The SIMPACT cases have largely demonstrated how Design Cultures and practices are still superficially affecting Social Innovation (SI). If attention to the needs of the beneficiaries as well as those of all of the stakeholders involved is clearly a characteristic of SI, then the clear assumption of constraints, the detailed design of solutions, the use of prototyping to test and provide feedback for their refinement are quite rarely emerging as established practices in SI. On the contrary, Progetto QUID and Libera Terra have shown the potential that the introduction of Design Culture and practices may have on improving SI chances to become sustainable by improving the quality of the offering. The literature on management as well as that on design has already discussed the role of design as a competitive asset in the for-profit sector (Borja de Mozota, 2002; Verganti, 2009; Martin, 2009). However, we still observe serious barriers in the field of SI to combine the idea of competitiveness with that of social impact, as pursued by SI initiates. If in general we observe a sort of reticence to talk about the quality of the products and services SI offers, Progetto QUID and Libera Terra show specific treats that exemplify the impact that design culture can have to produce and offer good products. Specifically, we discuss the elements of design culture expressed by each of the abovedescribed cases to conceive and release a successful offering that can be synthetized as follows: high capability in product design; high quality of manufacturing; strong communication strategy and brand design. High capability in product design Progetto QUID represents a product innovation and a new method of production by: (1) finding a new channel to source its primary resource (cloth/textile materials); (2) producing in “outsourcing” for major brands their socially responsible clothing line; and (3) using the surrounding territory as an asset. On the basis of these three components, Progetto QUID applied design competences and the skills of two young designers to design their products. While the original idea was to restyle clothes from previous seasons and sell them in their own stores, the introduction of specific design competences soon influenced the choices of the founders. They found that clothes were difficult to re-style and discovered that companies had a lot of scrap cloth left over from previous seasons, which could no longer be used. Progetto QUID decided to change strategies and use the leftover cloth to make new clothes. The cloth, coming from top fashion companies, were also guaranteed to be of high quality, allowing Progetto QUID to create not only unique items but high quality garments. Libera Terra represents an innovative case of SI for the attention spent on a high quality offering and a large product portfolio. The Consortium Libera Terra Mediterraneo (LTM) and
2024
A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation
the Agency Cooperare con Libera Terra were developed to facilitate commercial growth strategies, knowledge and skills. An important part of this strategy was gaining the skills necessary to bring quality to their products and to be competitive in traditional markets. The Libera Terra cooperatives are furthermore governed by an ethical code which binds their entire supply chain from local wheat farmers who help supply the necessary grains for their flour production to those who help transform raw material into final products. The suppliers must uphold to all of the criteria set forth in the code, which include being mafia free and using organic farming methods. After over a decade of development since the founding of the first cooperative, Libera Terraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s products have risen in quality and in response their brand strategy and packaging has evolved to highlight this aspect as will be seen below, focusing on quality rather than the social value. High quality of the manufacturing The success of Progetto QUID is highly rooted in the fertile, fashion and textile industry located in Verona, a factor which should be evaluated in scaling efforts or replication strategies. After investigating the opportunities that could stem from Verona, the two founders chose to dedicate themselves to fashion because they saw that it had the most potential, due to: the fertile fashion industry in the territory, the large network of familyowned companies and the handful of large brands based in Verona. The focus on fashion in fact resulted from an evaluation of the high-quality manufacturing available in the territory. The success of Libera Terra is rooted in the strengthening of local production through local employment, which exploits the knowledge and competences coming from the culture of the territories used to make the Libera Terra products. Each individual Libera Terra cooperative specializes in the food products coming from their own region and local territory. For the adhering cooperative, agricultural planning is strategically and centrally managed by LTM, as is the marketing strategy, allowing for a coordinated approach to market trends. As each cooperative is competing in the same niche market, it is important that the products are diversified in order to prevent internal competition. Moreover, the ethical code also enforces a distinct attention towards the quality of suppliers. Furthermore, the cooperatives benefit from the extensive knowledge and input of their partners, Legacoop (one of the four main macro-associations of cooperatives in Italy with over 15,000 members (cooperatives), in particular. Other certifications, such as organic food certificates issued by government agencies and national wine regulations also assist in assuring the manufacturing quality of the products. Strong communication strategy and brand design. On top of the above outcomes and impacts, both cases benefit from a positive brand image and the presence of strong communication strategies that allow them to build valuable networks and partnerships. The sound social and business ethos of Progetto QUID allowed them to work with companies like Calzedonia in constructing a positive brand image while creating resonance with end users. They decided to change their business strategy from focusing on items to be
2025
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
sold in their stores to items commissioned from their partner companies to be sold in the companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s distribution channels; thereby reaching a larger potential client base while maintaining the Progetto QUID brand. Libera Terraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social cooperatives distribute their economic resources primarily to cover costs. Any remaining surplus is reinvested in the company. Being part of a strong network and supporting ecosystem brings great visibility and publicity to the SI especially when linked to a strong mission. LT also benefits greatly from the advocacy of its parent association Libera and from its network of partners, including Legacoop. The brand faced a re-design following their initial Cause-Related Marketing phase: the Libera Terra cooperatives realized that their products had to be chosen for their quality and not solely for their ethical or social value to have a market presence that wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seasonal or occasional but constant. The cooperatives thus, through LTM, implemented a new brand strategy focused on the quality of the products: organic, local and made on lands freed from the mafias. The packaging also changed in order to create a strong, clear brand image and culture that celebrated the local traditions that were allowed to express themselves thanks to the freed lands.
Conclusion and further steps In conclusion, the two cases, Progetto QUID and Libera Terra, have been reported in this article as exceptions and examples of the role that design can play in supporting Social Innovations (SI) to operatively develop products and services and strategically define their communication and brand strategy. Both cases have shown that when design culture meets SI, it can strongly impact the capability of the solution to become sustainable and selfstanding. This in turn may help SI to overcome some of the typical barriers that may prevent its development, like: dependency on public funds, donations and volunteering; the lack of specific competences and skills of production; the dilemma of balancing economic and social value; and the problem of scalability. However, the majority of the cases from the SIMPACT collection has shown that SI praxis is still far away from applying design culture, competences and principles, despite many contributions, mainly from design theory that are drawing relations between SI and Design. The last few years have seen a rise of new forms, such as: co-design, co-construction, collaborative design, community design, design activism, frame creation (Dorst, 2015), social innovation (Manzini 2015) and manifestos such as Design for Transformation (Burns et al. , 2006) and DesignX (Ju, Neeley & Leifer,2007) that push designers to use their skills to work on major societal challenges and to give shape to SI. Despite the large number of contributions that are theorizing and recommending the application of design methodologies for the development of SI, the research SIMPACT conducted on 26 cases of SI in Europe has shown however that design has not yet been disseminated and applied in this area. Moreover, the two cases in which it did play a role have highlighted how, most of the time, the development of SI is far from being a typical
2026
A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation
New Product Development (NPD) process of design driven innovation (Terstriep et al, 2015). In addition, Participatory Design, and its multiple techniques, does not appear to be applied in the design and implementation of the partnerships and the small scale networks that typically promote and start-up SI. On the contrary, the majority of the SIMPACT cases failed to demonstrate the application of Design at a strategic, as well as operative level; SIs furthermore appear as the result of bricolage and improvisation while facing problems under resource scarcity (Guntry et al., 2011). The role that Design can have in creating added value, by designing services, products or communication strategies for SIs to make them more successful, is in the majority of cases neglected. Our hypothesis is that until now, post-analyses of cases likely tried to impose the Design Thinking method as a series of steps along which to sort out SI steps. Despite abundant literature stating the role of usercentred design for SI development, the real practices seem to be quite distant from the application of basic design principles. In this sense, on-going steps of the project are trying to include a design perspective on two accounts: understanding where, when and how design culture may intervene in the process of SI development both at a strategic as well as operative level. Along this line of research, the authors will start from the evidence that has emerged from the case analysis that have shown that while the process of SI is far from being comparable to a NPD strategy, there is a creative and constrained process, taking place under resource scarcity. designing a toolbox for social innovation that includes - among other fields’ operational instruments – also some selected service design tools to facilitate both the generation of new SIs and the development of those already existing. In conclusion, while the majority of the cases did not have the resources to support an idea generation and prototyping phase, the two cases above demonstrate that when SIs attempt to approach the traditional market, introducing elements of design, even in a non-codified and unstructured manner, allowed them to be more competitive. Generally, SIs instead scale through a complex, open and participatory process resulting from highly constrained creative processes that include serendipity, bricolage and a high level of context dependency. Acknowledgements: The present article is situated in the context of a wider, on-going research project «SIMPACT – Boosting the Economic Impact of Social Innovation in Europe through Economic Underpinnings». The project is funded under the European Commission 7th Framework Programme for research, development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 613411 that examines the economic foundation of social innovation.
2027
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
References Adams, R., Mann, L., Jordan, S. & Daly, S. (2009) Exploring the Boudaries: Language Roles and Structures in Cross-Disciplinary Design teams, in McDonnell, J. & Lloyd, P. (eds.), About: Designing: Analysing Design Meeting, Taylor & Francis, 339-358. Armstrong, L., Bailey, J., Julier, G. & Kimbell, L. (2014) Social Design Futures: HEI Research and the AHRC. University of Brighton and Victoria and Albert Museum. Brown, T. (2008) Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92. Brown, T. & Wyatt, J. (2010) Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1): 30-35. Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006) RED paper 02: Transformation design. London: Design Council. Consiglio Regionale del Veneto. Veneto Economy. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/zpdvdho Consorzio Sviluppo e Legalità. (2002) Le Iniziative: Coop. Placido Rizzoto Lt. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/jnn7ujk Creswell, J.W. (2013) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y.S (1994) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deserti, A. & Rizzo, F. (2014) Design and the Cultures of Enterprises. Design Issues, 30(1): 36-56. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H. & Negus, K. (1997) Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman, Sage. Fiore, V. (2014) 1003963, Le Cooperative di Libera Terra: l’uso sociale dei beni confiscate per uno sviluppo credibile [Power Point Slides]. 1003963, Parma: University of Parma, Department of Economics. Fiscale, A. (2015) Narrative Interview. Verona. Gundry, L.K., Kickul, J.R. , Griffiths, M.D. & Bacq, S.C., (2011) Creating Social Change Out of Nothing: The Role of Entrepreneurial Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurs' Catalytic Innovations, Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship, 13: 1–24. Ju, W., Neeley, W. L., & Leifer, L. (2007) Design, Design, and Design AN OVERVIEW OF STANFORD’S CENTER FOR DESIGN RESEARCH. Lawson, B. (2004) What Designers Know, New York, NY: Architectural Press. Legacoop. (2011) Legacoop Informazioni. (Year 22 No. 18). Libera. (2012) Bilancio Sociale 2012. Rome: Libera Associazioni, nomi e numeri contro le mafie. Libera. (2013) Bilancio Sociale 2013. Rome: Libera Associazioni, nomi e numeri contro le mafie. Libera. (2014) Il riutilizzo sociale dei beni confiscati alle mafie per la legalità, lo sviluppo sostenibile e la coesione territoriale: proposta di lavoro nella programmazione europea 2014-2020. Rome: Libera Associazioni, nomi e numeri contro le mafie. Manzini, E. (2015) Design, when everyone designs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Martin, R. L. (2009) The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Molotch, H. (2003) Where stuff comes from: How Toasters, Toilets, Computers, and Many Other Things Come to Be as They Are. New York, NY: Routledge. Mozota, B. B. (2002) Design and competitive edge: A model for design management excellence in European SMEs1. Academic Review, 2(1), 88-103.
2028
A case based discussion on the role of Design Competences in Social Innovation
Mulgan, G. (2006) The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2): 145-162. Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. & Sanders, B. (2007) Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It can be Accelerated. Oxford: Oxford Said Business School. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation. London: Nesta. Norman, D. (2010) Why Design Education Must Change, http://tinyurl.com/oaz3u6m, (Accessed 20 July, 2015). Osservatorio Nazionale Distretti Italiani. Distretto VeronaModa. Retreived from http://tinyurl.com/jrckwvw Rancière, J. (1991) The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. SIMPACT project, (2015) http://www.simpact-project.eu (accessed 11 November 2015) Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J.M. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Terstriep, J. & Totterdill, P. (2014) Economic Foundation of Social Innovation: New Modes of Policy Production. Paper presented at RIP 2014 – 9th Regional Innovation Policy Conference, 16-17 October 2014, University of Stavanger, Norway. Terstriep, J., Kleverbeck, M., Deserti, A. & Rizzo, F. (2015) Comparative Report on Social Innovation across Europe. Deliverable D3.2 of the project «Boosting the Impact of SI in Europe through Economic Underpinnings» (SIMPACT), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research & Innovation. Tovey, M., Porter, S., & Newman, R. (2003) Sketching, concept development and automotive design, Design Studies, 24, pp 135–153. Ulrich, K., and Eppinger, S. (2004) Product Design and Development (3rd edition), McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Verganti, Roberto. (2009) Design-driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating what Things Mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. VeronaModa. Consorzio. Retreived from http://www.veronamoda.it VeronaModa. Distretto. Retreived from http://www.veronamoda.it VeronaModa. Servizi. Retreived from http://www.veronamoda.it Whiteley, N. (1993) Design for society. London, UK: Reaktion. Yin, R.K. (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th edition, London: Sage Publications.
2029
Tamami Komatsu, Manuela Celi, Francesca Rizzo and Alessandro Deserti
About the Authors: Tamami Komatsu is a Researcher at the Politecnico di Milano. She primarily focuses on design in social innovation and the social economy. Manuela Celi, PhD in Industrial Design, is currently Assistant professor at the Dipartimento di Design of the Politecnico di Milano. Her research interests are focused on design driven innovation and on the different forms of knowledge connected to design. Francesca Rizzo, Ph.D., holds a Tenure Track position at the University of Bologna where she teaches Design Studio and Service Design. Assistant professor at Politecnico di Milano (2009-13) she is an expert in Service Design and Participatory Design. Alessandro Deserti, Full professor of product design at Politecnico di Milano. His research focuses on approaches, practices and tools for the design driven innovation: in this field he published several articles, and works as a consultant for many companies and institutions.
2030
Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking Lisa Mercer University of North Texas, USA lisa@lisamercerdesign.com DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.211
Abstract: The 3.5 million truck drivers on U.S. highways are in a unique position to identify incidents of human trafficking and to help victims by providing information to authorities. Studies show that truck stops in the United States are a common venue for sex trafficking due to their remote locations and lax security. This research project asks: How can a specifically designed technologically-based communication enable truck drivers to report incidents at a higher rate than is now being reported? Keywords: Qualitative Design, Inclusive Design, Activity Theory, Human Centred Design
Introduction When I first started studying human trafficking, I was surprised to discover its proximity to my home and my childrens’ school and the sheer number of victims affected globally and domestically. The desire and urge to know more about human trafficking grew, and eventually, I decided this was the cause I wanted to focus on for my thesis. Since starting this project, I have heard stories about victims of human trafficking on a regular basis. Some stories have stuck with me more than others, not because they are worse, but because they are compounded by the ages of the victim. One friend shared a story about a young girl—a girl so young that she was still in pigtails—whose parents sold her as a sex worker to help pay their rent and bills. During my secondary research, I read a story about a 16-year-old girl named Sarah, who ran away from home and was introduced to one of her traffickers through a friend. She was taken to a house in Phoenix, Arizona where she was bound, violently gang raped, and kept in a dog kennel where she was threatened with a gun. She was physically harmed and psychologically imprisoned as her captors repeatedly threatened to hurt her family should she attempt to leave. She was continuously raped and forced to prostitute herself during This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Lisa Mercer
her time with the traffickers. The only reason Sarah survived was because one of her captors was arrested and told the police Sarah was hiding in the box spring of a mattress and thought she might run out of oxygen (NBC News, 2015).
Statement of Problem Human trafficking, also known as modern-day slavery and sex and labor trafficking, has seen an increase in public awareness in the United States since 2000, when the Trafficking Victims Protection Act became federal law. This allowed human trafficking to be punishable by law as a federal crime. The definition of human trafficking used in this study comes from the first global legally binding definition formed by the United Nations in 2003: The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude and the removal of organs. (Trafficking in Persons Protocol, article 3 (a))
When referring to sex laborers, child sex laborers, and victims of survival sex in this study, I am referring to them as victims who have been held “by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion” (Trafficking in Persons Protocol, 2009). Children who are sex laborers are often runaways, abducted, or neglected. They receive little to no support from a guardian and are forced into trading sex for money or basic necessities. In this study, the basic human needs refer to those originally articulated by Maslow in 1943, which determined the five basic necessities every human must meet every day in the following order: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. The most important is the foundation the other four must rest on, the physiological needs, which include breathing, food, water, and sleep. When a child’s basic needs are not being met, it creates an ideal scenario for traffickers to take advantage of their vulnerability. Whereas basic necessities are often the reason children are coerced into human trafficking, this does not equate to a particular economic bracket of our society.
Sex Trafficking Sex trafficking has become the fastest growing form of organized crime in which the perpetrators control their victims by subjecting them to physical and emotional abuse (Walker, 2013). There is a common misperception that human trafficking is less likely to happen to an American citizen and more likely to occur to a foreign national brought to the United States. It is estimated that 41% of sex trafficking victims in the United States are U.S. citizens (National Human Trafficking Resource Center, 2013). Victims of human trafficking come from a range of situations that include runaways, kidnappings, foster care, neglect, abuse, homelessness, a lack of support, or a combination of these. It is becoming increasingly common for victims to be lured online through social media or online gaming
2032
Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking
targeting children from every socio-economic bracket. Females represent 80% of the victims of sexual trafficking and their average age is 12–14 years old. Male victims of sexual trafficking are recruited between the ages of 11–13 years old (Walker, 2013). The male victims’ average age is getting younger because of the demands of the men who solicit sex workers, commonly referred to as “Johns.” Girls are typically sold ten times each night, six nights a week, adding up to one girl being raped approximately 15,000 times by the time she is 18, when she becomes a “willing participant” (Hunt, 2013). The story of Sarah detailed at the beginning of this paper demonstrates one of many ways children are recruited into sex trafficking. Sara Ann Friedman of the organization End Child Prostitution and Trafficking USA (2005) interviewed a young woman named Sonya, who said she had been moved to more states than she could remember and had left the life many times, but always felt it was the only thing she thought she was good at, so she returned to it. According to the organization Demand Abolition (Hunt, 2013), a paradigm shift is needed regarding how the roles people play in the human trafficking of minors are named and referred to in the media. Instead of a “child prostitute,” this organization believes that an underage sex worker should be referred to as “someone who is being raped as a means to provide profits to whomever is forcing her to accept money for sexual services” (Hunt, 2013). Instead of calling the people who solicit these minors “Johns,” Demand Abolition believes they should be referred to as sexual predators. It was not until 2005 that the U.S. government legally recognized the importance of changing the term from juvenile prostitution to commercial sexual exploitation of children or child sex trafficking. This applies to anyone eighteen and younger who has transacted sex for basic needs, such as money, food, or a place to stay. A study conducted by the University of Toledo on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking (Prior, 2009) reported, “Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 and its revisions in 2005 and 2008 has done much to change the perception of child sex trafficking at the federal level” (p. 47). The TVPA helped change some of the language government officials use to refer to victims of human trafficking. For instance, juvenile prostitution is now referred to as commercial sexual exploitation of children, and pimps are now called traffickers. The change in terms is important for a paradigm shift to occur in how people view children who are victims of trafficking. Friedman (2005) expands on this topic stating, The public, by and large, has come to view prostitution as a victimless crime and makes little distinction between adults and adolescents under eighteen. Advocates argue that juvenile prostitution is a crime, but not victimless… the majority of prostituted girls do not see themselves as victims until many years later and only then if they are well out of the life. They often cling to the false belief that they are doing what they want [to do], believing their pimp is the only one who can save them, that he will fulfill all his promises and that their lives will [someday] change for the better. (p. 4)
Many victims are afraid of the police because of the threats and verbal abuse they have repeatedly received as victims of sex trafficking from their traffickers. It is difficult for them to confide in or admit to authorities they are victims of an illicit sex trade. In a study at Northeastern University, Farrell (2012) found, “When victims are detained, they often
2033
Lisa Mercer
experience many of the same negative emotions that they experienced in the trafficking situation. Arresting victims can destroy their trust in law enforcement and subsequently decrease their willingness to participate in investigations” (p. 122). Because human trafficking is still not commonly understood in our culture, most law enforcement agencies do not have protocols set up for them to identify victims of human trafficking, and they often fail to identify these victims before giving them back to their captors. This study began with the research question: How can technology help victims of sex trafficking help themselves? Further research and the realization of the circumstances in which many sex workers are recruited into the industry made it clear it may not always be a realistic objective for victims to feel empowered to help themselves. The fear and manipulation victims endure from their traffickers dominates their natural instinct of fight or flight, resulting in these victims remaining in stasis as forced sex workers. President Barack Obama acknowledged the importance of using technology in the fight against human trafficking when he was the keynote speaker at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in 2012, stating “…we’re turning the tables on the traffickers. Just as they are now using technology and the Internet to exploit their victims, we’re going to harness technology to stop them.”
Actors Polaris, headquartered in Washington D.C., is one of the leading non-profit organizations in the fight against human trafficking in the United States. The physical locations they list as common domestic networks of operation for human trafficking are streets, hotels, residential brothels, strip clubs, some massage parlors, truck stops, and private parties. They report more than 42% of cases that occur are cases of pimp-controlled prostitution at hotels/motels, streets, and truck stops. More than 40% of the cases of pimp-controlled prostitution involve a child under the age of eighteen (NHTRC, Statistical). The National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC) found that more than half the callers who identified themselves as truck drivers reported potential cases of human trafficking, and 70% of those reports made reference to a minor being involved in some capacity (NHTRC, Annual Report). Polaris reports many victims stay at one truck stop for a short period of time and are then moved from state to state in order to avoid law enforcement and for the victims to become familiar with their surroundings (Truck Stops at a Glance, 2012). This hinders not only locating victims, but also the ability to identify them. Given this reality, the 3.5 million professional truck drivers traveling U.S. highways are in a unique position to provide information that could lead to trafficker apprehensions. Although the NHTRC hotline has received nearly 32,000 anonymous phone calls to report incidents of human trafficking, only 300 of these calls were from truck drivers (NHTRC, Statistical). Educating this industry about human trafficking and getting truckers involved can be critical steps toward stopping the abuse of these victims as they are moved from truck stop to truck stop on the nation’s highways.
2034
Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking
Research Questions The purpose of this research was to gain an understanding of the way drivers operate day to day, the type of technology drivers used, and the reason they used it. This would help to ensure the artifact created as a result of this research would be designed with the population for which it was intended. After conducting secondary research, my question evolved from how technology can help people in human trafficking to how an integrated form of technologically based communication would enable truck drivers to report incidents of human trafficking at a higher rate. My secondary questions were focused on potential unintended consequences the technology created based on this research could have. Mark Latonero (2012), the Principal Investigator and Research Director at the University of Southern California, established five guiding principles for technological interventions in human trafficking. “The ultimate beneficiaries of any technological intervention should be the victims and survivors of human trafficking. Successful implementation of anti-trafficking technologies requires cooperation among actors across government, nongovernmental, and private sectors, sharing information and communicating in a coordinated manner” (p. v).
Methods I divided my research into two phases. Phase one focused on the exploratory framework, which included secondary research, interviews, and field site observations. Phase two focused on the user-group framework. Although different methods of research were used in each phase, two phases will be presented to highlight the different aspects of the research and to reflect on the way phase one impacted the work performed in phase two.
5.1 Phase I – Exploratory Research The exploratory research sought to: 1) analyze how truck drivers engage in everyday activities while they are on the road working, 2) to gain a better understanding of how truck drivers operate while on the road, 3) to understand how extant or emerging technology could encourage higher levels of trafficking reports, and 4) how technology naturally integrates into their daily activities. Grounded theory carried through my exploratory research, allowing me to conduct my research and continuously ask open-ended questions to determine the direction of phase one. A study by Muller and Kogen examined grounded theory and explained the result of the process as “a rich, deeply interwoven description of the phenomena (being studied), and a set of new open-ended questions for further work” (p. 2). To learn about these objectives, I conducted interviews and made field site observations at a truck driver training school and at truck stops. The first driver, truck driver #3, was a referral from a non-profit organization. He had been working in the trucking industry for nearly 20 years and worked with different organizations privately and publicly to provide assistance to victims of human trafficking and to help develop policies that would create a safe environment for human trafficking victims. His
2035
Lisa Mercer
hope was to change the image of truck drivers, and he required every one of his employees to be trained to recognize the signs of human trafficking. He believes truck drivers have three options when a sex worker knocks on the doors of their rigs: 1) Invite the girl in, 2) refuse her, or 3) call the 888 number (hotline ran by the NHTRC). If we call the police, then the girl will likely flip-flop her story once the police arrive because her trafficker is most likely nearby and then the driver is the one that gets in trouble. Ninety-nine percent of the guys [drivers] are good honest family guys… fathers, husbands, and grandfathers. They are out there trying to make a living to put food on the table. (Truck Driver #3, 2014)
He discussed the different types of technology he uses and knowing my objectives for this research, he recommended, “Make sure it [the technology] can capture as much information as possible and get publicity and as much advertisement as physically possible. From a trucker’s standpoint, we have a higher advantage. You can see everything. It’s a whole other world out there. I have seen things most people wouldn’t believe I have seen.” (Truck Driver #3, 2014) T ECHNOLOGY I learned about many different types of technology drivers use while working, such as Qualcomm (on board computer in the tractor), Garmin Global Position System (GPS), iPhone, iPod, computer, mobile hot spots, satellite radio, citizens band radio (CB) and mobile applications. Many drivers used iPods and iPhones to call, face-time, email, or text their family and friends. One driver mentioned using his phone to communicate with clients via texts or phone calls; however, the most important use of their technology is to plan their route for the next day. GPS allows them to input the height of their tractor-trailer and it will route them appropriately; however, they also have to consult with Google maps and the Qualcomm to avoid any major construction. I spoke with many drivers with a range of preferences of technology. Whereas the CB is the most common form of technology in a driver’s rig, many choose to keep it turned off. “The CB became the place where guys are rude and many people just don’t mess with it anymore. It is good for accidents. I especially keep it on when I am carrying 80,000 pounds...it is good to know what is ahead of you.” (Truck Driver #5, 2014). One driver I spoke with had more than 30 years of experience in the industry, and he did not use any of the mobile devices previously mentioned. He had a cell phone, but he did not email or text, whereas others had all of the aforementioned devices and used them frequently. Many mentioned the on board computer, Qualcomm, that was in the tractor for them to use to create reports and log how long they had driven and how many breaks they were legally required to take. Most drivers I spoke with looked at these computers as if their employers were watching them and preferred to use their own mobile devices. One interviewee, truck driver #4 explained, “There is this idea of big brother watching them while they are out on the road. Many men are told to abide by the laws with driving times; however, once they are handed their times, they realize they don’t have any other option. They prefer to use logs on
2036
Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking
their phones or paper logs. This way they don’t have big brother watching their every move.” (Truck Driver #4, 2014)
Figure 1 Truck Driver #2 sent a screenshot of his phone to show the mobile application he uses.
One gentleman was anticipating our interview and was excited to tell me about the apps he likes to use. His exact words were, “I love apps!” (Truck Driver #2, 2014) (– Figure 1) He said many drivers like to use apps, especially the apps that allowed them to earn money by spending money at specific locations. Loves, TA Petro, and Pilot all have rewards programs. Some trucking companies also have rewards programs that work in conjunction with Loves, TA Petro, and Pilot. I downloaded one of these apps because I was curious to see if it would be possible to incorporate an incident report form into an existing app. The reports filed through these apps would need to be sent to the same location as the stand-alone app; however, because a driver has an account associated with these apps, the concept of anonymity may not be supported. S AFETY The biggest safety concerns were cargo theft and the feeling of being vulnerable to this crime. Many of the bigger truck stops employ off-duty police officers to ensure safety; however, drivers need to get off the road early to get a spot at a nice truck stop, which is not always an option to ensure the products get to the clients on time. There is also the risk of a sex worker being used as a distraction for cargo theft. (Truck Stops at a Glance, 2012) When I asked drivers if they had ever reported an incident of human trafficking to the police, many of them gave an explanation rather than a yes or no answer. Each driver I spoke with
2037
Lisa Mercer
had at least one memory of a girl they knew was too young to be knocking on their door. Truck Driver #5 said, You know it is hard to tell between that (human trafficking) and prostitution, it seems like they have hidden it more than it used to be. I can remember years ago in Florida, it was horrible, really young girls knocking on the door, one girl couldn’t have been 14, it was pouring down rain, after a while you get hardened by it because it happens a lot. (Truck Driver #5, 2014)
H UMAN T RAFFICKING V ERSUS P ROSTITUTION It became apparent there was no clear definition for many participants who were victims of human trafficking and who were working as sex workers as willing participants. One participant I interviewed questioned, “I don’t mean to be insensitive; however, don’t lot lizards need to make a living?” Sex workers at truck stops have many different labels; the most commonly known is the term lot lizard. While conducting research on this term, I found t-shirts that read, I love Lot Lizards. (– Figure 2) This is an actual product a company made for consumers to purchase.
Figure 2 These are just some examples of the t-shirts found that read, I love Lot Lizards.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research, as any research would have, and the need for an educational tool to inform the trucking industry on human trafficking with an emphasis on the sex trafficking occurring at truck stops. It is imperative to know
2038
Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking
their mind-set to educate the industry on human trafficking and prostitution. This question does not have an easy and clear answer, which is the reason so many victims of human trafficking are hidden in plain sight. F ACTORS The factors determined in phase one helped to design the prototype framework in phase two. These factors were anonymity, convenience, working time, safety, types of technology, ease of use, and recognizing human trafficking. It also helped determine four potential places for product integration of reporting devices, such as GPS, Qualcomm, existing apps, and mobile apps. The Qualcomm and existing apps were eliminated because of the importance of anonymity. GPS was quickly eliminated because of the inability to have access to the Internet or a wireless network at all times.
5.2 Phase 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Prototype Framework Once I determined a mobile app would be the best fit for this study, I started using the determined factors to create a prototype. This research phase focused on creating the prototype, gaining the approval of an Institutional Review Board to conduct user groups, and analyzing the information gathered to determine any changes needed to be made to the mobile app. P ROTOTYPE While creating a prototype for user groups, I used the factors gleaned from phase one as a constant source of direction. For example, while conducting exploratory research, I interviewed many truck drivers who had recalled hearing solicitations from victims over the CB. Because of these statements, I included an audio recording function for truck drivers to make recordings of these types of solicitations. When talking to the human trafficking group who would be receiving these reports, they had not considered this type of reporting capability and were excited about the prospect. I NTERVIEWS The intention of these interviews were meant to be conducted as user groups; however, after coordinating one, I quickly realized the timing would continue to be a difficult when considering the differences in each driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schedule. I then changed my recruitment options for the truck drivers and allowed them to decide if they wanted to be a part of a user group or a one-on-one phone interview. All drivers chose a one-on-one phone interview. Although the format did change, the questions and the goal to receive feedback from the drivers did not. These interviews were imperative to ensure the mobile app was designed with the population for which it was intended. Utilizing activity theory helped me understand the interaction between my participants and the mobile app, sex workers at truck stops, and how those encounters could translate into creating a report on this mobile application. (Bennett, 2006, Pg. 75) An important aspect of this phase was to engage in an on going, collaborative relationship with drivers who would
2039
Lisa Mercer
derive the most benefits from this research. This allowed me to learn how truck drivers engage in a variety of communication-based activities, especially those that might help guide my design of an effective, digitally facilitated interdiction system that could curtail instances of human trafficking in and around American interstate highways. This method helped ensure the efficiency of this app in perspective to how it could fit into a truck driver’s daily routine. Information gained from the user groups and one-on-one interviews helped determine any changes to the app and its functionality before being released to the public. While I had included the audio component for solicitations heard on a CB, many of the drivers in this phase liked this option because it allowed them to give an oral incident report in transit since it is illegal for them to use their phones while driving. According to one driver, I liked the audio [option], so that you could not only write down, you could choose to just say, ‘I saw this… I saw that.’ That was different and I liked that, and make a recording… I liked the write over the audio, but there are advantages, like going down the road. You could stop on the side of the road and it would be quicker to do the audio form, to just make a recording and send it out to the national human trafficking resource hub. (Truck Driver #10)
One of the drivers mentioned that he wished the mobile app was currently available to report a tip. He stated, “The other day while I was driving, I passed a truck, and I saw a dog cage in the back of the truck, which is normal, there was a blanket over the crate, which is also normal; however, I thought I saw a head in the crate. I slowed down to let the truck pass me and as it pulled in front of me and got off on the shoulder of the highway I was able to verify there was a person in the crate…I called the state troopers right away.” (Truck Driver #15)
Another aspect many drivers mentioned was the option of anonymity. Many participants I interviewed in phase one mentioned the difficulties of becoming involved in the situation and would prefer a way to submit a report that preserved their anonymity. While the mobile app automatically populates with the date, place, and time, the only required question is whether the person doing the reporting minds being contacted by law enforcement. One interviewee stated, One big problem that we have out here is we have to show our driver's license a lot. We have to get them photocopied, all kinds of stuff… now they know that my wife and my family are alone. Nobody even bothers with that. That’s why I said that they have the anonymity problem is because they’re trying to protect their home front from a possibility of getting in repercussions, because we’re dealing with the dark side. These people have no problem in going and taking care of our family, because they know there’s always a means to find them.” Not only are the victims afraid of traffickers’ threats to their families, but also the truck drivers themselves see the danger of getting involved. (Truck Driver #11)
2040
Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking
Figure 3 Flow Chart of Mobile Application used in the user groups, interviews and at the conference
H UMAN T RAFFICKING C ONFERENCE In April 2015, I attended a conference organized by the Freedom Network held in Washington D.C. This is the largest human trafficking conference in the United States, and its participant’s work with victims of human trafficking. Most of the attendees were lawyers, law enforcement, and social workers. Though my intention for attending was to learn more about human trafficking, the feedback I received from these participants on the prototype of the mobile app was immeasurable. After showing it to a prosecutors, law enforcement and social service providers, I started receiving feedback based on the way they used information received from an incident report. I started to show the prototype to as many people as I could. (– Figure 3) Some of the recommendations were: The need for it to be available in Spanish. No pictures for legal reasons because it could be considered pornography. Concern with liability for person sending an incident with a picture taken through the app. The inclusion of a privacy policy. Ensuring the wording of questions is efficient. With these changes, make sure the form of the interface remains effective.
2041
Lisa Mercer
It was important to remove the option to take a picture due to legal issues; however, I believe it is an essential tool in creating an incident report. Many victims are moved state to state and have criminal records in more than one city with a picture attached to their record. If we can start to identify victims in different states by using facial recognition software, then we can start to find patterns in cases that will lead to potentially finding victims. F ACTORS The factors from the one-on-one interviews and conversations with law enforcement and victim advocates at the conference helped refine the mobile app to its current design. I had expected more participants to question different aspects of the app; however, the main topics of conversation were anonymity and the ability to create an audio recording to submit an incident. ( â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Figure 4)
Figure 4 Screenshots of mobile application currently available on the Apple Mobile Application store and the Google Play Mobile Application Store.
Conclusion This project began with an idea to create a mobile app specifically for victims of human trafficking to ask for help. It quickly became clear that this was not a realistic objective when I learned more on the subject and realized the fear and manipulation victims receive from their traffickers dominating their natural instinct of fight or flight. It is important for us to educate and provide technologically based reporting solutions to the communities that have a higher potential of interacting with victims of human trafficking for victim advocates and law enforcement to receive incident reports at a higher rate. Providing truck drivers with an easy to use mobile app that guarantees anonymity would provide the truck driving community with the ability to reliably and safely report sex trafficking and thereby expedite search and rescue efforts. Once an incident is reported to
2042
Riding Shotgun in the Fight Against Human Trafficking
the calling center, it could then be forwarded to local law enforcement or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This paper will focus on the methods used to ensure any piece of technology that gives a voice to the truck driving community has the power to aid victims of modern-day slavery. The name I have given my study and the non-profit organization developed from this research is called Operation Compass.
References Bennett, Audrey. Design Studies: Theory and Research in Graphic Design. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006. Print. Farley, M. (2007) Renting an organ for ten minutes, What Tricks Tell Us about Prostitution, Pornography, and Trafficking. Pornography: Driving the Demand for International Sex Trafficking (pp. 1–11). Los Angelos, CA: Captive Daughters Media. Friedman, S. A. (2005) Who is there to help us? How the system fails sexually exploited girls in the United States [PDF document]. Brooklyn, NY: ECPAT-USA, Inc. Hunt, S. (2013) Deconstructing demand: The driving force of sex trafficking. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 19(2), pages. Latonero, M. (2011, September). Human trafficking online: The role of social networking sites and online classifieds. Retrieved from https://technologyandtrafficking.usc.edu/files/2011/09/HumanTrafficking_FINAL.pdf. Muller, M., & Kogan, S. (2012) Grounded Theory Method in Human–Computer Interaction and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, Third Edition Human Factors and Ergonomics Human–Computer Interaction Handbook, 1003-1024. doi:10.1201/b11963-51 Couple accused of turning teen into sex slave. NBC News, (2005, November 9) NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9978551/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/couple-accusedturning-teen-sex-slave/#.VjObeRCrTQY National Human Trafficking Resource Center. 2011. Annual Report Polaris. PDF File. National Human Trafficking Resource Center Trafficking Trends. The Polaris Project Website. PDF File. National Human Trafficking Resource Center 2013 Statistical Overview. The Polaris Project Website. PDF File. “Sex Trafficking at Truck Stops At-A-Glance.” The Polaris Project Website. PDF File. Truck Driver #3, Personal Communication, February, 2014. Truck Driver #4, Personal Communication, April, 2014. Truck Driver #5, Personal Communication, April, 2014. Truck Driver #10, Personal Communication, May, 2015. Truck Driver #11, Personal Communication, August, 2015. Truck Driver #15, Personal Communication, August, 2015. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2009). International Framework for Action for the Implementation of the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. Vienna: UNODC. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/documents/humantrafficking/Framework_for_Action_TIP.pdf Walker-Rodriguez, A. & Hill, R. (2011, March). Human sex trafficking. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/cac/overview-andhistory.
2043
Lisa Mercer
Williamson, C. & Prior, M. (2009). Domestic minor sex trafficking: A network of underground players in the midwest. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 2, 46â&#x20AC;&#x201C;61. About the Author: Lisa Mercer graduated with her MFA in Design Research in December of 2015 from the College of Visual Arts & Design at the University of North Texas. Her research is focused on using design research methods to develop and execute social innovations that positively affect change.
2044
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design? Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort University of Twente * j.a.garde@utwente.nl DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.246
Abstract: This paper studies the usefulness of the LEGO® Serious Play® technique for co-designing products with potential future users with the help of two design cases. The technique has originally been developed for team and strategy building and its strongest aspects are the fully developed step-by step approach as well as the power of LEGO® to level the playing field and enable all participants to contribute to a group session. While levelling the playing field has been verified in the presented design case studies, the step- by step approach needs adaptions for product design and the participant group constellation needs special attention, as this constellation does not result as naturally from a design project as in applications within organizations. Overall we believe that LEGO® Serious Play® is a very useful co-design tool after adjustments are made as outlined in this paper. Keywords: LEGO Serious Play®; co-design; product design
Introduction The main advantages of co-design with future users are rich insights about user wishes and use context, and early validation of user requirements. However, to enable people to contribute in a meaningful way in the early design phases (the fuzzy front end), adapted design tools and techniques are needed. Traditional design tools such as (CAD) modelling and sketching are less usable, because their application needs training. This paper investigates the applicability of LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) in early design phases for codesigning products with potential future users.
1.1 Co-design The definitions of co-design vary depending on the area of expertise they emerge from. Codesign is overlapping with the more idealistic participatory design (Greenbaum & Loi, 2012) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
with respect to the inclusion of users and is related to co-creation from the field of marketing (introduced by Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Co-design, as it is referred to here, aims at actively including future users as co-designers in the whole design process of products/services. The co-design approach offers benefits such as richer insights into user needs, access to the user knowledge and experience, early validation of use requirements, gaining commitment for prospective products or services and generally developing products or services that are a better fit to the users’ world (Steen, Manschot, & De Koning, 2011). Some believe that it is too difficult for users to articulate their needs for the future. Füller & Matzler describe that users usually can only express “performance factors” for new products (e.g., a car should use less fuel) and that such performance factors merely lead to incremental product innovation (2007). However, this happens only when users are expected to translate their needs to directly applicable product requirements. The latter is not a common skill, but rather a skill that is part of the professional competence of designers. Instead, specific design tools and techniques need to be applied to enable users to actively participate in the designer world and express their visions (see, e.g., Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Sanders & Westerlund, 2011). These techniques help users develop and express their visions. Drawing from their memories, experiences and dreams, users are able to develop visions and examples of how ideal future product experiences should be and what they should feel like. Expressing such visions in a metaphorical way does not force users into to imagining concrete products but rather targets their underlying needs and dreams.
1.2 LEGO® Serious Play® LSP is a well-developed step-by-step technique that has originally been developed for team and strategy building and successfully applied in many different organizational contexts. LSP facilitates group discussions through LEGO® models in which every participant is able to contribute. It is reasonable to expect that these benefits of LSP also help participants to express dreams or visions for future product use. The research questions covered are: Can the method support co-design meetings in the early design phase? Are there specific boundary conditions for the application of this method? To answer these questions, the LSP method was applied in two design cases with students. Prior to discussing the cases and their results, the benefits and limitations of LSP will be reviewed. LSP is advertised as a facilitated thinking, communication and problem-solving technique for organizations, teams, and individuals. It is based on the idea of constructionism by Papert (Papert, 1980) which states that actively building things with the hands improves thinking and learning (www.rasmussen-and-associates.com). In LSP the participants are guided by questions of a facilitator. Participants answer the questions by building LEGO® models and telling the story of the models. As in product development, there is no one right answer in LSP.
2046
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design?
LSP was developed as a tool for strategy building for the LEGO® company in the nineties. Since Robert Rasmussen brought learning theory to the LSP approach in 1999, it started to become also successful outside of LEGO®. LSP has been improved and refined ever since. Rasmussen recommends to use it when it is important that (a) everyone is able to contribute on a level playing field, (b) a meeting includes honest dialogue and collaborative communication and (c) no participant dominates at the expense of others (RasmussenConsulting, 2013). LSP is typically used for complex and multifaceted subjects, when there is a need to grasp the big picture, see connections and explore various options and potential solutions, and when participants are diverse in age, professional background, training (engineering and marketing, for example), or organizational status (RasmussenConsulting, 2013). LSP sessions are always guided by a facilitator and proceed according to a step-by-step plan. Before starting with the real ”assignment” participants practice LEGO® building skills with a simple exercise. The core process of LSP consists of four steps: (1) the facilitator poses a question, (2) individual participants build a metaphorical model from LEGO®, (3) individuals tell the story of their model, and (4) other participants ask questions about the models and reflect on them (Schulz & Geithner, 2011). As Gauntlett and Holzwarth put it, it is “…a very carefully thought out process, which starts with building skills, gets you making simple things in LEGO® , and then cleverly knocks you onto the metaphorical plane. For example, you’ve built a little creature, but then you’re told to make changes to it within thirty seconds, to turn it into something that bothers you at work. So then someone might give the animal bigger teeth, representing overbearing senior managers; or the creature’s legs might be removed, suggesting that the organisation is slow-moving; or whatever. Simple things like that move you onto a metaphorical plane without you really noticing. It’s challenging too, of course, but in a positive way” (2006, p.85).
Later on in the process, participants are asked to combine their models in a group model. Different approaches to combining are available, e.g., combining parts of the individual models in one shared model or arranging the individual models in a “landscape” that represents a (sometimes chronological) storyline. The total model may represent a current situation or a future vision (Schulz & Geithner, 2011). Working with LEGO® bricks and models to represent stories has the benefit that bricks are used as common language that does not emerge from the specialist field of only one of the participants (as, e.g., architectural drawings or CAD models would). Furthermore, since discussions must be focussed on the bricks, the sessions can become intense but typically stay focused on content as any potential criticism is aimed at the “the models”, not at the participants. In addition, coherent stories are generally better remembered than loose bullet points, and because the LEGO® models function as physical reminders of the created stories, memorizing the stories becomes even easier. LSP also circumvents a number of basic pitfalls in creative group work. Studies show that when individuals pool their ideas during brainstorm sessions they come up with more results
2047
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
than a group working together from the beginning (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991). First sorting one’s own thoughts and creating an individual model, before going into a group discussion is an essential element in LSP. Furthermore, starting with an individual assignment requires everybody to participate and therefore also increases commitment to the session results. Another benefit of LSP is that it emphasizes reflection by participants. According to Gauntlett and Holzwarth, spontaneously talking in, e.g., interviews about one’s views, opinions, or motivations is difficult, yet such responses are typically treated in social research as truthful data (2006). Creative methods such as LSP however, do not elicit instant responses, but provide time for reflection, and therefore lead to responses that are more likely to contain rich information. Proven application areas of LSP are knowledge sharing, problem solving and decision-making within organizations. Several of the challenges described above are also well-known to the product design process, e.g. the pitfall of one individual emphasising his/her ideas over others within product design teams, and that the best ideas are typically generated by a group but only after individuals generated their own ideas first. In particular, when codesigning in multi-disciplinary teams there is a strong need for an open, level playing field that provides participants with a common language.
1.3 LSP for product co-design Including users as co-designers in early design phases (the fuzzy front end) calls for design tools that enable users to express their needs and visions. This paper investigates whether LSP could be such a design tool. Currently, only few co-design techniques exist that (1) aim at determining visions for future products together with stakeholders, (2) can be applied in an early phase in the design process, and (3) aim at developing a vision before the actual product. There are approaches for the early design phases that emphasize the development of a design vision (see, e.g., VIP (Hekkert & van Dijk, 2011)) or determining measurable effects, a design should deliver (effects-driven design (Hertzum & Simonsen, 2011)) before developing concrete products. However, these approaches do not provide a specific technique for codesign or even advise against co-design with future users (as in VIP). Most co-design techniques that do actively involve users, e.g., with tool-kits (Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2007), role-playing (Pedersen & Buur, 2000; Urnes, Weltzien, Zanussi, Engbakk, & Rafn, 2002), task-analysis (Lafrenière, 1996; Tudor, Muller, Dayton, & Root, 1993), props (Brandt & Grunnet, 2000), card sorting (Johansson & Linde, 2005; Nielsen & Sano, 1995) or virtual reality (Jimeno & Puerta, 2006) aim either at immediately developing concrete future use scenarios or product solutions, or at getting insight into the current use situation. They do not aim at creating the ideal experience before looking into concrete manifestations of a new product or service. An exception is the co-design approach of Sanders (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Sanders & William, 2001) that includes four stages in which participants (1) are stimulated to engage with their thoughts, feelings, and ideas and document them for an
2048
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design?
extended period of time (one to several weeks) in the context a future experience should take place (e.g., at home or at their work); (2) are asked to do an exercise with mainly twodimensional, visual tool-kits designed to evoke memories and feelings; (3) are invited to dream about their future or an ideal experience with similar tool-kits; and (4) finally are invited to express their (product) ideas with abstract and ambiguous, three-dimensional tool-kits. In other words, this approach to the co-design process starts with engaging with the current situation, proceeds with visioning a future, and then developing (more concrete) design ideas. Unfortunately, this approach is time intensive and it is unclear which steps have to be done individually or in groups. LSP is expected to be a promising approach for Sanders’ stages two and three - evoke memories and feelings and express dreams or visions for the future. LEGO® could be seen as a specific type of tool-kit, but LSP also comes with a fine-tuned step-by-step technique that has been developed and refined over the years. The LSP technique facilitates group discussions by letting participants express their knowledge, thoughts, issues, or opinions through LEGO® models. The use of LEGO® models ensures a balanced (i.e., everyone is equal) discussion in which every participant is able to contribute knowledge and opinions. LSP could therefore provide a more detailed, step-by-step approach for either engaging with the current situation or the dreaming and visioning. In this paper we focus on the visioning of future experiences. There are only few studies describing the use of LSP for product design, yet. Swann (2011) , who agrees that LSP is seldom applied in product design, describes the successful use of LSP with care workers to initiate a co-design process for the development of nursing tools. However, it is difficult to get a good impression of the outcomes of the LSP application in their case study. Another application study addressing product design consisted of a workshop for the conceptualization of future enterprise information systems with experts (Møller & Svejvig, 2012). However, the participants are experts in the field of development of such kind of systems, not potential “users”. As outcome of the LSP application the participating experts came up with seven challenges for future enterprise information systems. The authors of this study considered LSP as a promising tool due to its combination of verbal, visual, and kinaesthetic modes. Other studies applied LSP to the traditional application areas (team building, organizational strategy development) and aimed at discussing the current situation in a team or an organization, pinpointing strengths and developing challenges (see, e.g., Dempsey, Riedel, & Kelly, 2014), rather than developing a vision for a desirable future situation.
LSP cases 2.1 Case 1: Coffee experience Six student design teams of 3 to 4 members (all Master students Industrial Design Engineering) participated in a half-day LSP workshop that aimed at developing future product experiences. The workshop was facilitated by licensed LSP facilitators. The provided
2049
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
(fictional) case was described as follows: “A large coffee company wants to enter the student market with a new product or service. This could be a coffee machine, a new sort of coffee, a service or a combination of these. You, as members of the target group are invited to develop ideas for the ideal coffee experience within a student house in a LSP workshop!” The case was chosen to ensure that the student participants were prospective “users“ of the future product. The LSP workshop consisted of three major phases: 1) The first phase was familiarizing with LSP. Students were instructed to first build a tower of 12 bricks each and then to modify the tower to tell a story about what they love about student life, adding as many bricks as they wished (see Figure 1 and 2). 2) The second phase aimed at individually identifying key aspects of a great coffee experience in a student house. Every student built a model regarding a key aspect of a great coffee experience, and then used a small red brick to identify where in the model this key aspect is represented (see Figure 3). 3) Third, students were asked to consolidate their insights into the coffee experience by grouping models according to similar aspects, make a shared model for every aspect category, combine the shared models in a landscape model, and co-develop the story complements the landscape model.
Figure 1 Video still from the student LSP workshop in Case 1, showing how a student explains her metaphorical LEGO® model about what she loves about student life (phase 1). She has built a model with a straight tower, representing organized life at the parents’ home and a tower with wild extensions, symbolizing the free and self-guided student life.
2050
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design?
Figure 2 Video still from Case 1, showing how a student explains his (less metaphorical) LEGO® model of a group of figures playing football, representing the enjoyable, shared social life of students.
Figure 3 Video still from Case 1: In phase two a student has built a scene from student life, depicting students who are all busy with different things in the social room of a student house (talking on the phone, preparing a chicken in the oven, etc.) while the coffee machine is running all day to provide them with a caffeine kick.
2.2 Case 2: Biking experience In the second case, three student teams of 5-7 participants participated in a LSP workshop of half a day facilitated by licensed LSP facilitators. The aim was developing a new biking experience. The case description was: “A large bike manufacturer wants to introduce a new product particularly focusing on the student market. The new product could be a new bike, an accessory, a service or a combination of these. The new product should contribute to the ideal biking experience for students. You, as members of the target group and designers, are
2051
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
invited to explore and define the ideal biking experience that this new product contributes to by means of a LSP workshop!” A step-by-step approach slightly different from Case 1 was chosen: 1. Students were instructed to build a tower of 12 bricks each. Next they were asked to modify the tower to tell a story about a nightmare bike riding experience (instead of a story about something they loved), adding as many bricks as they wished. 2. The second phase aimed at individually identifying what an ideal biking experience encompassed. Every student built a model representing the ideal biking experience, and then used a small red brick to identify the key aspect of the experience in the model (see Figure 4). 3. Third, students were asked to consolidate their insights into the biking experience by grouping models according to similar aspects and were then directly asked to make a combined model (either shared or landscape) for the overall biking experience. This, instead of making a shared model for every aspect category as in the first case. The final step was co-developing the story that complements the model. Compared to Case 1, another modification was made regarding the availability of bricks, in order to stimulate the use of metaphors in model building and thereby a focus of participants on vision generation instead of (factual) model building. While in Case 1 the participants had direct access to a number of special bricks, such as ready products, animals or accessories for the LEGO® puppets, in Case 2 these special bricks were (physically) set aside, creating a barrier in their selection.
Figure 4 Video still from student LSP workshop in case 2: In phase 2 a participant tells the story of his individual model, consisting of a vehicle and a ramp.
Case Results The LSP sessions were video-taped. The story that was told for every model was analysed by discerning the type of LEGO® model, the LEGO® model parts and their associated meaning.
2052
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design?
Special attention was paid to the type of models, and whether they were representations of metaphors in the sense that “a word or phrase for one thing that is used to refer to another thing in order to show or suggest that they are similar” ("Merriam-Webster online dictionary," 2015).
3.1 Results case 1: Coffee experience In the workshop six groups developed six shared models. Overall design results were that there are several types of coffee experiences in student life. One is the social experience in a student home, when students (often after dinner) sit together, enjoy a cup of coffee and talk. Another experience unfolds around the first cup of coffee in the morning that helps students to wake up and start their day. The third is the individual enjoyment of high quality coffee or coffee specialties as a treat. During the workshop, we noticed that the majority of the students (both individually and when working in teams) initially had difficulty with working with metaphors. Instead, they used the bricks to build actual products rather than representations of feelings, thoughts or emotions that usually facilitate storytelling. After a facilitator intervention, most of the participants were able to eventually create abstract models and tell richer stories. Nevertheless, all final group results still contained a lot of 'concrete models' of products and settings (see Figure 5). For example, rather than describing the 'ideal coffee experience' in terms of emotions and experiences, students modelled an entire living room and coffee machines (see Figures 6 and 7). Though the aim was to put students in the role of possible user in the fictive case, the participants did not show strong engagement. This might be a general problem, when “users” are consulted with LSP about a future product experience; client stakes in a project are much lower, than when using LSP for strategy building within an organisation. Moreover, the realization, that the case was fictional might have demotivated the students.
2053
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
Figure 5 Photo from case 1: Literal model of a coffee corner with coffee machine and accessories.
Figure 6 Photo from Case 1: Shared model depicting the most relevant user experiences that the future product should address.
2054
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design?
Figure 7 Photo from Case 1: students could not consolidate their views in one shared model, but made three different ones.
3.2 Results Case 2: Biking experience For the second case the topic was changed to “biking experience” to investigate whether the problems with engagement and the difficulty to build metaphors in the first case study were caused by the topic. The three groups developed shared models, one of these was presented by an animated video in which a LEGO® puppet encountered different situations while biking (see Figures 8 and 9), the second depicted a biker and a biking route with various qualities that enriched the biking experience (see Figure 10), and the third consisted of two separate models depicting two different aspects of good biking experiences (see Figure 11). Overall design results uncovered that there were two types of ideal biking experience, i.e., one that relates to effortless, worry-free riding, in some cases preferably as a social experience, and the other that considers biking as an exciting challenge. Additional results related to details with respect to parking the bikes, bike repair, and safety. Some of the metaphors in the models were still closely related to biking or even not distinguishable as metaphor (e.g., a broad road, sun and clouds ). However, all models also had elements that were metaphors from a different context, e.g., a “butler in a helicopter” depicting “not having to worry about puncture or failure of a bike”.
2055
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
Figure 8 Video still from student LSP workshop in Case 2: LEGOÂŽ animation telling the story about the biking experience of John the snowboarder.
Figure 9 . Video still from student LSP workshop in case 2: Shared model representing the ideal biking experience of John the snowboarder.
2056
Could LEGOÂŽ Serious PlayÂŽ be a useful technique for product co-design?
Figure 10 . Video still from LSP workshop in case 2: Shared model representing ideal biking experience.
Figure 11 Video still from LSP workshop in case 2: Shared model representing ideal biking experience.
Discussion 4.1 Original LSP vs LSP for product design This study explored whether LSP could be successfully applied within product design to reveal visions of (ideal) future product experiences together with potential future users. LSP
2057
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
has originally been developed for team and strategy building, mostly applied within organizations. This means that participants from these organizations have a good frame of reference about the current situation and stakes in the process, and maybe even emotional involvement. Working with students, the relations between the future product and its potential users as well as their stakes regarding the future use experience were unknown. Usually, the LSP process starts with metaphorically representing a current situation. In the described cases however, participants were, after only a short warming up, asked to directly engage in building an ideal situation. Main contributions of LSP are building mutual understanding, pinpointing challenges in the current situation, and formulating simple guiding principles. The presented workshops resulted in general representations of desirable use situations for the future product. This was the type of outcome aimed for by the workshop. Due to the lack of stakes of participants one can however debate about the validity of the envisioned desirable use situations. Furthermore the participants tended to focus on detailed, factual description of the use experience instead of its deeper emotions and underlying aims and desires. The richness of the gathered design insights is therefore less than hoped for. Table 1 Case overview Traditional LSP
Case 1
Case 2
Participants
members of organization
potential future users (students)
potential future users (students)
Design Phase
none
ideation/front end
ideation/front end
Topic
various
coffee experience
biking experience
Aim
teambuilding/new strategy
envision new product/service experiences
envision new product/service experiences
Participant stakes
yes
unknown
unknown
Outcomes
simple guiding principles
general representations of desirable situations
general representations of desirable situations
4.2 Stakes To engage participants without stakes in the LSP sessions, personal considerations or emotions could be selectively targeted (e.g., the nightmare biking experience). However, the low level of emotional engagement and low intensity of the discussions might indicate a general problem for co-design with LSP in product design: LSP works very well when
2058
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design?
personal stakes in a project or problem are high, due to its ability to give every participant a voice and to focus the discussions on the models instead of a personal level. However, stakes for participants are usually not high when users or other stakeholders are recruited in a “consulting” role for LSP sessions. This however does not apply to LSP only, but is a general problem in co-design for consumer products.
4.3 Outcomes: current vs. future situation It is easier to work on concrete problems than imagining ideal future scenarios/visions from scratch. To prevent participants from engaging with fixing small current problems, it was decided to omit building shared models for the current situation during the sessions in the two cases. Only models depicting the ideal experience were built. However, directly starting with future visions posed a challenge for the participants. This might indicate that the first step in Sanders & Stappers co-design process (2008), in which familiarizing with the subject stands central (see also Section 1.3), should always be a part of the co-design process to gain richer insights.
4.4 Metaphor building The necessity to thoroughly follow the steps towards metaphor building and keeping a strict regime on this should not be underestimated in any application of LSP. While in both case studies the part of modifying the tower to tell a personal story was done to familiarize participants with metaphor building, in hindsight this step could be extended. In the second case, the use of special bricks was discouraged, because the direct availability of these bricks was believed to have contributed to building real life environments instead of metaphors in the first case. This assumption appears to be confirmed, as in the second case, more metaphors and also metaphors from other contexts were used.
4.5 Outcomes: simple guiding principles In LSP for strategy building, the complete approach including all phases ends with the formulation of “simple guiding principles” such as “keep asking questions to understand” or “stick to the values”. This step forces participants to reach a consensus on a number of concrete statements. In the presented cases, this phase was not reached in the process. It would however be possible to formulate consolidated insights for product experiences. In the next steps of the product design process, it would then be the designers task to translate these principles into concrete product features. In traditional LSP, the people who later apply the guiding principles are often in the workshop (especially in LSP for teambuilding). To enable designers to translate the guiding principles into a product design, it is beneficial that designers participate in the workshop to witness the workshop discussions, before all stories become condensed to “simple guiding principles”.
2059
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
4.6 Participants A limitation of both case studies was that participants were design students as the latter (“designers in the making”) could potentially perform better as co-designers than nondesigner users. However, the contrary appeared to be the case: the design students had difficulties to focus on metaphorical representations of dreams and feelings. They were prone to use LEGO® as a product prototyping tool and to immediately translate their ideas into product solutions. It is possible that their design background just stood in the way to participate in LSP as it is supposed to. Participants preferably have stakes in the issue discussed in the session. For product design, these could be potential future users, who are interested and engaged with respect to the use situation of the future product or experience. Additionally, product developers/designers could participate in the LSP session to test their own ideas in discussion with participants. This potentially could generate friction and hereby lead to discussions that could propel the design process.
4.7 Boundaries The assignments in both case studies were formulated in very general terms (identifying “key aspects of a great coffee experience” and “what an ideal biking experience encompassed”). It is possible that by applying more specific boundaries to the assignment (e.g., key aspects of a great coffee experience at the university”) more specific results could be obtained.
Conclusions In order to test the applicability of LSP for co-design in the early phases of product design, LSP was applied in two design cases. The LSP sessions and outcomes were analysed to evaluate the application and find boundary conditions. This led to useful reflections on the application boundaries of LSP. The strongest aspects of LSP are the fully developed step-bystep approach as well as the power of LEGO® to level the playing field and enable all participants to contribute. While the second aspect has been verified in the presented case studies, the step-by-step approach might need adaptions for product design. Furthermore, the participant group constellation needs more attention as this constellation does not result as naturally from the chosen case as in applications within organizations. LSP is very engaging, but this might not always be enough to overcome a low level of motivation of participants due to a lack of stakes in a project. With respect to the group constellation, it seems advisable to keep the “co-“ in co-design, and have the professionals whose job it is to translate the future experience visions into concrete reality participate in the workshop. This provides them with full access to the discussions that boil down to “simple guiding principles” towards the end. The stage of “simple guiding principles” was not reached in both case studies. This step is considered important to reach consensus in team and strategy building and can be filled in for product design as well.
2060
Could LEGO® Serious Play® be a useful technique for product co-design?
The communicated objective in both case studies was to develop insights for a future situation. Not much time was spent addressing the current situation. That is in conflict with Sanders & Stappers (2008) co-design approach that always starts with a phase in which codesign participants engage with the current use situation. Hence, it could be tested, whether including such a step in the LSP approach leads to richer insights. Furthermore, the cases indicate that the use of special bricks might lead to participants building real life environments and prototypes instead of metaphors, and should therefore be discouraged. Yet another way to achieve more specific and richer results, could involve assignments with more specific boundary conditions than used in our two case studies. Future research could involve a closer investigation of mechanisms for engaging participants when conducting LSP sessions, studying ideal composition of the participant groups, and studying the type of design cases LSP is most useful for. Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge the support of Robert Rasmussen, main architect of the LSP methodology, who encouraged us to explore the applicability of LSP within product design. Furthermore we are thankful to the students who participated in the workshop for their active contribution and valuable feedback.
References Brandt, E., & Grunnet, C. (2000). Evoking the Future: Drama and Props in User Centered Design. Paper presented at the PDC. Dempsey, M., Riedel, R., & Kelly, M. (2014). Serious Play as a Method for Process Design. In B. Grabot, B. Vallespir, S. Gomes, A. Bouras & D. Kiritsis (Eds.), Advances in Production Management Systems. Innovative and Knowledge-Based Production Management in a Global-Local World (pp. 395-402): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Füller, J., & Matzler, K. (2007). Virtual product experience and customer participation - A chance for customer-centred, really new products. technovation, 27, 378-387. Gauntlett, D., & Holzwarth, P. (2006). Creative and visual methods for exploring identities. Visual Studies, 21(1), 82-91. Greenbaum, J., & Loi, D. (2012). Participation, the camel and the elephant of design: an introduction. CoDesign, 8(2-3), 81-85. Hekkert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2011). Vision in Design, A Guidebook for Innovators. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: BIS Publishers. Hertzum, M., & Simonsen, J. (2011). Effects-Driven IT Development: Specifying, realizing, and assessing usage effect. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 23(1), 3-28. Jimeno, A., & Puerta, A. (2006). State of the Art of the Virtual Reality Applied to Design and Manufacturing Processes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 33(910), 866–874. doi: 10.1007/s00170-006-0534-2 Johansson, M., & Linde, P. (2005). Playful Collaborative Exploration: New Research Practice in Participatory Design. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), Article M5. Lafrenière, D. (1996). CUTA: A simple, practical, low-cost approach to task analysis. interactions, september + october, 35-39. Merriam-Webster online dictionary. (2015).
2061
Julia Anne Garde and Mascha Cecile van der Voort
Møller, C., & Svejvig, P. (2012). A Workshop about the Future of Enterprise Information Systems. In C. Møller & S. Chaushry (Eds.), Re-conceptualizing Enterprise Information Systems (pp. 45–57): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23. Nielsen, J., & Sano, D. (1995). SunWeb: User Interface Design for Sun Microsystem's Internal Web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 28(1&2), 179-188 Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Pedersen, J., & Buur, J. (2000). Chapter Z Games and Movies - Towards Innovative Co-design with Users Collaborative Design (pp. 93-100). London: Springer Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice In Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3). RasmussenConsulting. (2013). Rasmussen Consulting, 2014, from http://seriousplayground.squarespace.com/lego-serious-play/ Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1). Retrieved from Sanders, E. B.-N., & Westerlund, B. (2011). Experiencing, exploring and experimenting in and with codesign spaces. Paper presented at the Nordic Design Research Conference 2011, Helsinki. Sanders, E. B.-N., & William, C. T. (2001). Harnessing People’s Creativity: Ideation and Expression through Visual Communication. In J. Langford & D. McDonagh-Philp (Eds.), Focus Groups: Supporting Effective Product Development.: Taylor and Francis. Schulz, K.-P., & Geithner, S. (2011). The development of shared understanding and innovation trough metaphorical methods such as LEGO SERIOUS PLAY. Paper presented at the International COnference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities, Hull, UK. Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 53-60. Swann, D. (2011). NHS at Home: Using LEGO SERIOUS PLAY to Capture Service Narratives and Envision Future Healthcare Products. Paper presented at the INCLUDE London, UK. Tudor, L. G., Muller, M. J., Dayton, T., & Root, R. W. (1993). participatory design technique for highlevel task analysis, critique, and redesign: The CARD method. Paper presented at the HFES, Seattle WA, USA. Urnes, T., Weltzien, Å., Zanussi, A., Engbakk, S., & Rafn, J. K. (2002). Pivots and structured play: Stimulating creative user input in concept development. Paper presented at the NordiCHI, Århus, Denmark. Vaajakallio, K., & Mattelmäki, T. (2007). Collaborative design exploration: Envisioning future practises with make tools. Paper presented at the Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, Helsinki, Finland. www.rasmussen-and-associates.com (Producer). (2008). The science of LEGO serious play.
2062
Could LEGOÂŽ Serious PlayÂŽ be a useful technique for product co-design?
About the Authors: Julia Garde is an assistant professor at the Human-Centred Design group at the University of Twente. She applies digital and analogue design games in healthcare projects to engage people with different backgrounds and develop solutions that contribute to improving healthcare. Mascha van der Voort is professor Human-Centred Design and codirector of DesignLab at the University of Twente. By developing design methods for co-creation she aims to translate science and technology into meaningful solutions to the challenges we face as society.
2063
This page is left intentionally blank
Intuitive Interaction research â&#x20AC;&#x201C; new directions and possible responses. Alethea Blackler* and Vesna Popovic Queensland University of Technology *a.blackler@qut.edu.au DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.319
Abstract: This paper discusses and compares older and newer approaches to intuitive interaction research over the past fifteen years and asks how we can move forward from here. Outcomes from the different research endeavours are discussed and explained. Existing continua of intuitive interaction are discussed, and a new suggested framework for understanding these various approaches and how the different ideas and findings relate to each other is presented, as a first step to forming a solid platform from which new move forward in various new directions. The framework shows the relationships, differences and commonalities between these ideas and discusses the implications for researchers and designers. Keywords: intuitive interaction; intuitive use
1. Introduction This paper is an exploration of emerging ideas and concepts in Intuitive Interaction research. It aims to build on past findings to increase understanding of the potential relationships between various concepts in the domain. Intuitive interaction research has the potential to make a great variety of systems, products and interfaces easier for people to use. The research has covered applications for physical and digital user interfaces, installations, games, NUIs and TUIs, for younger and older adults and even children (Blackler & Popovic, 2015). Researchers have also investigated, tested and provided tools for the most appropriate ways to design more intuitive interfaces (e.g. Blackler, Popovic, & Mahar, 2014; Fischer, Itoh, & Inagaki, 2015; Hurtienne, KlĂśckner, Diefenbach, Nass, & Maier, 2015). The paper introduces the earlier concepts and approaches in intuitive interaction research, followed by newer ideas and research in the area. It then presents a framework that shows the relationships, differences and commonalities between these ideas and discusses the implications for researchers and designers of applying them. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Alethea Blackler and Vesna Popovic
2. Initial concepts and research in Intuitive Interaction Intuition is the end result of a cognitive process that matches current stimuli with a store of amalgamated experiential knowledge, built up over time in other relevant situations. Over the past fifteen years, various researchers on four different continents using a variety of products, interfaces and experiment designs have all found that prior experience is the leading contributor to intuitive use (Blackler, 2008; Fischer, Itoh, & Inagaki, 2014; Hurtienne, 2009; O'Brien, 2010), and intuitive interaction has become strongly linked with familiarity or prior experience (Blackler, 2008; Blackler, Popovic, & Mahar, 2010; Fischer et al., 2014; Hurtienne & Blessing, 2007; Hurtienne & Israel, 2007; Mohs et al., 2006; O’Brien, Rogers, & Fisk, 2008). Familiar features are used more intuitively, and people with higher Technology Familiarity complete tasks more quickly, with more intuitive uses and less errors (Blackler et al., 2010). A product can have a high potential for intuitive use if it is designed to take advantage of experiential knowledge that is broadly possessed by its target audience. Two groups of intuitive interaction researchers developed distinct theory about the types of experiential knowledge accessed during intuitive interaction, and how designers could maximise an interface's potential for intuitive use, yet there is significant overlap between these two models (Blackler & Hurtienne, 2007). The German-based Intuitive Use of User Interfaces (IUUI) Research Group presented a 'continuum of knowledge in intuitive interaction' (Figure 1, top) with types of experiential knowledge accessed during intuitive interaction based on their frequency of cognitive encoding and retrieval (Hurtienne & Israel, 2007). Our intuitive interaction continuum suggested the means by which intuitive use can be supported through design (Blackler, 2008), and is shown in Figure 1 (bottom) as it relates to IUUI’s continuum. In IUUI’s continuum the most basic and broadly possessed knowledge identified is innate knowledge, which has genetic origins and manifests in responses such as reflexes. In our continuum the most accessible design strategy is to use physical affordances, which take advantage of embodied knowledge of the world established early in life. Physical objects have real affordances, like grasping, that are perceptually obvious and do not have to be learned. Their physical properties constrain what can be done with them. This fits within IUUI’s sensorimotor level, which also includes knowledge applied during basic analytical processes (such as determining direction or identifying faces). We classed the next level of knowledge as population stereotype, which relates to IUUI’s culture and sensorimotor levels and includes knowledge broadly possessed yet limited by societal bounds (such as different meanings for hand gestures or different directions for electrical switches between cultures). The level with the lowest frequency of encoding and retrieval in IUUI’s continuum is expertise, which is knowledge held only by those adept at a particular speciality (such as the knowledge a “power user” might apply to using a software package such as Excel). To enable intuitive interaction in this category, as well as the culture category, we suggested using familiar features from the same domain, but if there are no suitable familiar features, the designer may have to use familiar features from another domain. Familiar features tend to be perceived affordances, virtual objects like an icon button which invites pushing or clicking
2066
Intuitive interaction research â&#x20AC;&#x201C; new directions and possible responses
because a user has learned that that is what it does based on prior experience with similar things. Perceived affordance has therefore been placed on our continuum as being equivalent to familiar features (Figure 2). Finally, if the technology or context of use is completely new then designers can leverage metaphor to communicate the intended interaction. In this way both research groups highlighted how targeting different types of knowledge in the design of an interface might modify the potential for intuitive use.
Figure 1: The Intuitive Interaction Continua compared, adapted from (Blackler & Hurtienne, 2007)
Recently , Still, Still, & Grgic (2015) investigated two methods for eliciting three types of knowledge from users (affordance, convention and bias) for the purposes of designing intuitive interfaces for them. Two of these knowledge types corresponded to those on the continua (affordances = affordances, and conventions = population stereotypes). Through their experiment, they have provided empirical evidence for the existence of a continuum of intuitive interaction. Hurtienne (2009) conducted a range of studies examining the role of image schemas in intuitive use. Image schemas are abstract representations of recurring dynamic patterns of bodily interactions that structure the way humans understand the world (Johnson, 1987), and thus are important building blocks for thinking. They are based on each individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of interaction with the physical world, but tend to be largely universal as the physical world operates in the same way for everyone. Because they are based on past experience, and because they are so well known and so universal that they become unconscious, they can be defined as intuitive. Therefore, Hurtienne argued, incorporating image schemas into interfaces can allow intuitive interaction. Through his research, Hurtienne (2009) demonstrated that metaphorical extensions of image schemas can be used in interface design, and that they do result in better performance. The effective use of image schemas and their metaphorical extensions is likely to facilitate intuitive use, because image schemas are based on prior knowledge that almost every person possesses (sensorimotor knowledge on the continuum). Thus, performance using interfaces based upon image schemas should remain consistent across heterogeneous user groups, making them more ubiquitously applicable than familiar features, which may not be familiar to everyone and
2067
Alethea Blackler and Vesna Popovic
generally rely on experience with other products. Hurtienne, Klöckner, Diefenbach, Nass, & Maier (2015) later showed through further empirical work that an interface could also be designed to be innovative, inclusive and intuitive using image schemas. Strictly speaking, a device or interface is not ‘intuitive’ in and of itself. However, the information processing applied to it can be (Blackler, 2008). Intuitive interactions are generally subjectively the correct action in the situation and can be faster due to the increased speed of subconscious over analytical processing. For these reasons, time on task and accuracy are common experimental measures for intuitive interaction. In the early intuitive interaction research intuitive uses were measured through objective performance metrics such as time to complete tasks and error rates, and researcher coding of intuitive and non-intuitive uses of features. Participants were also asked about what was familiar to them in test interfaces and previously (Blackler et al., 2011). Generally, subjective feedback on what was subjectively “intuitive” was not sought as, due to the non-conscious nature of intuitive interactions, such feedback was thought likely to be unreliable.
3.0
Newer approaches and ideas in Intuitive Interaction
Newer concepts in Intuitive interaction include issues of domain transfer distance and discoverability of underlying working of interfaces and features, as well as the application of intuitive interaction to new environments which include more affective aspects – e.g. toys, video games, public installations and gestural interfaces (Blackler & Popovic, 2015). Work is also ongoing investigating intuitive interaction with tangibles and mixed reality interfaces. Understanding exactly how all of these newer ideas relate to intuitive interaction is important to this field. This will allow designers to use the results of intuitive interaction research with confidence to create better interfaces. Diefenbach and Ullrich (2015) presented an alternative framework for intuitive interaction, comprised of the four components of gut feeling, verbalisability (one of the commonly used criteria for coding intuitive uses (Blackler et al., 2011), effortlessness (strongly linked to the kinds of performance measures previously used), and magical experience, and complemented by limiting factors of the product and the user. Although the model is made up differently, none of these potential properties of intuitive use are incompatible with those proposed in earlier work. Instead, they allow for a more subjective view on the part of users. Diefenbach and Ullrich tested the four components of the model and one of their limiting factors (domain transfer distance) through a large survey which presented various scenarios to respondents. Domain transfer distance relates to the distance of a new interface feature from the domain in which a user’s knowledge relevant to that feature is based, i.e. the distance between the domain to which a feature is applied and the domain from which it originated. Features of an interface may be closer or further from their original source with which participants are familiar. They found that there was a high level of agreement about the four components of their model, and also that participants judged scenarios with a higher transfer distance as more appropriate representations of intuitive interaction. In other words, participants saw magical experience and gut feeling, which are
2068
Intuitive interaction research – new directions and possible responses
the subjective experiences of high transfer interaction, as more typical of the subjective experience of intuitive interaction than effortlessness and verbalisability, which are the kinds of objective experiences generally coded as intuitive in previous research. Macaranas, Antle, and Riecke (2015) described an experiment in which they tested three different full body gestural interfaces to establish which mappings were more intuitive, one based on image schemas and two on different previously encountered features from other types of interfaces. They found that intuitiveness as measured by performance was not all that users wanted from a system. For example, if participants did not discover the interaction model behind the controls they felt dissatisfied. On the other hand, transparency of the controls also allowed users to engage more with the content presented through the system. Macaranas et. al. (2015) asked their participants about how well they understood both the operation of the system they had used during their experiment and the content presented through that system. The participants’ explanations revealed their conscious and explicit understanding of the controls and content. Macaranas et. al. (2015) therefore suggested that a subconscious understanding of the system (rather than conscious or explicit), enabled participants to focus their conscious attention on completing the tasks, not on learning to use or using the interface. They stated that: “Metaphoric mappings [based on image schemas] are perceived by the senses and represent previous knowledge subconsciously used. Conventional mappings [perceived affordances and population stereotypes] on the other hand are acquired through reflection and learning and represent previous knowledge that was consciously used. With metaphoric mappings, many who had high task scores still lacked an explicit understanding of how the system worked” (Macaranas et. al., 2015, p368).
So participants sometimes did not discover the workings of the interface but they still completed the tasks successfully. Presumably they used the image schema mappings intuitively (Macaranas et. al., 2015), but they were often dissatisfied and felt lower competence as they had not consciously discovered the workings of the mappings. It is interesting that Macaranas et. al.’s findings on discoverability and transparency have some similarities with Diefenbach & Ullrich’s (2015) investigation into the subjective experience of intuitive interaction. The magical or mysterious experiences delivered by more implicit knowledge could be interesting to explore further, but Macaranas et. al.’s (2015) findings suggest that, for some applications, the experiences delivered by the options in the centre of the continua, where users may well have consciously “discovered” their origin by the end of the interaction, are a safer option for providing a usable interface. On the other hand, the ubiquitous and unconscious use of image schemas, physical affordances and population stereotypes may not be consciously noticed by users. To us, the work of Diefenbach and Ullrich (2015) and Macaranas, at. al. (2015) suggests that where on the continuum the prior knowledge sits affects the subjective experience – e.g. physical affordance (sensorimotor) and even population stereotypes (culture) could be so engrained that they are subconscious, feel automatic and go almost un-noticed by the user, whereas metaphor, if done right, offers a potential route for increasing domain transfer
2069
Alethea Blackler and Vesna Popovic
distance and designing more subjectively magical experiences. In between, familiar features may make for a more measureable but more pedestrian experience. A feature with higher transfer distance could appear more mysterious because users may not consciously remember or be able to discover where their knowledge about it came from. Hence, because it is less known and somewhat unexpected in the context, it appears more magical. Therefore, subjective "magical" experiences of intuitive interaction may exist at the opposite end of the continuum than many objectively assessed intuitive uses. Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) and Natural User Interfaces (NUIs) have long been claimed to be more intuitive than other types of interfaces. They involve more everyday movements and gestures than many more traditional interfaces, which theoretically should place them at the lower end of the continua (Figure 1). For example, they use physical affordances such as touching and grasping, innate responses such as turning towards a stimulus, population stereotypes such as shaking the head, and sensorimotor actions such as moving up and down. However, this assumed increased intuitiveness of TUIs had not previously been empirically shown. Recently, we have shown that a tangible toy is indeed more intuitive than an intangible equivalent, as well as leading to more successful game play (Desai, Blackler, & Popovic, 2015). Intuitive uses were facilitated by high reliance of the tangible toy on physical affordances, as opposed to the intangible toyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reliance on perceived affordances. We have found similar results when looking at a â&#x20AC;&#x153;mixed realityâ&#x20AC;? (mixed tangible and intangible) toy, whereby the physical affordances of the toy were more intuitive to use than intangible aspects such as perceived affordances (Desai, Blackler, & Popovic, in press). This lends support to the claims that TUIs and NUIs have the potential to be more intuitive, but suggests that we need to design mixed reality systems carefully if we are to keep those benefits when entering the digital realm. All these new ideas and approaches have exciting potential to grow the field of intuitive interaction and to inform designers of a variety of systems about how to make interfaces both engaging and intuitive. However, we need to understand how they relate to each other if we are to have a coherent understanding of how to apply intuitive interaction going forward.
4. Putting it all together The implications of these exciting new directions are only now emerging and it can appear difficult to see exactly how all these ideas relate and so forge a way forward. However, one response from those who developed initial theories could be to adapt and evolve the continua to include and explain these new ideas and approaches. Building on work done in the past which compared and contrasted the two separate continua of intuitive interaction (Blackler & Hurtienne, 2007)(Figure 1), an initial attempt to explore how these newer ideas relate to older ones is shown in Figure 2. Here, the continuum previously developed by us
2070
Intuitive interaction research â&#x20AC;&#x201C; new directions and possible responses
(Blackler, 2008) is shown alongside some of the new concepts that are currently being explored. Thus, tangible interfaces mostly rely on physical affordances, whereas intangibles rely on the other aspects of the continuum, depending on the system and its design. Mixed reality systems could access all parts of the continuum, although it is perhaps unlikely that one single system will relate to all of them. Magical experiences appear to relate to increased transfer distance, and so are most likely to be induced by metaphors. At the other end, physical affordances appear to facilitate unconscious, transparent interactions which could be delivered with or without application of image schemas. Discoverable experiences would seem to be likely in the centre part of the continuum, where users are most likely to recognise the previous knowledge they are applying. Very simple and engrained knowledge such as physical affordances could pass unnoticed as it is so well used and so expected. A metaphor may be undiscoverable for a different reason â&#x20AC;&#x201C; users may be able to apply the metaphor but unable to recall the source of their knowledge, which likely offers the highest potential for facilitating magical experiences. Metaphor has also been slightly distanced from the other parts of our original continuum. This is because it has become clear that is it not always a simple continuation from the other concepts and in fact could be applied in other ways than we originally assumed. Finally, ubiquity of previous experience and potential for more people to be able to intuitively use a feature is highest at the lower end of the continuum and decreases from left to right. Metaphor is again a potential exception here as a very universal metaphor could be applied in some cases. It should be noted that there will be exceptions to these examples, and this exercise is intended only as an aid to understanding at this point and does not present hard and fast rules. For example, we did find some use of perceived affordances with the tangible toy, but most of the overall uses and intuitive uses were facilitated by physical affordances. Similarly, physical affordances and metaphors could both be discoverable â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we are simply speculating that, based on the evidence so far, they may be less discoverable than perceived affordances.
2071
Alethea Blackler and Vesna Popovic
Figure 2: The Intuitive Interaction Continuum as it relates to new ideas in Intuitive Interaction
This work is intended to offer a starting point for more exploration of how all these factors interact and affect each other. It is not intended as a new continuum, but rather as an aid in understanding how newer concepts may relate to ideas in the existing continua. For example, “magical” is not necessarily opposed to “image schemas”, and although it may be non-compatible with “transparent” and “unconscious” we do not yet know if it is the actual opposite of one or both of them. As more research is done this framework it may evolve further into a new continuum, or some other format. In the meantime it can aid understanding for researchers in the field as well as designers who want to make interfaces more intuitive. Issues still to be explored and investigated include understanding more about how discoverability interacts with level of consciousness – there is presumably a relationship. Those functions which are “undiscoverable” may never become conscious. Finding the right balance between discoverability, intuitive use and subjective feelings of competence and satisfaction is a challenge which needs meeting. Could reducing the transfer distance increase intuitive interaction but also reduce satisfaction? Knowledge of some features could be so engrained they are not consciously noticed (they are transparent, like many physical affordances at the bottom end of the continuum), or the metaphor is so smooth it is not consciously noticed (at the top end of the continuum). What about metaphor which is not so well executed? Is that more discoverable and less transparent? Is that then more or less “magical”? Not every feature will have a perfect metaphor as not every function has a
2072
Intuitive interaction research – new directions and possible responses
very applicable source and/or target for metaphor, so those metaphors may be less smooth and more likely to be brought to a users’ consciousness. Ideally, we would like to develop ways in which designers can provide both magical (subjectively intuitive) and unconscious (objectively intuitive) types of experiences for ultimate ease of use and engagement. To do this we would need to compare subjective "magical feeling" intuitive uses with unconscious and automatic intuitive uses. We could do this by manipulating the "transfer distance" for these features. Then we will be able to discover whether the feature uses we code as intuitive are the same or different to the ones the participants report as "intuitive" or magical. This would combine two distinct yet complimentary approaches to intuitive interaction research. While earlier approaches mainly focussed on how quantifiable prior knowledge contributes to intuitive interaction, performance parameters and related design principles, Diefenbach’s approach puts a bigger emphasis on the subjective experience of intuitive interaction and its different facets. An understanding of the differences these two types of “intuitive” uses (subjective and objective) would allow us to develop ways in which designers can create experiences which are subjectively engaging ("magical" as assessed by participants) as well as objectively simple and easy to understand ("intuitive" as coded by us) by using the right combination of features in an interface. We also still need to explore how tangibility affects consciousness and “magical experiences” – and how it interacts with transfer distance. Tangibles are associated with low domain transfer distance as the origin of prior knowledge and the application of knowledge both relate to the same physical domain with spatial and material characteristics. Low transfer distance results in less verbalisation and effortless use of the interface (Diefenbach & Ullrich, 2015), which in turn is evident in intuitive use of tangibles. The result of low domain transfer distance in tangibles is that the spatial and material features are easily discoverable, which explains the high scores for intuitive use of tangibles in our tangibles study (Desai et al., 2015). Intuitive use of intangibles is associated with higher domain transfer distance as the prior knowledge is often acquired from the physical domain and transferred to the digital. In intangibles, then, the origin of prior knowledge and the application of that knowledge relate to different product domains with different technologies and different materials. However, does this mean that because physical affordances often have a very short transfer distance, they are lacking in “magical experiences”? Can the magic only happen when they are transferred to the virtual, when they are no longer physical affordances anyway but perceived affordances? Or is there a way to allow the “magical experience” with tangibles?
5. Conclusion This paper has provided an overview of concepts in intuitive interaction research old and new, and made a start at bringing together the disparate ideas in order to foster better understanding of the various concepts. The framework presented is intended as a discussion point and a step towards further theory building in this domain, and brings together all of the newer ideas within the context of the established work to help clarify understanding
2073
Alethea Blackler and Vesna Popovic
about what intuitive interaction is in all its incarnations, how and when it happens and how it can be facilitated. This will allow designers to apply the ideas with more confidence and better clarity, and researchers to build on the extant work in the field to develop it further and offer more comprehensive tools and recommendations to designers.
5. References Blackler, A. (2008). Intuitive Interaction with Complex Artefacts: Empirically-Based Research. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag. Blackler, A., & Hurtienne, J. (2007). Towards a unified view of intuitive interaction: definitions, models and tools across the world. MMI-Interaktiv, 13(Aug 2007), 37-55. Blackler, A., & Popovic, V. (2015). Towards Intuitive Interaction Theory Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 203-209. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwv011 Blackler, A., Popovic, V., Lawry, S., Reddy, R. G., Doug Mahar, Kraal, B., & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2011). Researching Intuitive Interaction. Paper presented at the IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, Delft. Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Mahar, D. (2010). Investigating users' intuitive interaction with complex artefacts. Applied Ergonomics, 41(1), 72-92. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.04.010 Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Mahar, D. (2014). Applying and testing design for intuitive interaction,. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology, 20(1), 7-26. Desai, S., Blackler, A., & Popovic, V. (2015). Intuitive Use of Tangible Toys. Paper presented at the Interplay IASDR 2015, Brisbane, Australia. Desai, S., Blackler, A., & Popovic, V. (in press). Intuitive Interaction in a Mixed Reality System. Paper presented at the DRS2016, Brighton, UK. Diefenbach, S., & Ullrich, D. (2015). An Experience Perspective on Intuitive Interaction: Central Components and the Special Effect of Domain Transfer Distance. Interact. Comput., first published online January 30, 2015 doi:10.1093/iwc/iwv001 Fischer, S., Itoh, M., & Inagaki, T. (2014). Prior schemata transfer as an account for assessing the intuitive use of new technology. Applied Ergonomics, 46(2015), 8-20. Fischer, S., Itoh, M., & Inagaki, T. (2015). Screening prototype features in terms of Intuitive Use: design considerations and proof of concept. Interacting with Computers. Hurtienne, J. (2009). Image schemas and design for intuitive use. (PhD), Technischen Universität Berlin, Berlin. Hurtienne, J., & Blessing, L. (2007). Design for Intuitive Use - Testing image schema theory for user interface design. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, 2007. Hurtienne, J., & Israel, J. H. (2007). Image Schemas and Their Metaphorical Extensions - Intuitive Patterns for Tangible Interaction. Paper presented at the TEI'07. First International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, New York. Hurtienne, J., Klöckner, K., Diefenbach, S., Nass, C., & Maier, A. (2015). Designing with Image Schemas: Resolving the Tension Between Innovation, Inclusion and Intuitive Use Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 235-255. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwu049 Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of meaning, Imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2074
Intuitive interaction research – new directions and possible responses
Macaranas, A., Antle, A. N., & Riecke, B. E. (2015). Intuitive Interaction. Balancing Users' Performance and Satisfaction with Natural User Interfaces. Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 357-370. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwv003 Mohs, C., Hurtienne, J., Israel, J. H., Naumann, A., Kindsmüller, M. C., Meyer, H. A., & Pohlmeyer, A. (2006). IUUI - Intuitive Use of User Interfaces. Paper presented at the Usability Professionals 2006, Stuttgart. O'Brien, M. A. (2010). Understanding Human-Technology Interactions: The Role of Prior Experience and Age. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. O’Brien, M. A., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2008). Developing a Framework for Intuitive HumanComputer Interaction. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, New York. Still, J. D., Still, M. L., & Grgic, J. (2015). Designing Intuitive Interactions: Exploring Performance and Reflection Measures. Interact. Comput., 27(3), 271-286. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwu046`
About the Authors: Alethea Blackler (PhD) is Associate Professor and Head of Discipline in Industrial Design at QUT, Brisbane, Australia. Her principle area of research interest is intuitive interaction, in which she is one of the world leaders. She pioneered the first empirical work in this field. Vesna Popovic (PhD) is a Professor in Industrial Design at QUT, Brisbane, Australia. Her research focus is within experience, expertise and intuitive interaction. Vesna is a Fellow of the Design Research Society (UK) and Design Institute of Australia.
2075
This page is left intentionally blank
2076
Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design Giuseppe Salvia*, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina Politecnico di Milano * giuseppe.salvia@polimi.it DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.386
Abstract: The current trend of digitally enabled self-production (i.e. digital DIY) is emblematic of the contemporary attitude to making. Its investigation represents an opportunity for better understanding the dynamics underpinning the acquisition of competences for the next century citizens through making. The objective of this paper is presenting our preliminary reflections on the factors characterising the current trend of digital DIY, envisaged as a phenomenon of social innovation empowering people by developing skills through making collaboratively. We introduce a model representing the dynamics (over the three levels of social innovation, social practice and creative process) and factors (i.e. technology, motivation and collaboration) for learning and skilling in this context. The concluding section describes future developments based on co-design for the delivery of tools enabling designers and key players in four main areas of intervention in which the model can be transferred. Keywords: Digital Do-It-Yourself (DIY); Making and makers; Learning; Competences and skills; Co-Design Tools
Skilling through digital DIY and the role of Design The modern concept of competence comprises not only relevant knowledge and skills, but also a range of personal qualities and the ability to perform adequately and flexibly in wellknown and unknown situations. This set is often called 21st century competences which are considered of fundamental importance for people to face the complexity of contemporary age. Creativity and the ability to produce ideas, knowledge and innovations is a key player. It represents the intangible substrate for innovation (Kozbelt et al. 2010), however its management requires the development of specific techniques and educational programmes. Since the last decades of the 20th century, research in learning processes have suggested the importance of making and doing as a means to foster the acquisition of skills, especially the This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Giuseppe Salvia, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina
creative ones. Therefore, observing and understanding the dynamics of making-based activities could shed more light on how creativity unfolds and skills are acquired. The current trend of self-production (i.e. Do-It-Yourself or DIY) (Anderson, 2012) is emblematic of the contemporary attitude to making and its investigation may represent an opportunity for a better understanding of the dynamics underpinning the acquisition of the 21st century competences. The spreading of digital fabrication technologies and infrastructures are sustaining a self-production trend re-emerged over the last decade (Atkinson, 2006) thus leading to what has been called ‘the new DIY age’ (Hoftijzer, 2009) or also a new industrial revolution (Anderson, 2012) and even a paradigm shift (Fox, 2010). Collaborative self-production is one of the ongoing social innovation phenomena in which people reinvent their ways of living, especially thanks to ubiquitous digital technologies, connecting people on a global scale (e.g. Internet 2.0) and bringing production closer to consumption (e.g. digital fabrication and distributed systems) (Manzini, 2015). Digital fabrication-based DIY – or simply digital DIY – is here envisaged as a creative practice through which people may increase their self-confidence and empowerment by developing new skills and knowledge. Rooted in design and construction, these digital making activities often emphasize the development of 21st century skills, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration.
1.1 Why design? Given the skilling potential of the making trend especially in terms of creativity, major implications for professional designers are expected. Design literature has suggested since a long time that everybody is a designer (Simon, 1969; Cross, 2011), and more recently that “in a world in rapid and profound transformation, we are all designers” (Manzini, 2015:1). These theories refer to the ability and need for untrained people to create what they need even without the support of professional designers. The role of design in the era when everybody does design is therefore questioned and needs to be reshaped. The Industrial Designer Society of America (IDSA),1 discussed the implications of DIY for designers at the 2010 conference named ‘DIY Design: threat or opportunity?’ and acknowledged that, although DIY is not a totally new phenomenon, the implications of this shift for the design professions are potentially massive. The DIY resurgence is making consumers question the need for mass production, and by extension, the need for designers. Atkinson (2006:1) concluded that “[n]o accounts have really developed the key issue of how DIY acts as the antithesis of the prescribed design of the mass marketplace [considering that] DIY as a design activity has not been the focus of a great deal of attention.”
1
http://www.idsa.org/
2078
Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design
However, Manzini (2006) stresses that “if it is true that we live in a society where ‘everybody designs’, designers should accept that they can no longer aspire to a monopoly on design and, at the same time, they have to be able to recognise what could be their new, and (…) important, specific role.”
Past research suggested possible roles of designers for the contemporary DIYers (Salvia, 2016). In this paper we propose that professional designers may contribute by facilitating the creative process of making, especially within the digital social innovation phenomenon frame, as a means to foster people empowerment. The EU funded project ‘Digital Do-It-Yourself (DiDIY)’ aims at developing a human-centric and multi-perspective approach to the scientific study of current self-production trend enabled by digital fabrication technology, in order to better understand its impacts on all areas of society and to support both education and policy making on Digital DIY, through models and guidelines driven by social and cultural strategies.1 In particular, we – as partners of the DiDIY project – are going to explore the dynamics facilitating the acquisition of skills and 21st competences through this practice. As design researchers, we aim at contributing by developing (co)design-driven tools facilitating the identification of the skilling dynamics where digital DIY takes place and explore models for including them in working and educational environments.
1.2 Objective and structure of the paper The objective of this paper is presenting our preliminary reflections on the factors characterising the current trend of digital DIY, envisaged as a significant phenomenon of social innovation which may foster skilling processes with ultimate effects on people empowerment through the act of making collaboratively. To this purpose, section 2 introduces the (mainly constructionism-based) theories of learning through making; section 3 describes the current trend of digital DIY and highlights main debated topics in literature; section 4 presents our research area and summarises the research activities that will be carried out.
Making as a learning opportunity The intellectual capital of citizens is envisaged as the driving force for the 21 st century (Sahin, 2009), during which a global paradigm shift affects frames of reference about the ways of living, working, and socialising. Advanced economies, innovative industries and firms and high-growth jobs require more skilled and empowered workers with the ability to respond flexibly to complex problems, communicate effectively, manage information, work in teams and produce new knowledge. In the United States, for instance, companies have made significant organizational and
1
http://www.didiy.eu/
2079
Giuseppe Salvia, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina
behavioural shifts, providing higher levels of responsibility to workers for increasing productivity and innovation (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). The acquisition of different forms of knowledge and skills is needed for people to thrive as tomorrow's leaders, workers, and citizens in a constantly changing world and never-ending learning process. To cope with the demands of this century, people need to know more than core subjects and to develop such skills as thinking critically, applying knowledge to new situations, analysing information, comprehending new ideas, communicating, collaborating, solving problems, making decisions (Sahin, 2009). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008) identify three broad categories of these learning – mainly cognitive – skills, which include: Information, i.e. technical skills enabling the confronting of the technology and media-driven environment; Learning and innovation, i.e. skills focusing on creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration; Life and career, i.e. skills that give people the ability to navigate the complex life and work environments in the globally competitive information age. The 21st century skills require the development of an ad-hoc education system that prepares students, workers and citizens adequately. We envisage that significant benefits may be gained if the development of this system is based on Constructionism, a theory developed in the 1980s by Seymour Papert, one of the founders of MIT Media Lab. This theory bases learning on creativity, tinkering, exploring, building, and presentation (Papert, 1980), thus covering a significant number of the 21st century skills. Learners apply concepts, skills and strategies to solve real-world problems that are relevant and personally meaningful. In this process, they engage with problem-solving, decision-making, and collaboration (Bers et al, 2002). Built upon Piaget’s Constructivism theory (Piaget, 1970) according to which learners’ knowledge is the result of the construction of ideas and their relations yet within the mind of the learner, Papert’s theory involves learners in the construction of physical artefacts and in their sharing with others. In other words, Constructionism emphasises the benefits of making external artefacts as a powerful means to achieve Piaget's internal (reads ‘in the mind’) construction of understanding. Making encourages a deep engagement with content, critical thinking, problem solving and collaboration while sparking curiosity (Peppler and Bender, 2013). As a consequence, it is agreed that making fosters lifelong learning by encouraging learning by doing (Peppler and Bender, 2013). The potential of making as a way for more effective learning has been increasingly sustained over the last decade and has inspired several other Constructionismbased theories – which we will further explore – such as Authorship learning for which collaboration if fundamental (Donaldson, 2014).
2080
Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design
The current challenge is to encompass learning at all ages in both formal and informal situations with a practice that involves a wide variety of the digital tools that form the landscape of students’ future learning and working environment (Donaldson, 2014). Current socio-technical trend of self-production and making facilitated by digital media represents an opportunity for the engagement of a wider audience in the development of the 21st century skills. A number of researchers and educational leaders see in the digital DIY the potential to engage young people in personally compelling, creative investigations of the material and social world (Vossoughi and Bevans, 2014). Furthermore this will democratize tasks and skills previously available only to experts (Blikstein, 2013), expanding participation in STEM fields. The next section describes the self-production trend and highlights the benefits that this phenomenon may bring about in the acquisition of skills.
The creative practice of digital DIY for social innovation DIY generally refers to the activity carried on by untrained people for the realisation (designing and making) of a product, instead of having it done by a specialist (Kuznetsov and Paulos 2010). The outcome of this activity is eventually used or consumed by the creator or people with personal connections (e.g. relatives or friends), without the generation of direct profits (i.e. sales). Over the last decade engaged individuals described as ‘makers’ (Anderson 2012), ‘craft consumers’ (Campbell 2005), ‘lead users’ (Von Hippel 2005), ‘professional amateurs’ (Leadbeater and Miller 2004) and ‘prosumers’ have been united by the will and ability to create artefacts that they desire and may be supported by innovative technologies (e.g. Atkinson et al. 2008), networks (e.g. Leadbeater 2008) and companies with new business models (e.g. Franke, Von Hippel, and Schreier 2006). The contemporary making attitude is considered creative, innovative, inventive, collaborative, resourceful and empowering. Makers and digital DIYers play with technology to learn about it, to figure out how things are made, how to fix them, or how to use them in a whole new way. They are non-linear thinkers, curious inventors and problem-solvers. According to Thomas Kalil, deputy director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the maker movement really “begins with the Makers themselves — who find making, tinkering, inventing, problem solving, discovering and sharing intrinsically rewarding.” (in Dougherty, 2010)
The socio-technical change taking place has dramatically contributed to reshape (at least some streams of) DIY towards a phenomenon of social innovation, moving from a more traditional individualistic practice to a collaborative one for positive impact on society. We believe that the exploration of the making-based digital DIY phenomenon may generate beneficial insights for the facilitation of the 21st century skills development. However, these opportunities are still debated in literature and the main elements of this social practice are reported in the following section.
2081
Giuseppe Salvia, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina
3.1 The social practice of digital DIY and the (de-)skilling debate Digital DIY may be described as a ‘practice’ from sociology perspective, as it emerges from, constitutes, and makes sense of “forms of bodily activity, forms of mental activity, things and their use, background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion, and motivational knowledge” (Reckwitz, 2002:249).
As a practice, digital DIY evolves over the time because of the active integration of both existing and new elements in practices (Shove and Pantzar, 2005), including: Materials, i.e. tangible resources, such as tools, parts and materials; Meanings, i.e. motivations, such as personal satisfaction, self-development and monetary saving; Competences, i.e. capabilities and skills, such as manual dexterity, technical knowledge and creativity. Literature on digital DIY is still emerging and has been mainly focused on the first two elements above, i.e. materials and meanings. Research focused on the material set namely addresses the technological development of automated machines for digital fabrication, comparison of these machine performances and outputs, and the places where such practice takes place amongst others (Hielscher and Smith 2014). Research focused on the motivational component (i.e. meanings) mainly refers to attitudes and aims of the digital DIY communities which include the will to make and innovate, supporting the glocal community through sharing and expressing a political statement. Lastly, research on competences regards the skills involved in this practice, typically the technical ones such as coding, making virtual models, interacting with digital fabrication technologies (e.g. 3D printers and laser cutters). However, making is creating and as so it requires adequate skills for the development of creativity. The creative elements of all DIY enhance people’s notion of themselves as an agent of design rather than merely a passive consumer (Atkinson, 2006). It is plausible that the level of attitude, experience and skills in delivering creative ideas and managing the creative process affects the way in which the digital DIY practice is carried out and the output is generated. However, little research addressed creative process in (especially digital) DIY and further research could explore if digital DIYers approach the creative process differently from trained designers, how the creative process may change when addressed collaboratively, or the difficulties encountered by digital DIYers when developing the creative process. Such research questions could enable the identification of potential areas of intervention for designers aiming at supporting them. Further research is needed to shed light on the technical, cognitive and social skills mainly involved in this practice, which may help to address more debated questions such as how the materials set influences the acquisition of new skills. In fact, the spreading of digital fabrication raises arguments on its potentially skilling or even deskilling effect (Hielscher and Smith, 2014):
2082
Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design
"On the one hand, these technologies are said to encourage passive consumers to engage in creative making process in their spare time without having to pick up years of craft learning – reskilling, whilst on the other, they are said to automate making processes previously requiring craft skill – deskilling." (Ree, 2011:34)
The main argument on the deskilling effect refers to the highly digital nature of the creative process through such machines as 3D printers, CNC mills and laser cutters. The digital DIYer is supposed to develop a virtual model of the object to be made and eventually the machines will produce this as a whole or as components to be assembled. Focusing on the virtual representation of the object undermines the ability for the practitioner to experience material qualities (e.g. hardness) and manufacturability (e.g. lathing, melting), and to learn through hand making, thus flattening the three-dimensional knowledge of hand making to the bi-dimensional realm. The ultimate effect is the development of a creative process which is led by a virtual idea disconnected from the material world. The potential consequences of such deskilling effect include inefficient and ineffective ways of producing due to a lack of knowledge of materials characteristics. As a response to such arguments, Ree (2011) has claimed that although such tools turn much of the in-situ effort of materialisation over to a machine, the machine itself is a manifestation of knowledge, skills and labour involved in its design, manufacture and maintenance. Moreover, he has tried to argue that there is an element of improvisation and experimentation within the digital fabrication making process. Once the object is created it can be held and studied and therefore altered (often there is the need to finish off the digitally fabricated objects through handwork). Furthermore, digital fabrication technologies need to be set according to the materials used. Therefore, the fruition of such machines requires knowledge of material physical qualities which possibly were not so fundamental for non-digital DIYers, such as melting temperature for plastics to be 3D printed. Digital fabrication technologies could represent an appealing opportunity of being involved in creative processes for less engaged DIYers who are let down by the often long lapses of time required to acquire manual skills of the traditional non-digital DIY. As Watson and Shove (2008:80) inferred from a study about craft consumption, such machines are “not instruments of de-skilling and dumbing down but as agents that rearrange the distribution of competence within the entire network of entities that must be integrated to accomplish the job in hand.”
Although we are aware that the debate could benefit from an even wider framework including political context and power relations (Soderberg, 2013), drawing on the arguments above we envisage the potential for digital DIY practice to foster the development of creative skills; the involved material set (e.g. technologies) opens up the range of artefacts that can be made thus stimulating the creativity of people. Tools fostering creativity during the creative process may limit the deskilling chances for digital DIYers, namely supporting with the identification of the most effective material to be used.
2083
Giuseppe Salvia, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina
3.2 Digital DIY as a phenomenon of social innovation The reconfiguration of the elements of the digital DIY practice mentioned above (i.e. materials, meanings and competences) triggers the evolution of the practice and the recruitment of more practitioners over time. The establishment of the Internet, web 2.0 and social media has contributed to the spreading of groups who collaborate on a wider – sometimes even global – scale, for common purposes. This is an example of commonsbased peer production, whereby “large groups of individuals…co-operate effectively to provide information, knowledge or cultural goods without relying on either market pricing or managerial hierarchies to co-ordinate their common enterprise” (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006:394).
It has led to several phenomena, initiatives and communities (e.g. open source, peer-topeer, etc.) emerging with the aim of contributing to a more community-oriented society. Peer production has been envisaged as “an opportunity for more people to engage in practices that permit them to exhibit and experience virtuous behavior” (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006:394).
This is in our view the most significant element of social innovation in digital DIY, i.e. the opportunity for people to acquire competences and trigger virtuous behaviours through and with others, in a collaborative way and often for the benefit of the local or global community. Likewise, places play a key role. FabLabs and Hackerspaces, for instance, are distributed systems of fabrication, i.e. “sociotechnical systems that are scattered in many different but connected, relatively autonomous parts, which are mutually linked within wider networks.” (Manzini, 2015:17)
This is enabling the coalescing of committed individuals who support each other in ‘communities of practice’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991) or even ‘creative communities’, i.e. groups of people who cooperatively invent, enhance and manage innovative solutions for new ways of living (Manzini, in Bœuf et al. 2006). Although the distribution of fabrication systems may be the result of the need to make products as local as possible, thus lightening the whole system, other fundamental reasons regard the quest for autonomy, selfsufficiency and ultimately for resilience (Manzini, 2015). Making oriented activities, such as digital DIY, are opportunities for individual and social empowerment, as they provide opportunity for “giving people independence and self-reliance, freedom from professional help, encouraging the wider dissemination and adoption of modernist design principles, providing an opportunity to create more personal meaning in their own environments or self-identity” (Atkinson, 2006:5-6).
This effect is closely related to its connecting nature (Gauntlett, 2011). Watson and Shove (2008:74) infer that different approaches to DIY converge in its fundamental role of
2084
Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design
“mediating and maintaining relationships between people, whether it is in family relations within the household, construction and maintenance of self-identity and selfesteem, or broader constructions of space and identity”.
The digitalization of the making based practice is a contemporary form social innovation, which “meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. […] innovations that are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act.” (Murray et al. 2010:3)
It can be inferred that such benefits are dramatically sustained by a socio-technical system based on the importance of sharing, collaborating and supporting each other. Making creates a supportive community of learners that can leverage the interests and skills of each member of the group towards shared goals. Therefore, digital DIY can potentially sustain the development of the 21st century skills. Inter-disciplinary attitude is also a potential benefit of making as an educative and collaborative practice. Disciplinary boundaries are considered inauthentic to makerspace practice according to Sheridan et al. (2014:526-7) and the “blending of traditional and digital tools, arts and engineering can create a learning environment with multiple entry points that foster innovative combinations, juxtapositions and uses of disciplinary content and skill.”
This element characterises the contemporary evolution of DIY and therefore individualistic(although digital-) oriented activities are out of scope for this study. Observing the development of digital DIY activities may be informative about the dynamics of acquisition of new skills through collaborative tasks.
Hypotheses and future developments The analysis of the current scenario of digital DIY as a social innovation phenomenon will enable us to define a model through which it will be possible to identify the crucial dynamics and factors for learning and skilling. Eventually the model could be used for enabling the replication and adaptation of such dynamics into a different environment, such as school and work. The model takes into account the interplay of digital DIY main expressions enacting on different levels also addressed above, which include: 1) Digital DIY as a phenomenon of social innovation for the fundamental role of collaboration and sharing; 2) Digital DIY as a practice carried out by the individual connecting materials, meanings and competences; 3) Digital DIY as a creative process, developed through cognitive tasks. On the basis of preliminary reflections on literature review, we propose that three are the main factors which influence such learning and skilling process across the three levels above:
2085
Giuseppe Salvia, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina
ď&#x201A;ˇ Technology; ď&#x201A;ˇ Motivation; ď&#x201A;ˇ Collaboration. The evolution toward digital technology (from Materials component) facilitates both the connection of people and the accessibility to tools with appreciable results in a relatively short-term substantially. On the one hand, it is radically easier to interact with other people across geographical boundaries for collaborating and sharing knowledge. On the other hand, rapid manufacturing technology allows the creation of products even at earlier stages of the acquisition of the required technical skills, in contrast with the generally lengthy skilling process in manual crafting. The motivational aspects of DIY practices widely intended (from Meaning component) are believed here to be crucial for sustaining the practice over time. The practitioner is supposed to persevere (or being strongly motivated) in overcoming the difficulties related to self-organization and the use of spare time on the one hand, and on the other social interactions when collaborating and participating (either for the rewarding sensation of being with the others or for social impact). Collaboration, both with peers (i.e. other digital DIYers) and with facilitators (who are acknowledged as so by the digital DIYers) is here believed to be possibly the most significant elements characterising the latter evolution of conventional DIY towards the digital one. Collaborating is an opportunity to acquire knowledge and develop skills through other peers, to strengthen social bonds and to make an impact on a wider level than the individual one, which are less likely to happen in conventional individualistic DIY. Our future research steps aim at the identification of the dynamics interlinking the factors and the levels above, with direct observations and interviews amongst others in the places where digital DIY is carried out, in order to deliver the model described above. Eventually, we aim at interpreting and translating the model for (some of) the areas of the DiDIY project (i.e. organization and work, education and research, creative societies, and legal rights and obligations), which may benefit from the potential skilling processes of the digital DIY practice. Investigating the complexity of Digital DIY calls for a transdisciplinary research methodology able to enhance people needs and visions. A bottom-up approach where people are directly involved in the research and production of knowledge seems necessary to achieve a complete understanding of digital DIY. To this purpose, we believe that the involvement of practitioners in the investigation and creation of enabling solutions is crucial. Therefore, we aim at contributing by developing design- (and in particular codesign-) driven tools facilitating the analysis of the learning process and the identification of the skilling dynamics and generate models for including such dynamics in working and educational environments which may benefit from the skilling process enabled by digital DIY practice.
2086
Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design
Co-design is a research approach which involves non-trained designers in activities, or collaborations, for the development of solutions that aim at improving their lives with the support of professional designers or, as in this case, with design researchers. The close relationship with the final user of the co-designed solution makes this approach a powerful means for accessing and making explicit people's (also tacit) needs, desires and aspirations for the construction of new possible futures. In this perspective, people are considered all the way as co-design researchers and companions. The division between expert designers and laypeople becomes blurred and so do the borders between research and practice. In order to do so, Scheldeman (2012) suggests that the designers should allow for “meaningful relation… design should not prescribe or predict, but enable.” Enabling may result a challenging task for professional designers and this calls for suitable toolboxes and modes of experimentation, which may not still exist. In our case, we planned to make use of human-centred co-design workshops for the purposes mentioned above. Two series of four workshops each, one per thematic area of the DiDIY project, will be held in two different European countries (one in Northern Europe and the other in Southern Europe). The first set of workshops will be explorative, aiming at exploring and understanding the skilling dynamics in the selected area on investigation, while the second set of generative workshops will aim at delivering solutions for implementing the skilling processes. For instance, a teaching module for primary school or a toolkit for professionals. Acknowledgements: This paper presents reflections from the research tasks carried out by the authors for the DiDIY Project proposal, which addresses the call ICT 31-2014 Human-centric Digital Age of the Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies, Information and Communication Technologies Horizon 2020 work programme. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 644344. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the EC.
References Anderson, C. (2012) Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Atkinson, P. (2006) Do It Yourself: Democracy and Design. Journal of Design History, 19(1), 1–10. Atkinson, P., Unver, E., Marshall, J., & Dean, L. T. (2008) Post Industrial Manufacturing Systems: the undisciplined nature of generative design. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference, Sheffield Hallam University, 194/1-17. Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006) Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419. Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., Juelich, K., & Schenker, J. (2002) Teachers as Designers: Integrating Robotics in Early Childhood Education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 123–145. Bœuf, J. Le, Amatullo, M., Breitenberg, M., Maffei, S., Villari, B., Menzi, R., … Lynch, G. (2006) Cumulus Working Papers (Publication Series G No. 16/06). Nantes.
2087
Giuseppe Salvia, Carmen Bruno and Marita Canina
Blikstein, P. (2013) Digital Fabrication and “Making” in Education: The Democratization of Invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Transcript, 203-222. Campbell, C. (2005) The Craft Consumer: Culture, craft and consumption in a postmodern society. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1), 23–42. Cross, N. (2011) Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg. Donaldson, J. (2014) The Maker Movement and the Rebirth of Constructionism. Hybrid Pedagogy. http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/constructionism-reborn (16 November 2015) Dougherty, D. (2010) Remarks on Innovation, Education, and the Maker Movement. New York Hall of Science, September 29, 2010. Accessed from http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/10/innovationeducation-and-the-m.html (16 November 2015) Fox, S. (2012) The new do-it-yourself paradigm: financial and ethical rewards for businesses. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(1), 21–26. Franke, N., Von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006) Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead-User Theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 301–315. Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is Connecting: The social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Polity Press. Hielscher, S., & Smith, A. (2014) Community-based digital fabrication workshops: A review of the research literature (No. 08). SPRU Working Paper Series. Hoftijzer, J. (2009) DIY and Co-creation: Representatives of a Democratizing Tendency. Design Principles & Practices, An International Journal, 3(6), 69–81. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010) Theories of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, 20-47. Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010) Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (pp. 295-304). ACM. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leadbeater, C. (2008) We-Think: Mass innovation, not mass production. London: Profile Books. Leadbeater, C., & Miller, P. (2004) The Pro-Am revolution: How enthusiasts are changing our economy and society. London: Demos. Manzini, E. (2015) Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Manzini, E. (2006) Design Research for Sustainable Social Innovation. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects (Board of International Research in Design) (pp. 233– 245). Birkhäuser Basel. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010) The open book of social innovation. Nesta and Young Foundation. Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, And Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013) Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22-27. Piaget, J. (1970) Piaget's theory. In Mussen, P.H. (Ed.), Carmichael's Handbook of Child Psychology, 3rd ed., (pp. 703-732). New York: John Wiley and Son, Inc. Reckwitz, A. (2002) Toward a Theory of Social Practices A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal Of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
2088
Skilling and learning through digital Do-It-Yourself: the role of (Co-)Design
Ree, R. (2011) 3D Printing : Convergences , Frictions , Fluidity. University of Toronto: Master thesis. Sahin, M. C. (2009) Instructional design principles for 21 st century learning skills, 1(1), 1464–1468. Salvia, G. (2016) The satisfactory and (possibly) sustainable practice of do-it-yourself: the catalyst role of design. Journal of design research, 14(1), 22-41. Scheldeman, G. (2012) Gliding Effortlessly Through Life? Surfaces and Friction. In W. Gunn and J. Donovan (Eds.) Design and Anthropology. Farnham: Ashgate, 57-68. Sheridan, K.M., Halverson, E.R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L. & Owns, T. (2014) Learning in the making: A Comparative study of three Makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505531. Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2005) Consumers, Producers and Practices Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of consumer culture, 5(1), 43-64. Simon, H. A. (1969) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Soderberg, J. (2013) Automating amateurs in the 3D printing community. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 7(1), 124–139. The Partnership of 21st Century Skills. (2008) 21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness. A Resource and Policy Guide. Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014) Making and Tinkering: A Review of the Literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM. Watson, M., & Shove, E. (2008) Product, Competence, Project and Practice: DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 69–89.
About the Authors: Giuseppe Salvia Interested to the relationship between people and artefacts to promote a shift towards sustainable patterns of consumption and production with the contribution of design, focused on attitudes throughout product lifespan; making and repairing; grassroots innovations; skills development and empowerment. Carmen Bruno interested to investigate new spaces for designer in the emerging design landscape from a human-centered perspective. Interested also in experiment new approaches, based on design thinking and co-design, that leads organization in private and public sectors to radical innovation. Marita Canina Interested to give value to creativity, promoting innovation through design, as well as to activate and re-enforce all phases of the ‘creative process’ within any given context. Also interested to Bio-design and the use of new technologies for psychophysical well-being.
2089
This page is left intentionally blank
2090
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a case study Maria Gabriela Hernandez University of Houston-Downtown hernandezmar@uhd.edu DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.417
Abstract: This paper describes a project exploring design research practices and emphatic design to produce context-specific knowledge to inform and facilitate visual storytelling, in collaboration with the Women’s Association of Chira Island, a rural ecotourism association from the Pacific of Costa Rica. While their pioneering ecotourism projects have gained national recognition, its members have faced multiple challenges, including reassessing gender and social roles and furthering their capacity to support development in the community. Their experiences and stories became their most valuable asset, triggering the need to communicate them to benefit similar populations. The contents of this project were developed during three field research visits and two years of collaborative design work, employing “ time,” “space,” and “voice” to contextualize the stories. This investigation resulted in printed materials and videos designed for mobility and easy reproduction to be used by the association as tools to inspire women in similar rural areas. Keywords: visual storytelling; rural ecotourism; design research; empathic design
Introduction This paper stems from a M.F.A thesis project focused on design research and social design titled Swimming Against the Currents: entrepreneur women of Chira Island. In this project, I present a two-year design journey I embarked on in Costa Rica, my country of origin, further exploring the virtues of design research methods (concentrating on empathic design) to inform and support visual storytelling, in collaboration with the Women’s Association of Chira Island (WACI), a group of entrepreneur women developing pioneering ecotourism projects in this community in the Pacific of Costa Rica. My interest in working with entrepreneur women in disadvantaged communities derived from previous social design and design for development experiences in Quintana Roo and
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
Yucatán, México. In these regions, I worked on branding and creative development workshops in Maya villages with women’s groups, artisans, and ecotourism cooperatives as graduate student at the University of Florida and partner of the social design initiative www.design4development.org. These projects inspired me to broaden my work by developing alliances and community partnerships in rural locations in Costa Rica, in order to explore design collaborations with local entrepreneurs. In this new setting, I intended to keep examining ways to support the use of design research methods to develop contextspecific information that substantiate subsequent design activities, such as product development, branding, and visual storytelling, the main focus of this investigation. I was first acquainted with the WACI through ACTUAR (Costa Rican Association of Rural Community Tourism), a grassroots organization composed by members of multiple rural tourism groups in Costa Rica that work together in supporting new and continuing development efforts (“Las Ventajas de ACTUAR,” 2013). This organization not only introduced me to the island but also helped me develop a fluid and amicable relationship with the WACI, greatly facilitating and supporting three field ethnography research visits (2-3 weeks each) to the island between 2009 and 2011. During these visits, I extensively observed, documented and interpreted the context of the community, life and daily activities of the WACI members, as well as their motivations to create and continue expanding their ecotourism projects. I immersed myself in the community, and alongside the WACI we identified multiple needs where co-design could be beneficial and likely effective. All along, we continually ran across one specific theme that define WACI members: their compelling stories of survival and personal advancement. During my field research in Chira I discovered that WACI members follow a very efficient work structure motivated by an inexhaustible desire to learn and take risks, allowing them to meet multiple goals since the creation of their group. They built cabins and an eatery with minimum funding and help from the community, in the interest of offering a new, sustainable and authentic experience to national and international tourists. They learned to establish connections with different institutions and organizations, and developed a strong understanding of project writing to obtain new funding, demonstrating to their community, families and husbands their great potential. We recognized these milestones to be tangible and compelling representations of struggle, perseverance and hard work, and it became indispensable to visually communicate their stories in order to help empower the association to inspire and guide other women. Their stories and testimonies could likely work as powerful tools to instil change, create empathy and encourage solidarity, opening spaces for discussion and collaboration among other entrepreneur women in rural Costa Rica.
An Overview of Women and Ecotourism in Costa Rica The WACI was formed in 1999 as an ecotourism initiative promoted by a group of women from the Chira community. In many rural areas of this country, women have taken action in the last years to develop projects that concentrate on the preservation and promotion of
2092
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
natural resources, as well as the diffusion of culture. Such new ways to do tourism also respond to women’s needs to address their multiple social and economic struggles with activities that concede relevance to local resources and heritage. It is not a surprise that in the last two decades women have shown a strong interest in ecotourism. Their deep understanding of the main needs of their families and a traditional interest in the environment are some reasons why many ecotourism initiatives headed by women are successful. In Costa Rica, women have “expanded their participation in society and have moved beyond traditional struggles for family survival. They have taken a greater role in public leadership in work, community, and political settings” (Jessica Brown et al, as cited in Leitinger, 1997). This context has been facilitated by the international image of the country as “paradise” for tourism. For example, approximately 5% of the biodiversity of the planet is located in Costa Rica, a country with a characteristic tropical climate and varied geography and geology. Historically, Costa Ricans are considered peaceful, friendly, welcoming, educated, with high living standards, in the most stable country in Central America for over 50 years. Consequently, many organizations, institutions and universities have invested resources in the country to help people, especially in rural areas, to develop their ecotourism and development initiatives. The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, and the US Agency for International Development are organizations that have provided aid to the country to develop initiatives of promotion and education on ecotourism, while funding conservation efforts (Dasenbrock, 2001). Based on accounts by WACI members, logistical support was fist delivered by the Universidad Nacional. Some founding members of the WACI received training on administration and project planning, which ignited their desire to develop an economic activity. As their ecotourism project grew and gained more local recognition, they were later supported with funds by organizations such as the Ford Foundation (L. Martinez, personal communication, December, 2009).
Women of Chira Island For many years, the islands of the Nicoya Gulf, located in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, were highly marginalized, almost forgotten by the governments and population. Costa Ricans don’t know much about these islands. Media does not use to provide information about these communities unless relevant events occur. At the same time, the conditions for fluid tourism in the island have always been insufficient, maintaining its low profile. Chira Island had presence in the media in the 1990s with the inauguration of the island’s first high school (Liceo de Chira, founded in 1996), after the construction of the aqueduct in 2001 that provides drinkable water from the mainland (Avalos, 2001), and when the island started to suffer the consequences of overexploitation of the marine resources and high contamination of the water in the Nicoya Gulf, resulting in an alarming detriment of its fishing activities in the early 2000s.
2093
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
During my trips and stays in Chira, I gained a clearer understanding of the social, geographic, and economic situation of the place and how much they directly affect women’s livelihood. Although Chira Island is the biggest of the Nicoya Gulf, it continues to be poor and isolated, with great difficulties to access health and education services, as well as job opportunities. For example, I discovered that a one-way trip to and from the closest mainland port (Puntarenas) costs approximately US$15, the equivalent to almost a one-day pay for many Chirans, which makes it impossible for the majority to travel to the mainland daily for work purposes. These challenges motivated the WACI members to start a project on their own, in order to offer new possibilities of growth for their families and community. When I was first introduced to the island and the WACI in 2009, I met Lilliana Martinez, founder and president of the association. Her friendly and welcoming demeanour reflects the environment of their lodge—a calm, small clearing spot in the middle of the tropical forest (Figure 1). Lilliana is from San Carlos, a city located in Northern Costa Rica. She grew up as a farmer in a community where tourism and nature-related activities were prevalent. As other women in Chira, Lilliana first arrived to the community after moving in with her husband, a local. As she told me in 2009 during an in-person interview, “It was difficult to get used to the activities of the island. Women don’t have options other than having children or helping their husbands in fishing activities. I was used to having more freedom and more economic options in San Carlos.”
Figure 1: View of eatery of the Albergue La Amistad, the lodge owned and administrated by the Women’s Association of Chira Island. The lodge is a clearing spot in the tropical forest.
Lilliana’s enthusiasm and vision are qualities that set her apart from the rest of the members, who believe that her leadership and courageousness have made a big difference in the way their projects have successfully evolved since 1999. Every member of the association in the last 16 years has a very particular story, but all of them share common
2094
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
struggles and multiple limitations. Most of them have very limited formal education— according to testimonies collected from casual conversations with WACI members, very few have completed secondary studies or have joined a postsecondary studies institution. Households in Chira have a great dependence on wells to collect and use water which many times is scarce. Chirans have faced the effects of contamination discharged from fruit plantations in the mainland, and have constantly tackled the consequences of the unstable activity of fishing. It is then understandable that all past entrepreneurship initiatives proposed by WACI (a lodge with sustainable cabins, an eatery, tours to the mangrove swamps bordering the island, bird-watching and bike tours) have required a significant quota of idealism, as well as a great sense of teamwork and a thriving self-esteem. The island’s economic decline also provoked an increased interest of national and international organizations and institutions to work in these specific communities, by strongly supporting new development projects through the introduction of new resources to help women’s groups. Multiple workshops and group activities started to take place in the 1990s on construction of self-esteem, administration, entrepreneurship, arts and crafts, food preparation, and tourism (M. Brenes, personal communication, July, 2009). Consequently, several groups proposed projects and economic activities, such as chicken farms, bakeries, stores and cabins. According to conversations with WACI members, not all projects continued. Many women separated after a few months or years, revealing their traditionally disadvantaged living conditions and lack of family support. In rural communities, women continually confront traditional genders roles in order to achieve economic growth. Women are expected to depend on men. They are considered weaker and less prepared for life, reflecting the image of the campesina—a woman who although “strong, healthy and frugal, has the intelligence of a child until adulthood, always suffers for others, is slow, and superstitious. Under this ideal, women were first considered mothers, with different social roles than men, with different rights and duties” (Juvenal, as cited in Gonzalez, 1988). According to the WACI, there are many other factors that prevent women to start or further entrepreneurial efforts or other economic activities. One is social pressure. Women in Chira “are supposed to take care of their children, their house, help in fishing… nothing else” (L. Martinez, personal communication, December, 2009). Other activities are “pointless” or “useless,” showing laziness or neglect in the household keeping. They also suffer domestic violence and low self-esteem. It is “normal” for women in Chira to face physical and/or emotional abuse by their husbands or domestic partners. This situation deeply damages their self-esteem—they feel they are “not intelligent, useless, ugly, afraid of taking any challenges, usually depressed” (D.Medina, personal communication, July, 2009). While this discriminatory and violent environment prevails in many households, there are still various groups of women that continue active, while defeating traditional roles, including the Artisan Women Association and the Clam Grower Women’s Association. They have created welcome centers close to the island’s ports (Figure 2) and continue offering diverse tourism activities to the island’s visitors.
2095
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
Figure 2: View of two of Chira Island ports: Playa Montero (left) and Puerto Palito (right). Most of fishing, tourism and commercial boats arrive to Palito.
Design Research and Collaborative Storytelling Visual communication and graphic design play important roles in engaging, informing, educating, persuading, and making complex information intelligible to audiences, in order to help improve their living conditions. A designer engaging in human-centered design research and ethnography has the opportunity to further the relevance and to reinforce the social impact of visual communication by recognizing, discovering and embracing audiences’ attitudes, personalities, psychologies, behaviours, beliefs, and practices that wouldn’t be possible to understand or unveil without immersing in their cultures and interacting with people in their natural environment. This kind of design research is aimed at getting insights into what serves people, by looking at individuals in situated contexts (Laurel, 2003). The development of a system to visualize the story of the WACI represented a unique design endeavour due to its high potential to inspire progress and empathy, as well as to illustrate the particular characteristics of entrepreneur women in the Chira Island context. In order to be effective, we had to prioritize the pragmatic accuracy and clarity of the contents to ensure that the information (the story of the WACI members) is relevant for an audience with different levels of literacy and backgrounds, which is the case of women in disadvantaged communities in rural Costa Rica and Latin America. During my field research activities, I interacted with the WACI families and worked in collaboration with the members of the association, other people in the community (e.g. community leaders and others directly related to the work of the WACI), and experts and tourism organizations in San José, Costa Rica, such as ACTUAR, the Institute of Women Studies, and COOPRENA—the National Ecotourism Cooperative, in order to have a broader understanding of ecotourism in Costa Rica and to discover how women are such an active part of it in rural communities. All these activities were developed in a collaborative environment, where the members of the association and myself informed each other along the way. Cultural exchanges, shared daily experiences, discovery of each other’s backgrounds, and partnerships were essential to produce context-specific information, in order to encourage collaborative design that understands real-world needs and personal experiences. Being in direct contact with these women and the inhabitants of Chira Island,
2096
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
understanding their life style and motivations instead of working in a vacuum, are activities that proved to help open spaces for collaboration, aiming to solve communication needs that are context-specific.
4.1 Methodology My work with the women of Chira explored ways in which visual communication and design research can leverage methods and spaces to tell a story that communicates the complex social, cultural, and economic context and dynamics that surround the continuing development of ecotourism projects by the WACI. I collaborated in the engagement and empowerment of the WACI members to tell others about their personal experiences through the generation of practical mediums for their use in other communities and with groups where similar initiatives in rural areas are being developed, as well as other public spaces where their work is displayed, such as rural ecotourism fairs, conferences, and symposia, nationally and internationally I employed ethnographic research methods (in the field and digitally) and visual anthropology techniques to produce, collect, and interpret data to understand and empathize with the activities of the association members, their motives, the role of society and culture in the island, and the main relations and connections that characterize life in Chira. These methods work exceptionally well when unified with principles of design thinking and design research, based on collaboration and personal involvement with users and audiences, in-situ prototyping, user profiling, and storytelling. They reinforce the relevance of empathy when dealing with different audiences and groups, aiming for a better understanding of people. I became a participant in the daily life of the association during three separate fieldwork trips over a two-year period. In each occasion, I developed numerous observation activities (thick descriptions, audio recordings, annotations, small essays, drawings), but also welcomed and took part of WACIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s daily activities and lifestyle, embracing new experiences and sharing my own life accounts to encourage an equal personal relationship with the women and their families, in order to address the anticipated expectations that people could have of me as an outsider. My methods also included semi-open interviews and multiple informal conversations with WACI members in their work and family setting, as well as with people on the streets and neighbourhoods. Using a bicycle to travel across the island facilitated opportunities to casually meet and develop conversations with community members in social settings, small restaurants, shops, and the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s beaches (Figure 3).
2097
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
Figure 3: Research activities were organized and assigned according to each of the four sources from where information about the WACI could be discovered: La Amistad Lodge, Households, Greater Island Community, and Experts. Hierarchy was assigned to each of the sources, so research efforts could be better documented and fieldwork time better scheduled. I designed icons representing the methods I expected to use to produce, document and test information from each source, including Observation, Casual/Informal Conversations, Note Taking/Sketching/ Descriptions, Questionnaires and Interviews, Photography and Thick Descriptions, Video Recording, Audio Recording, and Prototyping. Chira Island itself was divided into three information source areas, based on geography and location of inhabitants, WACI members and families, and other related individuals.
I visited houses of members and ex-members of the association and established relations with storeowners, community leaders, and other organized groups, including men-led initiatives. Documentation of these experiences also included short videos, quick questionnaires, informal conversations, collections of peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s writing about their personal experiences and relations with the WACI, and mapping of events, individuals, locations, and venues that relate to the WACI and its members. It is important to clarify that this project was based only on the story of WACI members. Nevertheless, their families, husbands, and others related to these women are referenced in the storytelling pieces continually. They are vital constituents of this research, because they are also part of the connections these women have with the larger community of the island and its daily social and economic activities. This immersive/experiential documentation and resulting materials compose the main contents of the final storytelling products of this project.
2098
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
Time, Space, and Voice: the Stories Visualized The fist months after the initial field research trip to Chira, I consistently explored the relations and connections that existed between members of the association, their ecotourism project, and different entities and individuals in the community. Many members of WACI are active in the educational, economic, and social sectors of their island, e.g. by participating in school boards or in their churches. They have changed social roles and have served as role models for teenagers to start their own businesses or to further their studies, and for other women to believe in their own capabilities. Members of WACI are now helping to educate visitors about the importance of natural conservation and rural development. Those connections became more relevant as I continued reviewing field notes and observations, as well as video and audio recordings with informal conversations and interviews. In those recordings, the members of the WACI constantly tell their stories in the context of their ecotourism projects and their impact for themselves, and how important it is for them to tell others about their work, for it to become a source of inspiration. Early design explorations examined mediums to support other women with their own development projects, leading to the ideation of materials supporting self-esteem to be integrated into workshops directed by WACI. Various designs and materials were explored and tested, including one that appealed to the Catholic tradition of rural communities in Costa Rica. This idea, among several others, was eventually discarded. It became clear that these storytelling pieces should appeal to women from all backgrounds in these communities, regardless of their religious beliefs, ethnic background, or affiliations. Connections that exist between members of the WACI and others in the community stayed as the prevalent thread of WACI’s stories, helping the contextualization. Various design prototypes with overviews of the geography, society, economy, and culture of Chira in the context of WACI’s work were developed successfully, revealing the multiple levels of meaning and importance of WACI’s labor in Chira Island. The idea of employing simple concepts such as Time, Space, and Voice to lead the visual design of the stories emerged as the different anecdotes were categorized, selected, and analyzed. A series of exercises deconstructing the written and audio/video narratives revealed that the stories would take different conceptual turns depending on the context in which they were told. For example, the narratives would take an organized and linear structure when women discuss events and milestones as they happened in time. The stories would then take a turn when told in terms of space, place, or geographic location (this happened there…, we came here…, she lives close to…), as well as when participants were asked to talk freely about themselves, unveiling organic narratives without a pre-established structure. In such case, their voice, gestures, faces, and expressions became the most significant qualities of the stories. This structural and semantic analysis of the information collected supported the successful development of five design products reflecting the story of the WACI and its members: the stories through Time were represented in a timeline, showcasing the main events that
2099
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
define the story of the association from 1999 to 2010. The stories in Space were represented with the design of a map of Chira Island displaying several locations and their relation with the WACI. The stories take their own Voice in three different design pieces: a series of testimonial cards, a short documentary, and experimental mixed-media collages. All materials were developed in Spanish.
5.1. Time: a Timeline of WACIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s story Facts and events that marked the evolution of WACIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecotourism projects and its membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lives are orderly represented in a large format horizontal timeline divided into two levels. The upper part has facts connecting directly to the development of WACI and its relation with other groups in the island, other associations, and their presence in the media. The lower part presents activities carried out directly by the association during those years, such as the construction of cabins in 2003 and their first trips to ecotourism conferences in Guatemala in 2009. This timeline visually interprets the story employing images, thick descriptions, and newspaper clips facilitated by Mai Brenes from the Center of Women Studies of the Universidad Nacional. The design also uses excerpts from interviews and my fieldwork writing. After several revisions, the information and style of the timeline was much simpler and easy to follow than in the first prototypes. The arrangement of the elements and the dimension of the final version supported its readability, allowing for more defined space for every element in the piece. Its final 75x35 inch size gives the timeline a strong presence. It can accompany the other designs to work together as a bigger storytelling system, or be displayed alone according to the context and space it is used. This timeline was developed in coordination with the WACI members and taken to Chira Island for review, prototype and user testing among those who collaborated presently and from distance in the design of the piece. It was received well by the association and their collaborators, provoking a discussion and good feedback on possible ways to use it, its placement, and how it successfully integrates their story through the short pieces of time-based information and visuals (Figures 4, 5, 6).
2100
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
Figure 4: Timeline, 75x35â&#x20AC;?
Figure 5: Timeline (detail)
2101
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
Figure 6: Timeline under review.
5.2. Space: Map of Connections This storytelling piece was first designed as a book composed by transparent layers visualizing economy, social roles, religion, the relation between the members of the association and their husbands, their families, the community, and their own personal backgrounds on separate layers. These relations and threads crossed points of keywords extracted from interviews and testimonies that dealt with these topics. For example, the layer representing economy would cross keyword points such as poverty, empowerment, entrepreneurship, or desire. These keywords were shared with other layers (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Preliminary exploration, social connections in Chira Island.
After much consideration, prototyping, and testing, I realized that this piece, although attractive and visually inviting, was not communicating substantially the human side of the WACI. It required deeper contextualization, the voice of peopleâ&#x20AC;Ś it lacked identity. In the book format, the complex series of networks and geographic connections of the WACI and
2102
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
the island were not as easy to read and interpret. This then led us to the development of a flat, large-format map, eventually called Map of Connections. In this map, the different connections were color-coded, supported by the integration of photographs of places and people and thick descriptions to contextualize the spaces and the level of meaning of each represented connection in the life of the WACI members. These visual cues where placed over a route highlighted across the island’s map, that represents the path of a bus that takes visitors from Bocana Beach on the Eastside of Chira, to Palito Port on the Westside, a 50-minute ride crossing the island. Along this path several locations are identified, including bars, “where local men go drink almost everyday” (L. Martinez, personal communication, July, 2009), Evangelical temples, schools, and WACI’s lodge (Albergue La Amistad), where the members develop most of their daily activities. The final version of the Map of Connections had an 80x65 inch size. It was also prototyped and tested in Chira Island, where members of the WACI gave final input in order to adjust its functionality and usability. It was also validated by other collaborating women and well received by their families, who recognized the connections and meaning of the keywords across the map. They perceived this storytelling piece as a useful and accurate representation of the complex dynamics of the island in relation with the association. They were pleasingly surprised with the size of the map (that they first experienced digitally), which facilitates its readability and visual impact in open spaces. They also valued the use of pictures as part of the design, strategically located where their main activities happen daily around different locations of the island (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Map of Connections, final testing.
The map represents the different levels of information through a solid content and typography hierarchy, supported by variety in color and photography. The reader gets closer to the map to gradually understand the different connections, meanings, and spaces. As with the timeline, this piece can be displayed alone or used with the rest of the materials as a storytelling system (Figures 9 and 10).
2103
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
Figure 9: Map of Connections, Detail.
Figure 10: Map and Timeline in context with the other storytelling products.
5.3. Voice: documentary, testimonial cards, mixed media testimonial collages The third most important storytelling medium created was a 12-minute testimonial documentary. The video is divided into chapters where WACI members narrate the beginning of their association, the limitations and challenges they have faced to improve their livelihood, and the development of their ecotourism project, as well as the valuable support they have received from different entities and organizations. In the video, their husbands also acknowledge the value of their wivesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work, as well as WACI collaborators who narrate the example that the association has set for other people and groups in the island. At the end of the documentary, WACI members offer recommendations to women in rural communities who also desire to start their own projects.
2104
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
This video is based on interviews and conversations from my first field research visits to the island. These interviews were made in different locations, such as La Amistad Lodge and Puerto Palito. The order of the arguments and facts propose an organic and very natural overview of the story of these women as told by themselves. The expressions, gestures, and language of the women and the rest of the participants in this short documentary add great symbolic meaning to the story, giving us more information about their personality, feelings, passions, and motivations. The full video can be found at https://vimeo.com/48981220 In order to keep supporting WACIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stories and add value to their testimonies, two more visuals were developed: testimonial cards (called Testimonios) and mixed media collages, also based on short excerpts from conversations and interviews. Both series are smaller in size and easy to share. The cards are intended to be collected, carrying inspirational messages from the members of the WACI. Each card shows a photograph of a WACI member with an inspirational message or testimony intended to motivate other women alike. On the back, floral patterns inspired by species found in the surroundings of their lodge are paired with each one of the members (Figure 11).
Figure 11: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Testimoniosâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cards.
The mixed-media collages were developed to support the timeline, connected with thread to specific events and time-based facts. Each collage is an artistic exploration of texture, color, image, typography, and handwritten reflections based on phrases collected from multiple testimonies of the WACI members. These unrefined, multi-layered explorations reflect the natural and untouched qualities of the island: the gravel roads, the dusty surfaces, the humid landscapes, the muddy paths. Fourteen 5x5 inch experimental collages resulted in beautiful portraits of the stories (Figure 10 and 12).
Figure 12: Collage samples
2105
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
Storytelling in use The visual storytelling designs developed and explained in this paper were co-created, tested and prototyped in close collaboration with the WACI members. After the project was completed, the products were personally delivered in digital and printed form. Four of the designs are paper-based, making them easy to reproduce and transport, as the bigger pieces are separated into two parts each. The WACI has since been using the materials in their community activities, ecotourism fairs, and at their ecotourism lodge, to inform others about their experiences, and most importantly, to serve women in the same disadvantaged situations as inspiration to develop their own projects with a simple premise, “if we were able to do it, you can, too.” Since the conclusion of the project, I have stayed in contact with the WACI through periodic phone chats. I plan to visit Chira Island in the next year to re-evaluate the materials, their design, and follow up on the WACI story, as it has changed in the last years as result of their steady growth and the ever-changing living conditions of Chira. In this follow up visit I expect to identify more in depth the functionality of these storytelling materials after they have been steadily transported and exposed to primary and secondary audiences, both in regards the medium and purpose. I want to investigate how the WACI and the community have responded to increased access to technology, as well as explore ways in which social media and new mobile advances can add to the conversation of women development in rural communities.
Conclusions This case study validates the relevance of design research in the realm of visual storytelling and graphic communication, as well as the competence of designers to become authors and develop original context-specific information to support design processes and accurate product usability. As in many social experiments, designers who apply user-centered design research should always prioritize mutual respect, empathy, and ethics, excluding preconceived assumptions or stereotypes when working with communities of any kind. It is imperative to facilitate spaces for users and collaborators to communicate stories with their own voice and views of life and context (Visocky O’Grady, 2006). Design research activities in disadvantaged or rural communities also require an early understanding of potential limitations and obstacles that the different stages of the project could face, as well as planning on how to adapt if/when the original work conditions change. For instance, working from distance with the members of the Women’s Association of Chira Island required the development of a flexible communication system that would adjust to differences in geographic location, time use, and access to technology. In between and after my field trips, most of our conversations happened via telephone. We also had to define when and how to share visual materials through email or fax, so WACI members could find ways to access their email account as Internet services in Chira during the time of the project were very limited. Defining hours and days to chat or discuss aspects of the design process and analysis of collected data also required frequent rescheduling, many times due to
2106
Design Research, Storytelling, and Entrepreneur Women in Rural Costa Rica: a Case Study
unexpected changes in personnel at their lodge that would force some of the members who were the most involved in this design project to not be present for several of our planned discussions. Project limitations and challenges can certainly be context-specific. Nonetheless, in this project I worked with the WACI in a context of mutual collaboration and dual learning, allowing us to identify needs, motivations, and key aspects of their narrative, fostering innovative tools to communicate their story, different to what has been used traditionally such as storybooks, posters, or televised interviews. Contrary to other communication design contexts such as advertising and marketing where audience analysis is usually done through focus groups, questionnaires, sampling, or simple observation, getting involved with people in their living and work context facilitates the production and collection of information that is genuine, deepening the grasp of existing communication problems in order to develop user-centered solutions. In projects like this, the designer is also able to help empower the participants by highlighting and bringing attention to aspects of their narratives that many times are overlooked or not given the adequate attention or importance, which can be deeply inspiring and employed as base for the production of unique visual storytelling explorations. Collaborating with users and participants to deconstruct their stories and help identify key topics and threads can be highly successful, because it allows them to have a broader understanding of the potential of their testimonies, life experiences, and acquired knowledge to leverage social change and economic growth in similar populations. Methodologies used in this project can be successfully applied in other user-centered design activities, and I am confident that they can also be replicated in rural contexts where the design of similar visual storytelling projects can be appropriate. It is important to prioritize the development of partnerships and collaborations between designers, audiences, communities, stakeholders, and professionals from other disciplines of study, to allow the exchange of information from different perspectives. This results in the establishment of “knowledge societies”—spaces where the production and sharing of new information on specific topics is interconnected (Välimaa & Hoffman, 2008). This is a great added value to design research and design thinking activities. Knowledge societies can offer exciting opportunities for designers where learning flows from different directions spontaneously, allowing to share experiences and inform each other naturally and comfortably in the user’s natural context. For this project, I became part of a knowledge society with experts from institutions and associations specializing in rural ecotourism and women issues in Costa Rica, as well as with the WACI members, their families and collaborators, facilitating the understanding of the context and everyday life of women in Chira Island. The collection of information where the design researcher is part of a knowledge society is much more successful than developing other controlled social research activities, such as focus groups or closed interviews, and undoubtedly, much more relevant than designing alone in a studio setting.
2107
Maria Gabriela Hernandez
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the members of the Women’s Association of Chira Island from 2009 to 2011 (Lilliana Martinez, Marta Calderón, Dora Medina, Isabel Cruz, their nieces and daughters) and their families for allowing me to collaborate with them in this unique endeavor. This project wouldn’t be possible without the help of representatives from ACTUAR (Kyra Cruz), COPRENA, and the Institute of Women Studies (Mai Brenes), as well as the Tinker Foundation and the Center for Latin American Studies of the University of Florida for their funding support and guidance. I also want to acknowledge my M.F.A committee, Maria Rogal and Lauren Lake for their unconditional support, as well as my family and my brothers Jose Pablo and Mauricio for their help in the field.
References Avalos, A. (2001, September 30). Chira Lucha Por Su Agua. La Nacion. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/j2bzusy Dasenbrock, J. (2002). The Pros and Cons of Ecotourism in Costa Rica, Ted Case Studies 648. http://tinyurl.com/7egyvej (Accessed 29 March, 20 April, 2010, and 10 November, 2015). González Suárez, M. (1988). Estudios de la Mujer: Conocimiento y Cambio (Costa Rica), Colección Mujer. San José: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana. Laurel, B. (2003). Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Massachussetts: MIT Press. Leitinger, I. (1997). The Costa Rican Women’s Movement: A Reader, Pitt Latin American Series. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Valima, J., Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge Society Discourse and Higher Education, High Education 56:265-285 Visocky O’Grady, J., Visocky O’Grady, K. (2006). A designer’s Research Manual: succeed in design by knowing your clients and what they really need. Massachussetts: Rockport Publishers. (2013). Las Ventajas de Actuar, http://tinyurl.com/ojmu2ow, (Accessed 12 November, 2015)
About the Author: Maria Gabriela (Gaby) Hernandez is an Assistant Professor of Graphic Design. She directs the Graphic Design Reseach Initiative, a design and mentorship program where she develops projects with a design research and social design component. Her interests include information design, editorial design and design for development.
2108
Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination Larissa Pschetz*, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed University of Edinburgh *L.Pschetz@ed.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.442
Abstract: Designers are increasingly paying attention to problematic experiences of time. From a critique of acceleration to an urge to frame present actions within more extended futures, designers have been analysing how different temporal perceptions may influence practices and how they can be influenced by design. In this paper, we argue that in order to challenge problematic relationships to time, designers should consider time in radically different terms. Instead of regarding time largely in terms of pace and direction, they should start considering the complexity of aspects that sustain the coordination of particular groups. We present this approach through the concept of Temporal Design, which endeavours to reveal actors, practices and forces that determine social coordination within specific contexts. By surfacing this complexity, temporal design would allow it to be discussed, possibly demystifying problematic experiences and enabling more inclusive ways of understanding time. Keywords: temporal design; slow design; slow technology; speculative
Introduction Design is changing. New models of production and consumption, together with escalating social and environmental concerns, are encouraging designers to look more critically at cultural, social and economical practices, and the role of artefacts and systems within this complexity. In terms of temporality, this cultural tendency can be identified in a critique of acceleration and consequent questioning of designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s traditional support to productivity, efficiency and time-saving. It can also be identified in the growing interest in speculating about future conditions that might result from present actions, especially regarding the introduction of new technologies. In this paper, we revisit the discussion of time as a social construct and the converse tendency to describe time as objective, universalised, external to human practices, and an This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed
individual concern. We argue that a range of problematic experiences of time emerge from this tendency and that design has great potential to change them. First, however, designers would need to think about time differently. Instead of focusing on fast and slow design (time as pace) or on future speculations (time as direction), we argue for a broader temporal form of design that would consider time in its role of social coordination. Temporal Design would therefore bring the cultural, social and economic aspects of temporal experiences to the surface by looking at how they shape the social coordination of particular groups. By revealing this complexity, temporal design would open up space for discussing these relationships, possibly allowing for more inclusive temporal organisations to emerge.
Reflective attitudes to time in design 2.1 Time as pace: slow design and slow technology The notion that Western industrialised societies have been experiencing increasingly problematic relationships to time has been a topic of interest across the arts, humanities and social sciences. Research on time has long drawn attention to a perceived temporal acceleration, often assumed as universalised and associated with the development of new technologies. This idea is equally widespread in popular discourses, and many of us feel its impact on everyday life, social interactions, and the natural world. From attempting to reconfigure our bodies through caffeine and other stimulants, to working longer hours to manage the rush, or wondering how accelerated consumption and production is damaging our environment, many of us eventually experience a sense of powerlessness regarding this supposed rule of acceleration. Manifestations of the slow movement, including slow food, cittaslow and even the slow university, have attempted to counteract this condition by promoting opportunities to operate at a different pace. In Design, these attempts are manifested in movements such as Slow Design (Strauss & Fuad-Luke, 2009), Slow Technology (Hallnas & Redstrom, 2001) and Design for Solitude (Fullerton, 2010). Slow Design (Strauss & Fuad-Luke, 2009) celebrates slowness as an answer to critical issues in design, such as an often-perceived support to consumerism, a restrictive focus on functionalism, the diminishment of users’ engagement with materials, a lack of attention to local idiosyncrasies, and the need to think in the long-term. In Slow Technology, Hallnas & Redstrom (2001) advance the need for a form of design that emphasises reflection, the amplification of environments, and the use of technologies that a) amplify the presence of time; b) stretch time and extend processes; and c) reveal an expression of present time as slow-paced. Important here is the concept of “time presence”: “when we use a thing as an efficient tool, time disappears, i.e. we get things done. Accepting an invitation for reflection inherent in the design means on the other hand that time will appear, i.e. we open up for time presence” (Hallnas & Redstrom 2001). A slow technology would not disappear, but would make itself felt. In both cases, slowness is celebrated as a re-appropriation of the senses and a reconnection with the surrounding community. The complexities addressed by these proposals, however,
2110
Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination
have often been simplified into a dichotomy of fast and slow. Slow Technology and Slow Design, which are often used inter-changeably, have been appropriated in mainstream discourses as anti-technology and as a call for a return to pre-industrial practices and manually operated artefacts. This reaction reflects a narrative of industrial time (based on the clock) as replacing a more “natural” temporal organisation based on tasks (Thompson 1967), which has been strongly critiqued by a number of theorists (e.g. Birth 2012, Glennie and Thrift 2009, Ingold 1999). Narratives that describe time as uniform and evolving throughout history towards more accelerated states have also been critiqued for their potential to reinforce social inequalities (Sharma 2014) and for justifying the appropriation of natural resources in unsustainable ways (Bastian 2012). This simplification and appropriation can be seen in a range of projects and exhibitions framed within these movements – e.g. the Slow Tech exhibition at 2011 London Design Festival, which featured anti-technology projects such as the Social Bomb that once thrown would force everyone in a space to take a break from social network services, and the Taking Time: Craft and the Slow Revolution exhibition, which praised the slowness associated with craft skills. The association of alternative approaches to time with a rejection of technology reinforces dichotomies that do not reflect the way people relate to artefacts and systems (Wajcman 2015). As a result, these proposals not only risk being interpreted as nostalgic or backward looking, but also leave little space for integrating more complex accounts of time (particularly those arising in the social sciences) or for discussing more nuanced rhythms, as well as more complex forces and consequences related to temporal decisions. As a result, instead of challenging dominant accounts of time, these proposals arguably reinforce the overarching narrative of universalised acceleration. With a similar motivation but different attitude, Ben Fullerton (2010) proposes the concept of Design for Solitude, which questions the value of connectedness, sharing and constant availability. Fullerton advocates the encouragement of moments of isolation, as well as single modal devices. Similarly, Phoebe Sengers (2011) reflects on the way slower attitudes could be promoted by ‘‘making fewer choices, accessing less information, making productivity less central, keeping our lives less under formal control’’; she further considers how this attitude could be reflected in the design of communication technologies. Instead of reinforcing dichotomies, Fullerton (2010) and Sengers (2011) draw attention to practices that emphasise alternative expressions of time. As the original visions for Slow Design and Slow Technology suggest, the world is comprised of multiple temporal expressions, which play important roles in our lives, even if disregarded within dominant accounts of what time is. However, reducing this complexity too quickly to a simple dichotomy between fast and slow also reduces the possibilities for designers to work with time in ways that are informed by critical scholarship on the role of time in social life and thus to be better able to question norms.
2111
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed
2.2 Time as direction: future-oriented and speculative design Design has also taken a critical approach to time in its attempt to anticipate the impacts of present actions in the future, particularly those concerning the introduction of new technologies. This attitude may be generally identified in particular design projects but is most evident in speculative design movements such as Design Fictions, Critical Design and Design for Debate. Since design is often focused on yet-to-exist interventions in a given context, it is often said to be invariably future-oriented (e.g. in Dunne & Raby, 2013). This orientation presupposes a temporal linearity that may lead to a cult of what is new and to a disregard of the complexity of the present. The potential reality, which exists in the designed artefact or system, is expressed sometimes as a belief in the influence of design, or as a simple repetition of the narrative of linear progress promoted by continuous technological development. Both reinforce the notion that these developments are “inevitable”. As long term effects of high technological interventions become more evident (e.g. in farming, energy production, waste management, genetics, etc.), concerns regarding the impact of actions extend ever farther in the future, and the need to find ways to engage in discussions about this impact become ever more important. One way designers choose to engage in these discussions is through Speculative Design, which initiated as a call on designers to start speculating and disseminating ideas about how alternative ways of living may be conceived (Dunne, 1999). The call has influenced movements such as Critical Design (Dunne and Raby, 2001), Design Fictions (Bleecker, 2009) and Design for Debate (Dunne and Raby, 2007). Speculative Design artefacts would embody critical issues and allow people to project themselves into imagined scenarios, in order to generate discussion around the potential impact of new technological developments (Kerridge, 2009). Once brought into the public realm, these objects would elicit reactions and prompt dialogue. James Auger (2013) maintains that the key factors in the success of speculative design projects are the “careful management of the speculation”. If the speculation extends too far into the future, the audience may not relate to the proposal, which will result in a lack of public engagement. An intrinsic contradiction of these approaches, however, is their focus on the ‘‘future’’ as the context in which critical issues arise. This focus implies that critical issues approached by speculative design projects are not expressed in the present context. Indeed, this negation has recently been criticised in specific works, such as Burton Nitta’s project ‘‘Republic of Salivation’’ (2012), which was exhibited as an example of speculative design at MoMA-NY. The project aims to encourage discussion of how the world would react in a future scenario of global food scarcity, but the project fails to look at the complexities of the current food economy. Indeed, the future scenario proposed by the project resembles the situation in which millions of people already live in developing countries (Prado 2013). Here again, instead of looking at the present as a heterogeneous context, the present is considered as uniform and following a linear trajectory toward the future. As with time, attempts to describe how the world is should be expanded in order to avoid these narrow framings,
2112
Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination
expanding the considered context beyond one’s own socio-economic group, culture and geographic location. Design’s orientation towards the future may therefore restrict instead of expand designers’ understanding of the complexity of phenomena that come together to define temporal perceptions. This vision is shared by media theorist Douglas Rushkoff (2013), who suggests that people should stop looking into ‘‘individual futures’’, and should instead become more aware of what ‘‘connects them to everyone and everything else’’ in the present.
Temporal design: time as social coordination Despite a clear social motivation, the alternative approaches to time in design described above have been constrained by dominant narratives of time. Further they have often only considered time in terms of pace, direction and flow rather than the more complex ways that it is involved in social life (e.g. Greenhouse 1996). As mentioned, time is often presented as a single flow that has been continuously accelerating throughout history based on the development of new technologies. Instead of a social construct, it is considered to be neutral, objective and external to human practices. The dominance of this expression often leads us to consider problematic experiences of time as an individual concern, something that needs to be coped with on an individual basis. Often, the way into thinking about time in more complex and less linear ways involves a turn to philosophy. Whether the influence comes from Heidegger, Bergson, Deleuze, Benjamin or elsewhere, much of continental thought provides important ways of challenging the dominance of linear time and tuning into the non-linearity of subjective time and historical time. However, here too we would argue that there is a problematic focus on the individual (in the overarching interest in the subjective experience of time) and a narrow cultural context (in the neglect of non-western approaches to time and history). Further, the artefacts used to tell time, such as clocks, are largely understood by these philosophers as being outside of the phenomenological remit and are uncritically understood as signalling an ‘objective’ or ‘universal’ time (see Bastian forthcoming). Thus in developing a theoretical framework which could support an understanding of time as multiple, heterogeneous and deeply entangled within various social formations (which may be discrete or overlapping), work in the social sciences, particularly anthropology and sociology, has proven to be more useful. Such approaches enable us to ask different questions about what time is and how it works. Rather than seeing time as a flow between past, present and future (whether this be linear or nonlinear), it becomes possible to ask how time operates as a system for social collaboration (Sorokin and Merton 1937), how it legitimates some and ‘manages’ others (Greenhouse 1996), or how it works within systems of exclusion (Fabian 1983). We thus move from time as flow to time as social coordination. With this in mind we propose Temporal Design as a shift within design towards a pluralist perspective on time. Temporal Design attempts to identify and challenge expressions of dominant narratives of time, as it recognises that everyday rhythms are composed of multiple temporalities, which are defined by both direct and indirect factors. It also seeks to
2113
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed
empower alternative notions that are neglected by these narratives. It suggests that designers should start looking at time as something that emerges in relation to a complexity of cultural, social, economic and political forces. Temporal designers would therefore observe time in the social context, investigating beyond narratives of a universal time and linear progression, and beyond simple dichotomies of fast and slow. This is not to simply negate dominant notions but acknowledging that they coexist with several other expressions in all aspects of life. There is a multiplicity of temporalities latent in the world. Designers can help to create tools that disclose them, also revealing the intricacies of temporal relationships and negotiations that take place across individuals, groups, and institutions. They would then consider a network of times that accommodates the multiplicity of temporalities in the everyday, the natural world, and in intersections between these realms. Temporal Design could therefore involve: Identifying dominant narratives, including the forces and infrastructures that sustain them or which they help to support; Challenging these narratives, e.g. by revealing more nuanced expressions of time; Drawing attention to alternative temporalities, their dynamics and significance; Exposing networks of temporalities, so as to illustrate multiplicity and variety. The approach would bring several benefits: Acknowledging that slow and fast rhythms co-occur and are often interdependent would challenge the assumption of universal acceleration, Acknowledging that the times of some are more invested in than others, would enable challenges to temporal inequalities. Acknowledging that the natural world has multiple rhythms would change the assumption that it therefore provides a stable background for human-made ‘progress’ (McKibben, 2008).
Temporal design: interventions In order to explore the Temporal Design approach we developed three design interventions, namely, the Family Clock, the Printer Clock and TimeBots.
2114
Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination
Figure 1 Artefacts designed to explore the concept of Temporal Design: the Family Clock (left) the Printer Clock (centre) and TimeBots (right).
4.1 Family Clock: exploring temporality at the interface of everyday life The Family Clock proposes a reflection on how schedules are interwoven by families: what are the tensions, hierarchies and power relations, and how do family members learn to negotiate and agree (or not) on common rhythms? It also presents a critique of the notion of flexitime, which is often the solution offered in the context of new technological developments. The intervention was based on a physical clock designed so that the face represented the length of a day and, rather than isochronic hours, it indicated the various appointments of each member of a specific family. The clock was accompanied by a dedicated smartphone/tablet application that could be used by family members to set the clock back or forward according to individual constraints and the desired pace of life. For example, if a child was hungry they could move up dinner time. The changes each individual made were recorded in a database, transmitted to the clock, and synchronised on all devices of the family. The two clock-hands indicated, not hours and minutes, but time in intervals of 5 min (short hand) and speed (long hand). The long hand regularly moved at the speed of one tick per second, but would accelerate or decelerate according to how often family members changed time. If an appointment was set back (eg moving dinner from 6pm to 5pm), the long hand moved faster (to reach the desired appointment more quickly), and if set forward (e.g. moving the trip to school from 9am to 10am) it would move slower (to take longer to reach the appointment), eventually catching up with standard clock time. The clock was hosted by three families (the Clarkes, the Millers and the Wilsons) for a period of 1-3 weeks, where they were asked to interact with it in different situations, followed by interviews.
4.2 Printer Clock: responses Perceptions of the clock differed significantly across the families. While the Clarkes emphasised the way it seemed to connect them more closely, the Millers considered it particularly disruptive and the Wilsons were concerned about its apparent lack of function. The responses however showed a coherence of perceptions within each family, which illustrates how these perceptions are rehearsed and learned in the everyday. This echoes Sorokin and Mertonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s claim, that time is best understood as a system of coordination.
2115
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed
Issues of efficiency appeared in all interviews. Most of the participants reported to feel “stuck” when asked about when they would use the clock to influence someone to do something later. Feeling a sense of time-pressure was described as a constraint, an issue of contempt, or a reason for pride or as simple resignation, depending on how in control participants felt. Time was thus bound up with notions of control and morality. While Charlie W (13) would set the clock back to give himself more time to complete tasks and thus appear more efficient, he still felt that changing the time was somehow unethical: “because I have to be mature about school and not immature speeding up time to get through the lesson but mature to get to learn something.” Here then we see time linking up with senses of legitimacy and of what it means to be successful within a particular social group. Structured time and discipline were also often associated with success. Ethan M (35-45) considered that more flexible school structures would fail to engage students, and Paula M (35-45) thought she wouldn’t get things done if she had a more flexible work schedule. A sense of comfort provided by schedules was also pointed out by different participants, as “you sort of know you are meant to be there at that time, you don’t have to decide to be there at that time, you just are there at that time, so it is easy thinking” (Charlie W, 13).
Figure 2 Family Clock prototype and implementation
While the clock highlighted attitudes to dominant temporal narratives, it also playfully encouraged participants to subvert them. Lily M (7) proposed changing time constantly so that she didn’t have to go to school, and her and her sister Alice M (10) suggested using it to make their parents go to bed sooner, so that they could watch TV until late. Changing parental schedules was also a strategy for investing more resources in supporting the children’s time. Rob C (12) and Emily C (16) suggested putting the clock forward so that they would miss the bus, and their mum would have to give them a lift to school. When asked about when they might use the clock to create a “funny” situation, however, one child admitted, “it was quite hard to think on ones which weren’t a bit cruel” (Emily C). In each of these examples, time becomes much more than a sense of flow, and instead we see how it can be used to ‘manage’ others, in ways that can be empowering for some and detrimental to others.
2116
Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination
The intervention encouraged participants to consider how their times relate to the times of others, but most importantly it allowed them to reflect on what it might mean to challenge the dominant account of time as external and objective and instead see it open to transformation. Sally C explained the clock as a “sort of a more imaginative thing, that helped you imagine what it would be like if you could change time” and Emily C described it as something that “made you think about time.” That is, “I liked thinking about it. Normally you wouldn’t think about when you would like to speed up time and when you would like to go back to what was good. It made me think about the day, what happened, and what you would like to change” (Emily C). Even so, others felt little agency in relation to changing the ways that time works, accepting it as “how the world is nowadays” (Tom W (45-55)).
4.3 Printer Clock & TimeBots: exploring temporality in schools The other two interventions, the Printer Clock and the TimeBots, were carried out with 4th grade pupils (9-10 years) of two schools in the UK. In comparison to family scheduling, the environment of the school offered the opportunity to engage perceptions that were less habituated and more loosely tied to each other.
4.3.1 Printer Clock The Printer Clock aimed to expose networks of temporalities in order to show their multiplicity, but also to create what we call ‘temporal empathy’ within the context of the classroom, by presenting time through activities carried out by the students. The students initially received kits containing a small clock and a disposable camera, and were invited to use this material to document their routines over a period of 2-5 days. Importantly, the clock was featured somewhere in each photograph, which later allowed us to identify when it was taken. Approximately 400 images were collected in each school. These images were then time-stamped, and used to build up the database upon which the Printer Clock would draw.
Figure 3 Printer Clock intervention process: building the timeline (left), trying the clock (centre) and final one-to-one interviews (right).
The Printer Clock resembled a grandfather clock, composed of a regular clock face (initially obscured), a cord substituting for the pendulum, a printer, and a computer that stored the
2117
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed
children’s pictures. Pulling the cord activated the computer, which lit up the clock face and printed a picture that was taken at that particular time in the past. When looking at a clock, individuals often think about their own actions and what they need to do next. With the Printer Clock, the fragmented past experiences of others present themselves as the timereadings and invite the children to establish connections between their own present and someone else's past. Moving from a quantitative time to a qualitative one, the Printer Clock tells time through the activities of others and the variety of pictures reveals the multiplicity of rhythms within that group.
4.3.2 Printer Clock: responses The Printer Clock was placed in the main hall of each school. During the session, students ran over to the clock and kept pulling the cord to see what and who would appear in the next picture. The clock was rapidly taken over by some students, who eagerly looked inside the clock to catch the first glimpse of the print, and then shouted the name of the child in the picture. Others observed the clock from afar. The clock-face was ignored by the ones in control, with the pictures that carried the time effectively replacing it. The peak moment of excitement was when children were faced with their own pictures. When asked to choose a time to be printed, participants mostly made this choice based on an activity that they particularly enjoyed, often referring to time indexically via the activity before then translating it into clock-time: “probably when I’m doing karate, that would be around half past twelve” (D1). The second most frequent strategy was to pick a regular appointment in their schedules; such as the time they left home to go to school. Another strategy was based on a combination of numbers, e.g. 03:09 to represent the 3 rd of September, or a lucky number. These strategies show the richness of associations prompted by clock-time. Activities, tasks, schedules, quantities and numbers were all expressed in the children’s choices. Overall the children looked for identification in the printed images. There was a sense of satisfaction when the printed picture met this expectation, and a converse attitude of disdain, sometimes preceded by surprise, when this expectation was not met - e.g. expressed by not wanting to keep or talk about the image. The search for familiarity was achieved in a few cases, but in most cases participants were faced with activities of fellow students with whom they were not so familiar, or activities that they would not notice, as these activities did not directly appeal to them. They were therefore taken out of their comfort zone, and it is in this dislocation that a shift from a sense of an individual time (which was uncritically mapped onto universal time), to unexpected networks of times takes place. The documentation of routines invited the students to reflect on the multiplicity of practices that shape temporality inside the school community, making the social layering of time more perceptible. Far from being restricted to timetables, buzzers and timed tasks, school time is a fusion of personal times, rhythms and temporal forces (Adam 1995). As clock-time gains more importance in the students’ lives, this kind of activity could encourage them to
2118
Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination
continue to consider alternative, non-quantifiable notions of time as part of their temporal contexts.
4.3.3 TimeBots While the Printer Clock focused on emphasising the embodied and situated nature of time, pointing to the mesh of activities and characters that come together to create time, the TimeBots drew attention to personal rhythms and how they played out within the context of the classroom. The aim was to challenge the idea that the world is in a state of constant acceleration by inviting children to reflect on the multiple speeds of their day. In contrast to the slow movement, which assumes acceleration as a universalised condition and attempts to counteract this condition by promoting opportunities to slow down, the intention here was to invite the students to explore the variant speeds at which they lived their lives. The TimeBots consisted of small 3-wheeled robots that could be programmed with the help of tokens to run as slow, medium or fast in a 5-step sequence, representing feelings about speed in 5 periods of the day. The intervention started with a series of warming up questions about how the students felt about speed, describing activities, people, places and objects considered as slow, medium and fast, and marking them on a form. They were then asked to focus on a regular weekday and describe their feelings of acceleration in five periods, and mark their thoughts on another dedicated form. After this reflection, the TimeBots were distributed and decorated to create a sense of personal identification, and each child recorded their feelings of speed upon their bots. The bots were finally released altogether into a pen, running over the 5 speeds in a continuous loop, so as to enact the collective rhythm of the classroom.
Figure 4 TimeBots: decoration and final performance.
4.3.3 TimeBots: responses Reported experiences of the speed, even of seemingly similar situations, varied greatly among participants. Similar activities, places, people and objects were considered as fast, medium and slow, or all at once, depending on the situation and the people involved, the mood of participants, time of day, etc. Further, activities and places that might intuitively be associated with speed were sometimes considered slow (e.g. athletics, the high street, etc.).
2119
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed
Particular senses of speed were not intrinsically related to specific activities, people, places and objects, but were constructed by each participant based on their own personal experiences. It was however still possible to identify some bias towards interpreting experiences through dominant narratives of time, particularly in the “activities” topic, where slowness was frequently associated with displeasure and boredom, while acceleration was associated with pleasure and enjoyment. In the case of people, however, slowness was not only associated with inefficiency “[he is slow] because he kind of can’t really bother getting to work to get paid and he lives at home and doesn’t pay the bills” (R2), but also with pleasure “my grandma... I like that she is slow” (A2), and tranquillity “because C3 is really peaceful she never shouts or anything” (S2), and busyness was associated with both acceleration and slowness. In the forms where participants marked how they felt about their days, the three speeds were relatively balanced in all stages. The speeds programmed into the TimeBots were admittedly too personal and subjective for others to connect them to their owners, and the owner of each robot was mostly recognised by its decoration. As the robots ran inside the pen, however, the children could observe the representation of their own rhythms and particularly the variety that composed the polyrhythms of the classroom. The network of rhythms created by the TimeBots in the pen enabled a unique glimpse into the combined subjective experiences of time of those students. The TimeBots interacted with each other on a different level, revealing the subjective timescape of the group. The variety of speeds pointed to the richness of temporal experiences within the group. While the repetition of dominant narratives of speed demonstrates the difficulty of breaking with a pervasive culture of time, overall the children did not experience their 21st century lives solely as accelerated. Instead they explored the occurrence of multiple rhythms. The recognition of this multiplicity challenges the assumption that social life is monopolised by a single temporal expression, and the association of slowness with familiarity and tranquillity challenges the idealisation of always doing more. Acceleration might have become a normative model embedded in our language, but speed is experienced in multiple variations.
Closing reflections As discussed above, designers are starting to look beyond production and consumption, adopting a more critical position towards cultural, social and economic practices. In terms of time, they are increasingly interested in exploring problematic temporal experiences that are thought to increasingly compromise the quality of life in Western industrialised societies. These experiences can often be related to dominant accounts that describe time as objective, universalised, attached to technological developments and increasingly accelerated. Nevertheless, a number of design movements have attempted to look at alternative scenarios. Their developments, however, have often been appropriated and have even reinforced the same narrative that they attempted to criticise. By assuming that acceleration is a universalised condition, this notion is reinforced and the multiple temporal
2120
Temporal design: looking at time as social coordination
expressions manifested in everyday life are disregarded. Temporal Design attempts to counteract these effects by drawing attention to social practices of time. Time is a social process, tacitly defined through everyday practices. It is rehearsed, learned, designed, created, storied, and made. This aspect however is often overlooked not only by designers, but also by society in general. Designers can have a key role in unlocking the hegemonic narratives that restrict cultural understandings of time and in opening up new ways of making, living and thinking time. Perhaps through design we will all be able to realise the multiplicity of phenomena that come together to define time, possibly feeling more empowered to change attitudes and like Sally C “imagine what it would be like if you could change time.”
References Adam, B. (1995) Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time. Wiley. Bastian, M. (2012). Fatally confused: telling time in the midst of ecological crises. Environmental Philosophy, 9(1), pp 23-48. Bastian, M. (forthcoming) “Liberating Clocks: Rethinking the transformative potential of clock time” new formations: a journal of culture/theory/politics. Birth, K. (2012) Objects of Time: How Things Shape Temporality. Culture, Mind and Society. Palgrave Macmillan. Bleecker, J. (2009) Design fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction. http://drbfw5wfjlxon.cloudfront.net/writing/DesignFiction_WebEdition.pdf. On-line, Last accessed: 19.01.2014. Dunne, A. (1999) Hertzian tales: electronic products, aesthetic experience and critical design. RCA CRD research publications. RCA CRD Research Publications. Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2001) Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Birkhaeuser Basel, 1 edition. Dunne, A. and Raby, F. (2007) Design for debate. http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/ bydandr/36/0. Online, Last accessed: 09.09.2014. Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2013) Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press. Fabian, J. (1983) Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York, Columbia University Press. Fullerton, B. (2010) Designing for solitude. interactions, 17(6), pp 6-9. Glennie, P. and N. Thrift (2009) Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales 1300-1800. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Greenhouse, C. J. (1996) A Moment's Notice: Time Politics across Cultures. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press. Hallnas, L., & Redstrom, J. (2001) Slow technology - design for reflection. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 5(3), pp 201-212. Ingold, T. (1995) Work, time and industry. Time & Society, 4(1). pp 5–28. Kerridge, T. (2009) Does speculative design contribute to public engagement of science and technology? In Proceedings of Multiple Ways to Design Research. Online, Last accessed: 19.01.2014.
2121
Larissa Pschetz, Michelle Bastian and Chris Speed
McKibben, B. (2008) Worried? us? In Ideas, Insights and Arguments: A Non-fiction Collection, Cambridge Collections, pages 38 - 44. Cambridge University Press. Mumford, L. (1963) Technics and Civilization. Mariner Books. Prado, L. (2013) Questioning the critical in speculative & critical design. https://medium.com/@luizaprado/ questioning-the-critical-in-speculative-critical-design5a355cac2ca4. Online, Last accessed: 12.08.2014. Rushkoff, D. (2013) Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now. Penguin Group US. Sengers, P. (2011) What i learned on change islands: reflections on it and pace of life. interactions, 18(2), pp 40-48. Sharma, S. (2014) In the Meantime: Temporality and Cultural Politics. Duke University Press. Sorokin, P. A. and R. K. Merton (1937). Social Time: A Methodological and Functional Analysis. The American Journal of Sociology 42(5): 615-629. Strauss, C. F., & Fuad-Luke, A. (2009) The slow design principles. www.slowlab.net/CtC_SlowDesignPrinciples.pdf. (Accessed 08 November, 2015) Thompson, E. P. (1967) Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism. Past and Present 38, pp 5697. Wajcman, J. (2015) Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Weiser, M. and Brown, J. S. (1997) The coming age of calm technology. In Denning, P. J. and Metcalfe, R. M., editors, Beyond Calculation, pages 75â&#x20AC;&#x201C;85. Copernicus, New York, NY, USA.
About the Authors: Larissa Pschetz is an interaction designer and lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. She is interested in electronics, data stories, socio-technological narratives, and temporal design. Michelle Bastian is a Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fellow at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on the role of time in social practices of relationality and interconnection. Chris Speed is Professor of Design Informatics within Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh. Chris is Co-Director of the Design Informatics Research Centre that is home to researchers working across interaction design, temporal design, anthropology, software engineering and cryptocurrencies.
2122
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations Piotr Michuraa*, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletskyc, Guilherme Meyerc, Chiara Del Gaudioc, Gerry Derksend, Julia Diasc, Elizabeth Jerneganb, Juan de la Rosab, Xinyue Zhoub and Priscilla Ferronatoc a
Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow Illinois Institute of Technology c Escola da Indústria Criativa, Brazil d Winthrop University * pmichura@asp.krakow.pl DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.364 b
Abstract: In this paper, we describe our work on producing physical tools for people doing collaborative text interpretation of conversational texts. Recognizing that although there is a linearity to conversation, we nonetheless believe that in many cases the content might better be represented as a physical, spatial object, where parts of the discussion can be modified out of their initial sequence, other parts can be added or subtracted, and gaps can be identified and filled. We prepared a series of functional prototypes of a toolkit consisting of a set of separate elements, which could be assembled into large spatial structures. While addressing research questions on how the artifacts facilitate cooperation, interaction and communication, we found the significant advantage of this kind of modeling is its ability to facilitate shared collaborative understanding without compromising individual perspectives. It also prompted discussion on the metalevel of conversation. Keywords: conversational model, collaboration, hermeneutics, social media
Introduction “The power of the unaided mind is highly overrated. Without external aids, memory, thought, and reasoning are all constrained. ... The real powers come from devising external aids that enhance cognitive abilities. How have we increased memory, thought, and reasoning? By the invention of external aids: it is things that make us smart.” (Norman, 1993, p. 5)
Norman (1993) argues that offloading cognitive work to external aids plays a significant role in the extension of human intelligence. The design of effective new aids of this kind is
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Piotr Michuraa, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato
therefore an important step in helping people to work smarter, especially in the case of more mentally challenging tasks such as the analysis of complex textual material. The purpose of this project was therefore to explore the relationship between the collaborative processes of teams analyzing texts of conversations, and the external representations these teams made for facilitating the process of building their shared understanding. Conversations were chosen because (a) they form a large portion of qualitative research data and (b) they are often sufficiently complex that they require specialized processes and tools (e.g. NVivo, TAMSanalyzer, usenineteen.org). We were particularly interested in providing opportunities for people doing these kinds of analysis to use visual, spatial, and temporal representations, since we believe that few people outside design use visuospatial representation on a regular basis. Possible reasons are many, including an educational bias toward word-, page-, and screenoriented culture, the current design of computer hardware, and the lack of accurate and easy to use media and techniques. In some ways, the design profession is in a privileged position, since in the course of the design process the designer regularly uses visual, spatial and temporal representations to work with abstract ideas (Schön, 1992). In transferring this concept to analytical modeling of conversations, it was important for us to understand how tangible material outcomes relate to concepts articulated in a conversation and at the same time how the material shapes the conceptual during the process of modeling. It is true that every designed object or process mediates in the communication between the designer and the viewer. However, in the case of the analytical models, the roles may not be entirely clear. It is possible that designer and viewer are the same people, and that the conversation they are modeling is their own. In fact, we reported elsewhere on a study of this kind involving graduate design students discussing a research paper in class (Derksen et al. 2013). They may also be the same people, but modeling, as in the case of the workshops reported in this paper, the conversation of others. Or there may be one person or team doing the modeling, and a completely distinct viewer or viewers of the model. In all cases, however, the conversational model allows an open approach interaction leading to understanding, with good margins for representing and exploring the unexpected, for providing fast “prototyping” of connections between ideas, and for finding the “geometry” of the relationships among ideas in the space of alternatives (Frazer, 1995). There are also opportunities for improvisation, enriching the common language of communicative interaction. On one hand, the cooperative aspect of the modeling process allows constructing one coherent view of a text; on the other, it can articulate contrasting views, when interlocutors "agree to disagree" (Pask, 1980).
Literature Review A broad range of studies agree upon the fact that people are able to build mental threedimensional structures from very early in their lives. According to Downs and Stea (1977) the
2124
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations
first evidence that a child understands spatial relations can be traced in a 3–6 year old child’s “representational outputs”— built structures or drawings. Learning the language also forces the child to think about abstract entities in terms of spatial relations, e.g. to approach the problem, to face the problem (Gentner, 2001). Unfortunately, later education makes less use of this ability than could be optimal for application in information processing and knowledge building. In this context experiments by Piaget (1954) and Vygotsky (1986) aimed at providing means for examining hidden cognitive events are worth mentioning. The aim of these experiments was to draw out the concepts formed by a respondent about the given problem situation through the externalization of otherwise inaccessible “data structures” revealing the participant’s knowledge about a particular topic or to examine her way of thinking. Vygotsky and his associates developed a methodology in which the problem faced by a participant of the study was embedded in a physical artifact. The participant was encouraged to deal with them by verbal explanation or manipulation of the object. Piaget’s experiments also modeled problematic situation with a help of physical objects. Especially in the case of children the possibility of manipulations of an actual object were stressed as crucial element of the whole experimental situation to help concretize their operations and avoid troubles in providing verbal explanations. In both cases, the participants were urged by the experimenter to reveal their concepts about the problem in conversation. Pask (1980), referring to Piaget and Vygotsky, was interested in methods of eliciting explanations of problems as well as how the knowledge is represented for the external observer. He argued that problems of interaction should be considered within the research context of ecology of conversation. He developed the Conversation Theory to model this fundamental mode of interaction and mediation. Kunz and Rittel (Kunz and Rittel, 1970) developed Issue-Based Information System (IBIS) as a system for documenting and structuring arguments needed due to the complexity of issues (“wicked problems”). The challenge is to precisely document key points in discussion for further reference. In order to accomplish this task documentation of the discussion should incorporate ways to provide descriptors, with contextual information usually being an important part. Finally, they argue that a transparent working procedure can result in better reasoning, more explicit arguments, and easier development of proper questions, revealing the actual core of the problem. The only suggestion for possible visual embodiment of the system is an “issue map” as a part of the IBIS structure. It is meant to provide a graphic representation of relationships between system elements but still without any particular proposal about the actual visual realization. In their now-classic introduction to boundary objects, Star and Griesemer (1989) distinguish among four types: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and standardized forms. Repositories are indexed piles of objects; ideal types are taxonomies; coincident boundaries are objects with a shared outline but different interiors, like maps for divergent purposes; standardized forms are templates.
2125
Piotr Michuraa, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato
Phelps and Reddy (2009) similarly describe the role of boundary objects used in construction projects as being not only informational, but also influential in guiding the group collaboration. For Fleming (1998), the importance of objects in the discussion among designers is that they facilitate a different language, where deictic reference plays a key role. An important part of boundary objects is their role in mediating communication. Drawing on Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1975) speech act theory, Hisarciklilar and Boujut (2009) describe the design of a boundary approach that attaches annotations to 3D virtual objects, for use in the asynchronous process of disambiguation throughout a design project. Their model includes predefined semantic categories such as proposition, clarification, evaluation, and purpose. Further on the subject of the role of models in the design process, Pialot et al. (2011) describe a conceptual model for use in the early phases of innovation. Its three components are concept, technology, and potential. They emphasize the importance of dealing with the interactions of these three factors in order to produce a tree structure of possible designs.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to do preliminary testing of the concept of a physical tool intended to facilitate collaboration between participants in idea-generation and conceptual model building during the process of analyzing the texts of previous conversations of others. We developed and tested three different versions of the physical tool (see Methods, below).
3.1 Research questions For each form of the tool, we addressed the following research questions. 1. How can a visuospatial modeling kit designed for carrying out an analysis of conversational materials facilitate cooperation, interaction and communication? 2. Does the interaction between people and the model create interesting outcomes in the form of shared understanding, which might be associated with material features of the model? 3. Does the process facilitate individual reflection on the problem at hand? 4. Does the process augment communication of ideas between the people involved? 5. Can the result serve for transmitting the findings in meaningful ways to those not involved in the process? 6. What kind of a common language (both verbal and visual) is established as a shared platform to exchange ideas and to make understanding between the involved parties easier? 7. In what way does the model integrate multiple modes of information representation to facilitate the processes of understanding, communicating, and creating new concepts?
2126
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations
Methods 4.1 Participants We had 48 participants in a total of 9 workshops. The participants were all graduate students or faculty members in design programs. Their age ranged from mid-20s to mid-50s; male and female genders were roughly equally represented; we had no participants who self-identified as being of alternative genders (i.e. LGBTQ).
4.2 Conversations used for participants to model We chose 3 different types of conversation in order to see how the complexity of the content influenced the outcomes of the modeling process. The simplest conversation was an email exchange between 2 people about the logistics of setting up a meeting. We used this conversation with the first and simplest version of the model (the pillars). We describe this as the simplest model because it had the fewest affordances. The second type of conversation was much more complex in terms of both structure and content. It was a transcript of an interview between 2 researchers and 2 participants, so the number of speakers was double the number in the email exchanges. The subject matter was also difficult to interpret, since it ranged widely across topics, with occasional reversions of the discussion to previous topicsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a feature we considered important because it reduced the linearity of the conversation. We used this conversation with the remaining 2 increasingly complex models (windows and magnetic panels). The third type of conversation (i.e. Winner 1989) was a departure in the sense that it was a non-fiction book chapter, written in a relatively conversational style but with only a single speaker (the author). We estimated that the material was as complex in structure and content as the interview transcript, but removed the aspect of having multiple speakers. We used this third text with teams that had the magnetic panels (the model with the most affordances).
4.3 Three different prototypes of the physical tool We prepared a series of functional prototypes of a tool consisting of a set of separate elements, which could be assembled into large spatial structures. The structures can hold and position in space any kind of information written or sketched by participants during the session. The construction of elements was intended to enable them to configure the object as freely as possible to create an openwork structure. The structural elements and the means of connecting the elements varied with each of the three iterations of the tool. M ODEL 1: P ILLARS (1 TEAM OF 2 MEMBERS ; 2 THIRD - PARTY REVIEWERS ; SIMPLE EMAIL EXCHANGE ) This version of the prototype used thin pillars inserted into square bases. The main element was a post, onto which a small white board was fastened using a magnetic strip. The pillars could be arranged in groups but not connected horizontally. One iteration was made with
2127
Piotr Michuraa, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato
foam core (Figure 1), which meant that it could be easily disassembled and flatpacked for transport; the next used wood for added weight and stability, since the foam core version was too easy to accidentally knock and send flying. The pillars were used by one team to analyse an email exchange among conference organizers, to first determine and then try to communicate the key points in the discussion.
Figure 1. Discussing the 4 main categories of topics and 1 subtopic in an email exchange.
M ODEL 2: R ECTANGULAR WINDOWS (4 TEAMS OF 5 PARTICIPANTS EACH ; 4 THIRD - PARTY REVIEWERS ) The rectangular windows provided a larger working surface for posting notes; the windows also came in sets of 4 that were hinged together with a colourful foam frame (Figure 2). Teams used this model to represent their understanding of an interview transcript taken from a video recording, which they also watched prior to the modeling activity.
2128
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations
Figure 2. Workshop team members discuss their analysis of an interview transcript.
M ODEL 3: M AGNETIC P ANELS (4 TEAMS OF 5 MEMBERS EACH ) The panels are the most flexible solution to date. They consist of clear plastic squares, rectangles, and triangles with magnets inserted around the periphery (Figure 3). Two workshop teams using this version created models of the content of Langdon Winner’s book chapter “Do Artifacts Have Politics”; two other teams used it to model the interview transcript previously used with the window frames version.
Figure 3. Study participants capture the key points of an academic article. Note the addition of LEDs to highlight specific points.
2129
Piotr Michuraa, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato
4.4 Activities The research was conducted in two main phases, preceded by an introduction. The whole session typically took about 2 hours: â&#x20AC;˘
â&#x20AC;˘
â&#x20AC;˘
Introduction (approximately 10 minutes). The researcher explained the activity to the participants: its goals, characteristics etc. The content of the toolkit to be used during the session is introduced. Phase I: Activity (90 minutes). The participants take part in the collaborative ideation process intended to build a conceptual model of their object of study, with the help of the provided tool. The time is measured and checkpoints are taken with the teams. After approximately 90 minutes the activity is considered to be finished. Phase II: Interview (approximately 20 minutes). The participants in their teams are asked to formulate some opinions about the main advantages and disadvantages of the tool on the basis of Phase I. Free discussion is welcomed with the active involvement of the researchers. Important statements and main points from the discussion are documented by the researcher in the form of written notes.
4.5 Data Collection and Analysis Each session was videotaped, audio taped, and photographed. These materials were analysed by the researchers reviewing the various media for evidence related to the research questions previously listed. The evidence could take the form of expressions by the participants through speaking or acting. We considered the individual expression as the unit of analysis, rather than attempting to develop any conclusions based on frequency in a qualitative study where n was never intended to be sufficient for statistical analysis.
Results 5.1 Pillars prototype Participants in this workshop analysed an email exchange, after which a third party who had not been involved in the analysis attempted to interpret the results. The process was carried out twice, with a different person acting as third party each time (both were professors of design). In the first instance, the participants attempted to represent in the model not just the key topics of the email exchange, but also the information about who had written what in the emails. The third-party review of this first model was not successful: that is, the reviewer struggled to understand what the people doing the modeling had understood about the email exchange. In the second version of the model, the focus was entirely on the key topics in the emails, and no attempt was made to keep track of which email writer addressed which topic. The third-party reviewer in this case was immediately able to explain what the analysis of the email exchange had captured.
2130
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations
5.2 Windows prototype Participants in these 4 workshops analysed an interview transcript, after which a third party attempted to interpret the results. After reviewing the outcomes, we realized that the request to include this communicative element to the exercise had restricted the kinds of models that the teams created: â&#x20AC;&#x153;I need to see where it starts and where it ends: our goal is to show it to someone.â&#x20AC;? In one team, the room itself was used as an element; the model had an intended starting point that was facing the door, so that the third-party reviewer was naturally placed in the right position to begin the process of following the model in order to understand what had been done.
5.3 Magnetic panels prototype In this version, the most complex models were used, and we eliminated the idea of communication to a third party in order to encourage a more analytically oriented approach by the teams. The combination of these changes resulted in the most complex models we had seen to date; in these versions, the teams had a tendency to emphasize that the models represented simultaneously a variety of viewpoints on the material. This was in contrast to the windows versions, where 3 of the 4 teams had specified a starting point for examining the model, implying that there was one right way of seeing the results of the analysis.
5.4 General Observations One general result we consider important is that we have come to understand our modeling kit as a kind of language for the creation of boundary objects. As such, it shares some aspects of each of the categories proposed by Star and Griesemer (1989) (repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and standardized forms), although it does not fall cleanly into any of them. Instead, it may constitute a new category, perhaps shared in some of their affordances by more generic tools like chalkboards, white boards, and paper. It is a communicational medium, but one with a collaborative aspect. That said, it can be used to create models not only for mediation but also for transmission. We observed from the workshops with the pillars and windows that models intended to transmit the results of an analysis may differ from the models created mainly for collaborative thinking. We were also able to observe the facilitating function of creating local language between participants (deictic reference) in all of the workshops, with growing frequency as the affordances of the toolkit allowed participants to make the structures more expressive and less dependent on prior conventions.
5.5 Research Questions We now turn our attention to how our analysis of the workshops provided insights into the list of research questions. 1. How can a visuospatial modeling kit designed for carrying out an analysis of conversational materials facilitate cooperation, interaction and communication?
2131
Piotr Michuraa, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato
The task of joint construction of the model creates a specific social situation. For our participants, it was a new experience to be engaged in that kind of activity. At the beginning of a session the novelty brings about a distant attitude because it is a quite unusual situation – not like ordinary conversation, with strong associations with children’ playing, for example with blocks, but then, a moment later, the curiosity overcomes the fear and people became involved in the construction of the model. Participants pointed out that in general the activity was enjoyable, free, and creative. They referred to the notion of improvisation, as the method to obtain unexpected results from the thinking process. They found, as the main advantages of the activity, the possibility of fast visualization of concepts, showing in meaningful and clear ways the connections and hierarchies. They were speaking about the enrichment of the discussion through creating the spatial context for thoughts and their visual equivalents, which enabled us to easily refer to previous threads. They also noted that the elements of the tool were quite effortless to operate, although at each stage these comments were combined with suggestions for subsequent improvements, which we made. 2. Does the interaction between people and the model create interesting outcomes in the form of shared understanding, which might be associated with material features of the model? The material aspects of the model are crucial to the entire process. The new possibilities and constraints of three-dimensional real construction influence the process of interpretation. For example the construction, to be stable, must be balanced. So a specific idea already placed in the structure needs to be “balanced” by another in the structure to make the construction more “reliable”. In some cases, where the model resulted in conflicting ideas being placed on facing panels, it became clear that anyone looking at the model would need to engage their kinesthetic intelligence by looking first one way, then another, in order to see the two perspectives. Having moved their heads will help them internalize the idea that the two perspectives are opposed—it may also help them remember the moment. Finally, because of the structural bias towards symmetry, or at least balance of some sort, participants can see conversations that do not readily lend themselves to this kind of balanced representation as being possibly somehow deficient. Another example involved the participants lifting up the whole structure in order to place a concept at the bottom. The new concept became more memorable by associating it with this particular activity. We called this type of action around the model “meaningful gestures.” 3. Does the process facilitate individual reflection on the problem at hand? The purpose of this question was to remind us to watch for the extent to which the collaborative nature of the toolkit might produce “groupthink,” where individual perspectives were drowned out in the need to create a common structure. We observed in this respect the usual group dynamics, where a leader might emerge
2132
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations
who either had an idea or else wanted to create a consensus, but we also observed instances where the group developed a shared conviction in the need for creating a structure that recognized multiple perspectives. One group of participants, in fact, working with the most complex conversation (the transcript), using the most complex model (the magnetic panels) created a structure that not only modeled the viewpoints of the people in the interview transcript, but also modeled the viewpoints of the study participants, resulting in a complex understanding of the permutations of interpretation, where each participant might have a different idea, not about a central consensus of understanding, but instead about the viewpoint of each speaker. One participant explained that it started when someone held a pair of cubes up to their face as though they were eyeglasses, saying that each of them could use the model to see the content from a different lens. 4. Does the process augment communication of ideas between the people involved? The quality of communication mediated by the model is different than in an ordinary conversation. It is more ordered, structured, self-reflecting. Every time the session is conducted there must be a certain agreement about the “rules of the game”, the meaning of elements, the ways of expressing ideas. Every time people are involved in creating a model, they become more aware of the ambiguity of the language we are using in everyday life. Within the teams, we observed that the models were often used by the participants as physical demonstrations of ideas: “these are barriers, but they are also open”. 5. Can the result serve for transmitting the findings in meaningful ways to those not involved in the process? We need to differentiate, however, between augmenting communication among the analysis team and supporting communication of the results of the analysis. The new possibilities and constraints of three dimensional real construction do influence the process of idea-generation, but much of the thinking process is still not readily apparent in the final object. By including labels and even text snippets on the various components, participants did attempt to provide third parties with enough information to make the models understandable. However, in most instances it was also necessary to provide a quick précis of what the structure was intended to show and what was learned, using the models as a reference during the conversations. In the sessions where participants were explicitly asked to create a model that could be understood by an uninformed third party, it became clear that the need for subsequent communication interfered with the primary task of analyzing content. One team, in an extreme case, carried out their analysis on the white board, then built a model that attempted to communicate the conclusions. This model was noticeably simpler than those typically produced by other teams. 6. What kind of a common language (both verbal and visual) is established as a shared platform to exchange ideas and to make understanding between the involved parties easier?
2133
Piotr Michuraa, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato
If we think of the toolkit as a language for developing boundary objects, this research question is actually asking what kind of objects the participants created. Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the aspects of the models created drew on previous forms of mediation, such as texts and drawings. After the first 2 workshops, we also developed a protocol for the use of the kit, which we thought would allow participants to get more quickly up to speed on carrying out the analytical tasks. Instead, none of the subsequent workshop teams adopted the suggested protocol, preferring instead to develop their own emergent language for what it means, for example, to stack elements, set them beside each other, leave them open or closed, use colour or lights, and so on. Because the model is physical, some of these emergent conventions were not necessarily fully verbalized by the team, but are communicated instead by demonstrating the idea. We also saw evidence of the kinds of visual representations that are used in diagrams: boxes and arrows, different thicknesses of lines, little figures of people, and so on. 7. In what way does the model integrate multiple modes of information representation to facilitate the processes of understanding, memorizing, communicating, and creating new concepts? Somewhat surprisingly, the model does not seem to encourage a high degree of expressivity in terms of text and drawing. We had originally anticipated that the model would fade into the background to a certain extent, like a white board or chalkboard, where the medium is not making a significant contribution to the content of the discussion. This was true for the first 2 prototypes, before the tool became complex enough in its own right to allow participants to create structures that had meaning beyond grouping. However, as the structural opportunities increased, they became of central interest to the teams, so that explanations of the analyses for the final workshops tended to rely more heavily on the shapes of the models and what those meant.
Conclusions Although much work remains to be done (see below), the results to this point have been encouraging. As we increased the complexity of the models, they became more useful in acting as boundary objects that the participants could use to discuss their sometimes conflicting ideas and opinions, both at the level of the analysis and also in terms of the metadiscussion of what it means to be doing an analysis. We have found that participants are interested in increasingly complex 3D models that provide a wide range of expressive affordances such as shape, color, and light. The physical nature of the task activates additional forms of intelligence (spatial and kinesthetic); the collaborative aspect does not seem to overwhelm individual thinking, but instead appears to suggest that multiple interpretations should be accommodated. A further, non-trivial aspect of the models is that they are fun to use, which results in a higher level of engagement than in simply verbal conversation; we observed this in all the
2134
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations
workshops, where participants who were reluctant at first and had been quiet until the point of working with the model were lively and noisy before long. Our results suggest that this kind of system is useful for these types of facilitation, and that it is possible to modify the affordances of the system to increase its power. Further, we observed that such models result in a tendency for participants to recognize multiple perspectives in the material, and to express the understanding that divergent valid interpretations are possible. This serendipitous finding appears to be emergent from the nature of working with other people on a 3D analytical model; it also aligns nicely with one of our larger programs of research, which is to find how design can reduce the human tendency to find and defend a single perspective, to the exclusion of other alternatives.
Further Research It is important to stress that this study is just a first step in our exploration of the relationship between quality of thinking and representations of the outcomes of thinking processes in the form of 3D conversational models. A reflection upon the way that students in particular are actively involved in co-creating mutual understanding could be of interest for educators in design and other disciplines. From that point of view the value of the modeling process still needs to be explored, perhaps through a comparative evaluation of a control group that does not have the model and an experimental group that does. We also need to do further investigation of the introduction of the activity. Since this is a mode of knowledge production not commonly experienced, it is important to decide how much initial instruction needs to be given, and how it should vary based on the composition of the teams, their previous experience with the model, and the nature of the task. In terms of the morphology of the model, one of the current difficulties is the time and expense involved in fixing magnets around the periphery of the transparent panels. Our next version will replace the magnets with strips of a Velcro-like material, which will bring back the idea of colorful frames, while at the same time expanding the construction affordances. With the magnets, it is only possible to connect the panels in specific ways; using Velcro, participants will be able to attach one panel to another at any point around the periphery. Finally, we have begun experimenting with techniques that will allow us to capture a virtual representation of the physical model.
References Boujut, J., McMahon, C., & Subrahmanian, E. (2009) Annotation in Design and Product Engineering: an Introduction to the Special Issue. Research in Engineering Design, 20, pp 145-147. Derksen, G., Michura, P., Ruecker, S., Pollari, T., Dobson, T., Musick, H., and Audette, S. (2013) The Role of Conversational Sculpture in Design Education, in Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR). Tokyo, Japan. Downs, R. M., Stea, D. (1977) Maps in Minds, Harper & Row.
2135
Piotr Michuraa, Stan Rueckerb, Celso Scaletsky, Guilherme Meyer, Chiara Del Gaudio, Gerry Derksen, Julia Dias, Elizabeth Jernegan, Juan de la Rosa, Xinyue Zhou and Priscilla Ferronato Fleming, D. (1998) Design Talk: Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations. Design Issues, 14, pp 41-62. Fox, N. J. (2011) Boundary Objects, Social Meanings and the Success of New Technologies. Sociology, 45, pp 70-85. Frazer, J. (1995) An Evolutionary Architecture, Architectural Association. Gattis, M. (2001) Space as a Basis for Abstract Thought, in Gattis, M. (ed.). Spatial Schemas and abstract Thought, Bradford Book, MIT Press. Gentner, D. (2001) Spatial Metaphors in Temporal Reasoning, in Gattis, M. (ed.). Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought, Bradford Book, MIT Press. Hisarciklilar, O., & Boujut, J. (2009) An Annotation Model to Reduce Ambiguity in Design Communication. Research in Engineering Design, 20, pp 171-184. Liu, C-C., Chung, C-W., & Tao, S-Y. (2009) Making Classrooms Socio-Technical Environments for Supporting Collaborative Learning: The Role of Personal Devices and Boundary Objects, in O'Malley, C., Suthers, D., Reimann, P. and Dimitracopoulou, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol 1), International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp 320-324. Lynch. K. (1960) The Image of the City, MIT Press. Norman, D. A. (1993) Things that Makes Us Smart, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Pask, G. (1980) The Limits of Togetherness, Information Processing, 80, pp 999-1012. Phelps, A. F., & Reddy, M. (2009) The Influence of Boundary Objects on Group Collaboration in Construction Project Teams, in Proceedings of Pervasive Computing: 8th International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, ACM Press, New York, pp 125-128. Piaget, J. (1954) The Construction of Reality in the Child, Ballantine. Pialot, O., Legardeur, J., & Boujut, J. F. (2011) Towards a Multi-Input Model, Method and Tool for Early Design Phases in Innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 55, pp 201217. Schรถn, D. A. (1992) Designing as Reflective Conversation with the Materials of a Design Situation, Research and Engineering Design, 3, pp 3-14. Shah, P., Miyake, A. (eds.), (2005) The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking, Cambridge University Press. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989) Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, pp 387-420. Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language, MIT Press.
About the Authors: Piotr Michura is an assistant professor at Faculty of Industrial Design, Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow, Poland. His research interests are in experimental text visualization, information and interaction design. Stan Ruecker is an associate professor at IIT Institute of Design in Chicago. His current research areas include text visualization, physical
2136
A Physical Modeling Tool to Support Collaborative Interpretation of Conversations
tools for the analysis of text data, and design for interpretive experience. Celso Carnos Scaletsky is a professor of the Post Graduate Program in Design at University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos – UNISINOS, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. His research is oriented to Project Theory with a specialization in Strategic Design. Guilherme Corrêa Meyer is a professor of the Post Graduate Program in Design at University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos – UNISINOS, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. His research includes the use of prototypes to build knowledge in design. Chiara Del Gaudio is a post-doctoral researcher in Design at University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brazil. Her research interests are in participatory design, social innovation, and in the designer’s action and integration in conflict-affected and fragile urban areas. Gerry Derksen is a professor at Winthrop University and coordinator of the Interactive Media program in the Department of Design. His areas of research include sensor based experience design, and natural language processing for computational narrative generation. Julia Muller Dias is a product designer, with a specialization in Strategic Design and was a visiting researcher at IIT Institute of Design. She is currently partner at Peculiar Studio and studies ways to improve design culture in Brazil. Liz Jernegan is a design strategy and research graduate student at IIT's Institute of Design, focusing on user experience in complex systems and virtual reality applications. Juan de la Rosa is an associate professor at Universidad Nacional de Colombia's School of Graphic Design. His current research focuses on behavioral transformation of communities through the use of design. Xinyue Zhou is currently a master of design student at IIT Institute of Design in Chicago. She is a designer specialized in user experience, interaction and data visualization design. Priscilla Ferronato is a master design student at University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos – UNISINOS, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. His current research focuses on design process and scenarios building.
2137
This page is left intentionally blank
Index of Authors
Abdelmohsen, Sherif, 1969 Aftab, Mersha, 3181 Ahmadpour, Naseem, 1457 Ahmer, Arif, 593 Aish, Robert, 111 Alhonsuo, Mira, 3069 Alshawaf, Eman, 959 Andrietc, Ekaterina, 157 Annable, Louise, 303 Arvidsson, Anna-Karin, 1411 Arvola, Mattias, 1089 Atkin, Ross, 2391 Atkinson, Harriet, 2583 Atman, Cynthia J., 593 Bachman, Leonard, 295 Baek, Joon Sang, 3943 Bailey, Jocelyn, 3619 Bakir, Ramy, 1969 Barbosa, Janaina Teles, 4045 Bastian, Michelle, 2107 Bauer, Birgit S., 569 Baule, Giovanni, 1039, 1047 Baur, Ruedi, 1139 Beck, Jordan, 17 Benford, Steve, 3033 Berghman, Michaël, 139, 277 Bingham, Guy, 2239 Bissett-Johnson, Katherine, 637 Bitterman, Noemi, 1433 Black, Alison, 2301 Blackler, Alethea, 2063, 3149, 3251 Blomqvist, Mikael, 1411 Bobroff, Julien, 555 Boehnert, Joanna, 2359 Boess, Stella, 625, 1573 Bofylatos, Spyros, 3449 Boggs, Charles, 513 Bohemia, Erik, 1699, 1881 Bonja, Susanne, 1411 Börekçi, Naz A.G.Z., 795 Borgford-Parnell, Jim, 593 Boyd Davis, Stephen, 2591 Boyko, Chris, 1677 Boztepe, Suzan, 1253 Braga, Mariana Fonseca, 1863 Brischke, Lars-Arvid, 3913 Broadley, Cara, 1737 Brooks, Judy, 539 Brown, Michael, 3033 Brulé, Émeline, 1985 Burnett, Dan, 1609, 1625 Burns, Kathryn, 303 Büscher, Monika, 1123
Buur, Jacob, 1723 Cadavid, Ana, 179 Cain, Rebecca, 1271, 1433 Calvo, Mirian, 3591 Canina, Marita, 2075 Caratti, Elena, 1039, 1047 Carmen Bruno, 2075 Casais, Mafalda, 1553 Castanedo, Rebeca Torres, 2163 Catoir-Brisson, Marie-Julie, 2285 Celi, Manuela, 2015 Ceschin, Fabrizio, 3731, 3785 Chamberlain, Paul, 1499 Chamorro-Koc, Marianella, 1643 Champion, Katherine, 1737 Chan, Jeffrey, 3539 Chatzakis, Emmanouil, 1881 Cheng, Peiyao, 215 Chiapello, Laureline, 17 Chou, Wen-Huei, 3133 Christensen, Anders, 1757 Chueng-Nainby, Priscilla, 969 Chun, Min Hi, 1935 Ciastellardi, Matteo, 1111 Ciuccarelli, Paolo, 941 Claxton, Stella, 3815 Coddington, Alicen, 781 Connor, Andy M., 83 Cooney, Richard, 2201 Cooper, Rachel, 1677, 1699 Cooper, Tim, 1277, 3831 Corrigan-Doyle, Emily, 1529 Coskun, Aykut, 1357 Côté, Valérie, 3669 Coulton, Paul, 369, 1609, 3019 Craib, David, 385, 2325 Craig, Claire, 1499 Craig, Mark, 609 Cranny-Francis, Anne, 2985 Dallison, Delphine, 609 Danahay, Evan, 2533 Darzentas, Dimitrios, 3033 Darzentas, Jenny, 3449, 3771 Darzentas, Jenny S., 2307 Darzentas, John, 3771 Dawes, Cecilie, 3435 de Eyto, Adam, 2709 de Kerckhove, Derrick, 1111 de la Rosa, Juan, 2121 de Lille, Christine, 2423, 2563 De Moor, Eva, 3435 De Paoli, Giovanni, 853 de Ruijter, Laura, 1473
Index of Authors
De Smet, Annelies, 2759 DeEyto, Adam, 3573 Del Gaudio, Chiara, 2121 Deni, Michela, 2285 Derksen, Gerry, 2121 Desai, Shital, 3149 Deserti, Alessandro, 2015 Desmet, Pieter, 1553, 1589 Desmet, Pieter M. A., 1999 Dhadphale, Tejas, 2415 Dias, Julia, 2121 Djaelani, Robert, 3705 Dong, Hua, 3199, 3229, 3247, 3263, 3279 Dorst, Kees, 2493, 2667 Downing, Niamh, 3485 Downs, Simon, 321 Dunn, Nick, 1677 Durrant, Abigail C., 2181 Duste, Tessa, 1589 Dziobczenski, Paulo Roberto Nicoletti, 705 Earl, Christopher, 3687 Earl, Christopher F, 2519 Eckert, Claudia, 2519 Edwards, Liz, 3485 Eftekhari, Farzaneh, 1389 Elliott-Cirigottis, Gary, 609 Elzenbaumer, Bianca, 4005, 4015 Emili, Silvia, 3785 Erbug, Cigdem, 1357 Escobar-Tello, Carolina, 1433, 1529, 3961 Evans, Mark, 813, 2239 Evans, Martyn, 97 Fassi, Davide, 3407 Feast, Luke, 3569, 3635 Felsing, Ulrike, 1139 Fenko, Anna, 3467 Fennell, Jac, 1441 Ferronato, Priscilla, 2121 Fisher, Tom, 3479 Flintham, Martin, 3033 Forlano, Laura, 927 Frankel, Lois, 3103 Franz, Fabio, 4015 Fredriksen, Biljana C., 2911 Freimane, Aija, 1271 French, Tara, 2965, 3653 Fundneider, Thomas, 401 Gabrielse, Gorm, 1211 Gagnon, Caroline, 3669 Galeotti, Anamaria, 2837 Galluzzo, Laura, 3407 Gamman, Lorraine, 3479 Garde, Julia Anne, 2043 Gardin, Astury, 969 Gasparin, Marta, 881
Gaved, Mark, 609 Gaziulusoy, Idil, 3731 Gentes, Annie, 555 Germany, Jason O., 3085 Ghassan, Aysar, 471 Giaccardi, Elisa, 3553 Giang, Colin, 781 Gideonsen, Hanne, 3435 Godin, Danny, 355 Görgül, Emine, 2825 Goworek, Helen, 3831 Gradinar, Adrian, 1609 Graf, Laura K. M., 203 Graham, Alexander, 781 Grangaard, Sidse, 3393 Gray, Colin M., 2549 Graziano, Valeria, 4005 Green, William, 881 Gribbin, John, 3181 Gristwood, Simone, 2591 Groth, Camilla, 2889, 2895, 2941 Grover, Shruti, 2391 Gudiksen, Sune, 1757 Gudur, Raghavendra Reddy, 3251 Guité, Manon, 853 Gullick, David, 3019 Gulliksen, Marte S., 2889, 2925 Hadfield, Mark, 2709 Håkansson, Lena, 1411 Hall, Ashley, 2481 Hall, Peter A., 2625 Hands, David, 2445 Hanington, Bruce, 729 Harland, Robert, 385 Harrison, David, 3785 Haslem, Neal, 2201 Hasselqvist, Hanna, 3929 Haug, Anders, 1903, 3873 Hazzard, Adrian, 3033 Heaton, Lorna, 853 Heiltjes, Sanne, 3467 Hekkert, Paul, 139, 277 Henriksen, Pernille, 1757 Hermannsdóttir, Hafdís Sunna, 3435 Hermansen, Pablo, 895 Hermsen, Sander, 1323, 1375 Hernandez, Maria Gabriela, 2089 Hesselgren, Mia, 3929 Heylighen, Ann, 3199, 3229 Hill, Helen, 3831 Hofmeister, Tobias Barnes, 3847 Hogan, Trevor, 3005 Hornecker, Eva, 3005 Hough, Simge, 751 Hrinivich, Ellen, 3103
4081
Index of Authors
Huang, Tao, 2699 Hung, Chung-Wen, 3133 Huotilainen, Minna, 2941 Hutchings, Maggie, 2709 Hyltén-Cavallius, Sara, 1411 Hyysalo, Sampsa, 3889 Imbesi, Lorenzo, 2325 Ingram, Jack, 303 Ings, Welby, 483 Ivanka, Tania, 2201 James, Meredith, 719 Janssens, Nel, 2759 Jernegan, Elizabeth, 2121 Johnson, Michael Pierre, 1737 Johnson, Simon, 2391 Jones, Derek, 295 Jonkmans, Anna, 767 Joost, Gesche, 3913 Joutsela, Markus, 259 Jowers, Iestyn, 609 Jun, Gyuchan Thomas, 1809 Jylkäs, Titta, 3069 Kaland, Lennart, 835, 2563 Kantorovitch, Julia, 2463 Karlsson, Monica Lindh, 4029 Keirnan, Alen, 1457 Keitsch, Martina, 3847 Kelly, Veronika, 425 Kempenaar, Annet, 2271 Kenning, Gail, 1441 Kerridge, Tobie, 1025 Ketola, Anne, 1179 Kettley, Sarah, 1277, 2985, 3121 Kim, KwanMyung, 1919 Kim, Sojung, 3943 Kimbell, Lucy, 3605 Kirk, David S., 2181 Knutz, Eva, 1827 Kocsis, Anita, 781 Kokotovich, Vasilije, 2493 Komatsu, Tamami, 2015 Koskinen, Ilpo, 1013 Kotlarewski, Nathan, 2533 Koumoundourou, Myrto, 2307 Koutsabasis, Panayiotis, 2307 Kristensen, Tore, 1205, 1211 Krzywinski, Jens, 2869 Kuijer, Lenneke, 3553 Kuys, Blair, 1163, 2533 Kuzmina, Ksenija, 1809 Kymäläinen, Tiina, 1627 Lahusen, Miriam, 3913 Laivamaa, Laura, 3069 Landwehr, Jan R., 145, 203 Langrish, John Z., 51
Lee, John, 969 Lee, Seong geun, 157 Leinikka, Marianne, 2941 Lenskjold, Tau U., 1827 Lewis, Huw, 3573 Liao, Cai-Ru, 3133 Liapis, Aggelos, 2463 Lim, Christopher Sze Chong, 3295 Lima, Verena, 3983 Linde, Per, 913 Lindley, Joseph, 369 Liu, Sylvia, 1205, 1237 Liu, Tsai Lu, 501, 1389 Lloyd, Peter, 3619, 3687 Lønne, Irene Alma, 1223 Loudon, David, 1515 Lu, Xiaobo, 3373 Lucas, Rachel, 3121 Ludden, Geke, 245, 1271, 1305, 1433, 1473 Lulham, Rohan, 1777 Ma, Xuezi, 3279 Macdonald, Alastair S., 1515 Macduff, Colin, 1515 Maciver, Fiona, 2463 Mackrill, Jamie, 1433 Mages, Michael Arnold, 3503 Maguire, Martin, 1809 Mahar, Doug, 3251 Maher, Carmel, 2709 Mäkelä, Maarit, 2889, 2941 Malins, Julian, 2463 Manohar, Arthi Kanchana, 3591 Marchand, Anne, 2653 Marenko, Betti, 2755 Margolin, Victor, 5 Markussen, Thomas, 1827 Marlen Dobler, Judith, 997 Marttila, Sanna, 4063 Mattila, Pauliina, 781 Mauri, Michele, 941 Maxwell, Deborah, 3485 Maya, Jorge, 179 Mayer, Stefan, 145 Mazzarella, Francesco, 3961 Mazzilli, Clice, 2837 McAra, Marianne, 3213 McGaw, Janet, 669 McGilp, Helen, 2519 Mcginley, Chris, 2391 McHattie, Lynn-Sayers, 1737 McLaren, Angharad, 3831 Mercer, Lisa, 2029 Messell, Tania, 2737 Meyer, Guilherme, 2121 Michura, Piotr, 2121
4082
Index of Authors
Micklethwaite, Paul, 2163 Mitchell, Cynthia, 2255 Mitchell, Val, 1809, 3961 Mok, Luisa Sze-man, 3889 Moncur, Wendy, 2181 Moreno, Mariale, 1809 Morris, Andrew, 1271 Mota, João Almeida, 4045 Moussatche, Helena, 513 Mugge, Ruth, 215, 1553 Mulder, Sander, 1375, 2809 Munro, Tasman, 2219 Murphy, Emma, 97 Murray, Lesley, 1123 Neira, José, 895 Nevay, Sara, 3295 Neven, Louis, 3553 Niedderer, Kristina, 1271 Nimkulrat, Nithikul, 3177 Ning, Weining, 3263 Noel, Lesley-Ann, 455, 501 Nordvall, Mathias, 1089 Norris, Jane, 2795 Ó Catháin, Conall, 125 O’Rafferty, Simon, 3573 Oberlander, Jon, 2991 Olander, Sissel, 985 Oppenheimer, Maya Rae, 2583 Orzech, Kathryn, 2181 Ou, Li-Chen, 233 Oxborrow, Lynn, 3815, 3831 Ozcan, Elif, 1433 Ozkaramanli, Deger, 1999 Paepcke-Hjeltness, Verena, 2415 Page, Rowan, 1487 Pahk, Yoonee, 3943 Paiva, Isabel, 3165 Palmgren, Marianne, 653 Park, Sumin, 3181 Parker, Chris, 1809 Pasman, Gert, 1659 Person, Oscar, 705 Peschl, Markus F., 401 Petermans, Ann, 1433 Pillatt, Toby, 3485 Piper, Anna, 2959 Pisanty, Diego Trujillo, 2181 Piscicelli, Laura, 1305 Pizzichemi, Catherine, 513 Plowright, Philip, 295 Plowright, Philip D., 339 Pohlmeyer, Anna E., 1573 Poldma, Tiiu, 295 Pollastri, Serena, 1677 Popovic, Vesna, 2063, 3149, 3251, 3373
Porter, Samantha, 1809 Potter, Eden, 2379 Prince, Anne, 781 Prochner, Isabel, 2653 Prytherch, David, 1441 Pschetz, Larissa, 2107 Pui Ying Lo, Kathy, 1529 Quam, Andrea, 3861 Radtke, Rebekah, 685 Raman, Sneha, 2965 Rankanen, Mimmu, 2941 Ranscombe, Charlie, 637 Rashidi, Ingrid Halland, 2637 Reddy, Anuradha, 913 Redström, Johan, 4029 Reimer, Maria Hellström, 4045 Renes, Reint Jan, 1323, 1375 Renner, Michael, 1073 Renon, Anne-Lyse, 555 Renström, Sara, 1339 Reumont, Marie, 853 Revsbæk, Line, 1723 Riccò, Dina, 1101 Richardson, Mark, 1487 Ritzmann, Susanne, 3913 Rive, Pete, 83 Rizzo, Francesca, 2015 Roberts, Maxwell J., 2341 Rochead, Alan, 609 Rodgers, Paul A., 2677 Rogel, Liat, 3407 Rontti, Simo, 3069 Rosenqvist, Tanja, 2255 Roto, Virpi, 259 Roy, Robin, 3755 Ruecker, Stan, 2121 Ruiz-Córdoba, Stefany, 179 Rytilahti, Piia, 3069 Sadkowska, Ania, 3521 Sadkowska, Anna, 3121 Sakurai, Tatiana, 3983 Salinas, Miguel, 1411 Salvia, Giuseppe, 2075 Sametinger, Florian, 3913 Santos, Maria Cecília, 3983 Sarmiento, Ricardo Mejia, 1659 Scaletsky, Celso, 2121 Schaeffer, Jennie Andersson, 653 Schifferstein, Hendrik N.J., 3427 Scupelli, Peter, 539, 729 Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Pirita, 2889, 2941 Self, James, 157 Selvefors, Anneli, 1339 Shroyer, Kathryn E., 593 Sice, Petia, 1291
4083
Index of Authors
Sissons, Juliana, 3521 Siu, Kin Wai Michael, 1793 Skjerven, Astrid, 43 Skjold, Else, 1223 Smith, Madeline, 3591 Smith, Neil, 1881 Snelders, Dirk, 767 Sosa, Ricardo, 83 Southee, Darren, 813 Speed, Chris, 1123, 2107, 2991 Spencer, Nicholas, 1291 St John, Nicola, 3349 Ståhl, Ola, 1191, 1411 Standaert, Achiel, 3329 Stappers, Pieter Jan, 1659, 3329 Stead, Michael, 3049 Steenson, Molly Wright, 31 Stergiadou, Zoi, 3449 Sterte, Marie, 1411 Stewart, Nifeli, 2201 Storvang, Pia, 1843 Strömberg, Helena, 1339 Sun, Qian, 1699, 1707 Sung, Kyungeun, 1277 Sustar, Helena, 3635 Svensén, Tobias, 1411 Taylor, Damon, 1123 Teal, Gemma, 2965, 3653 Tham, Mathilda, 1411 Thong, Christine, 781, 2533 Thurgood, Clementine, 1777 Tironi, Martín, 895 Tomkin, Douglas, 2611 Tovey, Michael, 419 Townsend, Katherine, 3521 Treadaway, Cathy, 1441 Trimingham, Rhoda, 3725 Trogal, Kim, 4005 Tromp, Nynke, 2141 Tsang, Kaman Ka Man, 1793 Tsay, Wan-Jen Jenny, 2423 Turns, Jennifer A., 593 Uhlmann, Johannes, 2869 Umney, Darren, 3687 Uri, Therese, 441 Urquhart, Lewis, 1951 Väänänen, Jenni, 3889 Vaeng, Ida C.N., 2341 Vaes, Kristof, 3329
Valentin, Frédéric, 1985 Valtonen, Anna, 525 van den Berg-Weitzel, Lianne, 3467 van der Bijl-Brouwer, Mieke, 2141, 2147 Van der Linden, Valerie, 3199, 3229 van der Lugt, Remko, 1375 van Dijk, Jelle, 3313 Van Essen, Anita, 1323 van Grondelle, Elmer, 1589 van Onselen, Lenny, 767, 835 Van Rompay, Thomas J. L., 245 Van Steenwinkel, Iris, 3199 Vardouli, Theodora, 65 Verhoeven, Fenne, 3313 Vernooij, Annelijn, 835 Vial, Stéphane, 2285 Victor, Ole, 1411 Voort, Mascha Cecile van der, 2043 Vuontisjärvi, Hanna-Riina, 3069 Vyas, Pratik, 1291 Walker, Sue, 2301 Wan, Susan, 1515 Warwick, Laura, 3705 Wasserman, Arnold, 539 Watkin, Thomas, 2285 Whitehead, Timothy, 2239 Wilkie, Alex, 873 Williams, Alex, 1699 Williams, Tim, 1643 Wodehouse, Andrew, 1951 Wölfel, Christian, 2721, 2869 Wölfel, Sylvia, 2721 Woodcock, Meghan, 513 Wurl, Julia, 767 Yee, Joyce S.R., 2677 Yilmaz, Seda, 2415 Ylirisku, Salu, 1723 York, Nicola, 813 You, Xinya, 2445 Young, Robert, 1291, 3181 Zahedi, Mithra, 853 Zamenopoulos, Theodore, 1123 Zhang, Wenwen, 1163 Zhao, Chao, 3373 Zhou, Ningchang, 2699 Zhou, Xinyue, 2121 Zi, BingXin, 969 Zingale, Salvatore, 1061
4084
â&#x20AC;&#x153;Over fifty years the Design Research Society has been fundamental to developing and supporting the field of Design Research. In that time many influential and innovative conferences have been held and the 50th Anniversary in Brighton conference continues that tradition. The breadth and depth of design research represented in these proceedings is extremely impressive and shows, I think, not only how important design research has become, but also the considerable potential that it holds for the future.â&#x20AC;? - Professor Nigel Cross PRESIDENT OF THE DRS
drs2016.org I SSN 2398-3132
ISSN2 398-3132
9 772398
31300 0