ISSN 2398-3132
PROCEEDINGS OF DRS
27–30 JUNE 2016
VOLUME 10
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 10
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 10 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 10
This page is left intentionally blank
SECTION 25 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
This page is intentionally left blank
Introduction: Sustainable Design Rhoda Trimingham Loughborough University R.L.Trimingham@lboro.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.613
Introduction Celebrating 50 years of the DRS conference provides an opportunity to reflect on 50 years (ish) of sustainability. Since the publication of Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, which started the environmental movement by forcing governments and businesses to confront the dangers of pesticides, there have been three waves of activity that has helped form our understanding of design for sustainability (Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2007). The 60s and 70s saw the birth of the green movement, focussed on driving change that had a positive impact on natural systems. Key milestones included the formation of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and from a Design perspective the publication of Design for the Real World (Papanek, 1972) and Small is Beautiful (Schumacher, 1973), introducing the idea of appropriate technology. The second wave occurred in the 80s, driven by a number of crisis’ including the Bhopal and Chernobyl disasters. This prompted a range of environmental and social goals to be set out, including Agenda 21, and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the development of legislation and safety standards. This period of time also saw social issues such as health, population and inequality come to the foreground. In 1987 the term Sustainable Development was first used in the Bruntland Report, and was defined as ‘…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). This definition is still widely used today and is the definition used by the Sustainability SIG of the DRS. The third wave began at the turn of this millennium which has seen greater focus on social and economic issues, as well as renewed effort in terms of environmental change. It has also highlighted the slow progress of sustainability goals and the need for sustained and impactful activity. For example, the need for greater progress towards social sustainability was highlighted in January with the adoption of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by all UN member states due to This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Rhoda Trimingham
the lack of success in tackling the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) outlined in 2000 (United Nations, 2016). The need for continued action towards environmental sustainability was made clear by a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that states that the unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100 if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change of 2â °C highlighted in 2009 (IPCC, 2014). More and more commonly sustainability is being tackled within a global development agenda, which encompasses the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental and social) and also brings in ethics and a view of the world as being increasingly connected through global economies, politics, technological advances, climate change and heightened awareness of inequalities around the world. Approaches used to address design for sustainability have also seen much change alongside the broadening of the agenda, with Circular Economy principles, Design for Behavior Change, Ethics, Systems approaches, and Service Design being paid more and more attention in recent years.
Papers The papers in the Sustainability SIG stream continue the overarching DRS theme by reflecting on the evolution of design for sustainability and discussions around more futurefocused approaches. In the Sustainability SIG’s main session Ceschin and Gaziulusoy’s Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review explores the evolution of responses from the design discipline to sustainability issues, showing how approaches have expanded from technical and product-centric focus towards large scale systems level changes taking a sociotechnical approach. Roy also looks at the evolution of sustainable design through focusing on six popular consumer products. The paper uses lessons from the successes and failures of examples of these products to draw out guidelines on how to design successful new products and to design for the environment. It concludes with trends and sustainability challenges for future consumer product design and innovation. These two papers are followed by Darzentas and Darzentas who discusses more contemporary approaches to sustainable design by positing that service design should follow a systems thinking approach to reflect the human-centered nature of the domain. Increasingly sustainable design researchers, and organisations, are recognising an opportunity to develop business models that specifically address sustainable development challenges. Sustainable business models aim to deliver environmental, social and economic benefits whilst still creating value for consumers and stakeholders. The next set of papers presented in the Sustainability SIG stream include papers with a focus on developing sustainable business models. Following on from Darzentas and Darzentas, Emili et al focus on Product Service Systems (PSS) as an example of a sustainable business model in the context of providing small scale and locally based electricity through Distributed Renewable Energy (DRE) systems. They explore the combination of DRE and PSS by presenting a strategic design tool that aims to support the design of sustainable business models for energy.
3726
Introduction: Sustainable Design
Many researchers have been working in the domain of fashion and textiles, and we are lucky enough to have two papers with this focus. Oxborrow and Claxton; and McLaren et al both focus on clothing longevity from a business perspective. Oxborrow and Claxton explore the design and supply chain implications of clothing longevity and identify conflicting priorities between commercial and sustainable practice that need to be addressed to reduce the environmental impact of clothing. Although McLaren et al focus on consumer perspectives and practices and their effect on clothing longevity, their conclusions address how these factors can influence product design practice in the fashion industry. Barnes Hofmeister and Keitsch look at practice-orientated design models through a comparative case study of urban cycling. They explore the dissonances between visions, planning and execution in urban mobility and propose a practice-orientated model that takes into account mutual influences and reflects the complexity of the design space. They conclude that the model can help planners and designers to grasp urban complexity within systemic relationships and move towards practice-orientated design. The final paper in this session, from Quam, moves away from business approaches to look at design education’s integral role in the literacy of sustainability and presents a framework for introducing sustainability into the curriculum but in a manner that shifts from looking at competences to a more profession-specific vision for sustainability literacy. The increasing focus on more socio-technical approaches to design is reflected throughout the sustainability SIG stream this year, but the final five papers have a specific focus on design driven by/or focused on the consumer. With the aim of extending product lifetimes, Haug discusses the design of more durable products by considering emotional perspectives and their effect on product durability through an analysis of the causes of product replacement. He proposes a number of methods to develop more resilient consumer products based on this improved understanding. Mok et al also focus on emotional responses and consider the use of a value sensitive design framework to balance conflicting values of solar technology and cultural heritage. They use this framework to illustrate how compromise can be found among seemingly conflicting values. Lahusen et al; and Hesselgren and Hasselqvist focus on consumer practices. Lahusen et al consider consumer practice within ‘everyday life’ and present methods and tools for understanding the potential for a possible transformation towards a more sustainable ‘everyday life’. Hesselgren and Hasselqvist posit that for sustainable practices to emerge, they have to be tried out. Their conclusions, based on a case study of urban cycling, focus on designing enabling ecosystems and inspiring consumers to make sustainable lifestyle choices. Finally Baek et al introduce a framework for developing service design strategies to foster collaborative communities and support social innovation. They utilise co-design workshops to generate design strategies and discuss the effectiveness of the framework and its implications to the design of sustainable services.
3727
Rhoda Trimingham
About the Sustainability Special Interest Group The Sustainability SIG provides an international platform for researchers, design practitioners, design educators, students and the general public to exchange knowledge about design for sustainability. The Sustainability SIG community connects through an online community (LinkedIn® Group @SustainabilitySIG) and through a program of events and strands at international conferences. The mains aims of the SIG are: Bringing members together Creation of an international forum for discussion Build a large sustainable design research group network and bringing new members to the DRS Raise the level of sustainable design research, link researchers and promote collaborations Provide peer support for research in sustainable design Provide a platform for the dissemination of sustainable design research to industry and vice versa and promote collaborations between industry and academia Provide a platform for industry and academia to access expertise from one another Create a new platform for Sustainable Design network activities Forge relationships with other design research organisations Create a large body of researchers to help drive policy and funding agendas Engage with public engagement activities Sustainability SIG is convened by Dr Rhoda Trimingham, Dr Carolina Escobar-Tello, Dr Dan Lockton and Dr Fiona Charnley.
References Bhamra and Lofthouse (2007) Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach, Gower Publishing Ltd Carson, R (1962) Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston Papanek V (1971) Design for the Real World, New York, Panthean Books IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Schumacher (1973) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics if People Mattered, Blond and Briggs United Nations (2016) The Sustainable Development Agenda, available at http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/ World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, New York
3728
Introduction: Sustainable Design
About the Author: Dr Rhoda Trimingham is a Senior Lecturer Loughborough Design School and a member of the Sustainable Design Research Group. She also convenes the Sustainability Special Interest Group (SIG) for the Design Research Society (DRS). Her research interests lie in sustainable design generally but specifically sustainable packaging, developing methods and tools for designers, design for global development, design education and moving from products to services and systems.
3729
This page is left intentionally blank
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review Fabrizio Ceschina* and Idil Gaziulusoyb a
Brunel University London University of Melbourne * fabrizio.ceschin@brunel.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.59 b
Abstract: In this paper we explore the evolution of response from design discipline to sustainability issues. Following a quasi-chronological pattern, our exploration provides an overview of the Design for Sustainability (DfS) field, categorising the approaches developed in the past two decades under four innovation levels: Product, Product-Service System, Spatio-Social and Socio-Technical System. As a result of this overview, we propose an evolutionary framework and map the reviewed DfS approaches onto this framework. The proposed framework synthesizes the evolution of DfS field, showing how it has progressively expanded from a technical and product-centric focus towards large scale system level changes in which sustainability is understood as a socio-technical challenge. The framework also shows how the various DfS approaches contribute to particular sustainability aspects and visualise linkages, overlaps and complementarities between these approaches. Keywords: Design for Sustainability; evolution; design research
1. Introduction The Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs� (WCED, 1987). Although this definition had an explicit anthropocentric focus, with an emphasis on social justice and human needs, for decades of the environmental movement, the operational emphasis of sustainability has explicitly been on the environment (Gaziulusoy, 2010). Studies have shown that our theoretical understanding of the concept has evolved from understanding sustainability as a static goal to a dynamic one and moving target responding to our ever increasing understanding of interdependencies between social and ecological systems and due to the realisation that operationalisation of sustainability required time and space bounded indicators and that
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
there cannot be an overarching all-encompassing specific sustainability target to strive for (Faber, Jorna and Van Engelen, 2005; Hjorth and Bagheri, 2006). The current understanding suggests that sustainability is a system property and not a property of individual elements of systems and achieving sustainability requires a processbased, multi-scale and systemic approach to planning for sustainability guided by a target/vision instead of traditional goal-based optimisation approaches (Holling, 2001; Bagheri and Hjorth, 2007). With the alarming estimates of economic and social costs of inaction for addressing global, persistent and pressing environmental issues (MEA, 2005; Stern, 2006) the present common view in the discourse of sustainability is that there is a need for radical transformational change in how human society operates (Ryan, 2013). This radical change is accepted to require not only technological interventions but also social, cultural/behavioural, institutional and organisational changes (Geels 2005a; Loorbach, 2010). In line with the contextual changes and theoretical developments that has taken place, the business response to sustainability issues has evolved in the past decades, with an increasing pace in the past ten, fifteen years. The overall evolution of business understanding can be observed in consecutive reports published by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD): promoting product innovation and efficiency as a strategy to address environmental problems (WBCSD, 2000); framing sustainability risks as systemic mega-risks that pose unprecedented challenges to companies and government alike (WBCSD, 2004); proposing a vision for transformation (WBCSD, 2010). Currently, studies challenging the traditionally accepted role and responsibilities of business in society and proposing new models for value generating is on the increase (e.g. Loorbach and Wijsman, 2013; Metcalf and Benn, 2012; Parrish, 2007). Design theory and practice has engaged with sustainability discourse sporadically since midtwentieth century. More systematic engagement has started in early 1980s with the beginning of active interest from industry in environmental and social issues. The aim of this paper is to explore the evolution of response from design discipline to sustainability issues which marks the broad field of design for sustainability (DfS). Our exploration follows a quasi-chronological pattern. In the following sections we shortly present the DfS approaches emerged in the past decades. The description is coupled by Table 1 which provides, for each DfS approach, additional information regarding limitations and potential future research directions. DfS approaches are categorised in four different innovation levels:  
Product innovation level: design approaches focusing on improving existing or developing completely new products. Product-Service System innovation level: here the focus is beyond individual products towards integrated combinations of products and services (e.g. development of new business models).
3732
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Spatio-Social innovation level: here the context of innovation is on human settlements and the spatio-social conditions of their communities. This can be addressed on different scales, from neighbourhoods to cities. Socio-Technical System innovation level: here design approaches are focusing on promoting radical changes on how societal needs, such as nutrition and transport/mobility, are fulfilled, and thus on supporting transitions to new socio-technical systems.
The overview on DfS approaches is followed by our reflections on the evolution of the DfS field.
2. Product Design innovation level 2.1 Green Design and Ecodesign The early examples of green design practice (Burall, 1991; Mackenzie, 1997) focused on lowering environmental impact through redesigning individual qualities of individual products. This period also saw early designs focusing on use of renewable energy such as solar street lamps (Fuad-Luke, 2002). For others, considering environment in design meant efficiency focused approaches in product and process engineering (e.g. Fiksel, 1996). Guidelines and toolkits advocating Design for X (X standing for any of the “more preferable” attitudes in design from recycling to recyclability to ease of dismantling to repairability) were developed (for an overview see Chiu and Kremer, 2011). Ecodesign has a main significant difference and strength over green design; i.e. a focus on the whole life-cycle of products from extraction of raw materials to final disposal (Tischner and Charter, 2001). In ecodesign, the environment is given the same status as more traditional industrial values such as profit, functionality, aesthetics, ergonomics, image and overall quality (Brezet and van Hamel, 1997). On a more practical side, a fairly complete set of ecodesign principles, guidelines and tools has been developed (e.g. Tischner and Charter, 2001; Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2007; Vezzoli and Manzini, 2008). With adoption of the Ecodesign Directive by the European Commission (EC, 2005), which mandates life-cycle assessments to be undertaken in association with environmental management systems, ecodesign has become a primary focus for companies, especially for those producing energy using products.
2.2 Emotionally durable design Ecodesign offers several design strategies to extend product lifespan. However, for some product categories, the end of lifespan is not caused by technical issues but by psychological obsolescence (when a product is discarded for reasons such as changes in users’ perceived needs, desire for social status emulation, new trends in fashion and style) (Cooper, 2004). Therefore researchers have started to explore the user-product relationship and the role of design in strengthening that relationship in order to lengthen product lifetime (e.g. Brezet
3733
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
and van Hemel, 1997; Van Hinte, 1997; Chapman, 2005; Mugge, 2007; Chapman, 2009). Common labels used to define this field of research are Emotionally durable design and Design for product attachment. Mugge (2007) has identified four main product meanings as determinants affecting user-product attachment: Self-expression, Group affiliation, Memories and Pleasure (or enjoyment). Researchers have proposed design strategies seeking at stimulating product attachment through the previously mentioned determinants (e.g. Mugge et al. 2005; Chapman, 2005; Mugge, 2007). Examples are Enabling product personalisation (Mugge et al. 2005), Designing products that ‘age with dignity’ (Van Hinte, 1997), and Designing products that allow users to capture memories (Chapman, 2005).
2.3 Design for Sustainable Behaviour The Ecodesign approach does not devote much attention to the influence that user’s behaviour can have on the overall impact of a product. For this reason, design researchers, building upon various behaviour change theories, have started to develop approaches, tools and guidelines that explicitly focus on design for behaviour change (for example the Loughborough model [Lilley, 2009; Bhamra et al., 2011], Design with Intent [Lockton, Harrison and Stanton, 2010; Lockton, 2013] and Mindful design [Niedderer, 2007; 2013]). Even if a unified model of design for behaviour change is missing, four basic principles can be found in most of the approaches and tools developed (Niedderer et al. 2014): making easier for people to adopt a desired behaviour; making harder for people to perform a an undesired behaviour; making people to want a desired behaviour; and making people to not want an undesired behaviour. Examples of applications of design for sustainable behaviour that can be found in the literature are targeted at the environmental dimension (e.g. Tang and Bhamra, 2012) and/or the social dimension (i.e. enabling users to adopt a healthier behaviour, e.g. Ludden and Offringa (2015). Applications span from product to productservice system, mobile interaction and built environment design.
2.4 Nature-inspired Design: Cradle-to-Cradle Design and Biomimicry Design Among some practitioners in the DfS field, there has been a belief that imitating nature’s materials and processes are the only way to achieve sustainability in our productionconsumption systems. Two most prominent frameworks representative of this belief are cradle-to-cradle design (CTC) and biomimicry design (BM). CTC has two interrelated concepts: food equals waste and eco-effectiveness (Braungart, McDonough and Bollinger, 2007; McDonough and Braungart, 2002). Eco-effectiveness puts emphasis on a regenerative approach by the industry. It is operationalised with the ‘waste equals food’ framework which defines two types of nutrients, i.e. biological and technological. The assumption underlying CTC is that if these nutrients are used in open (for biological nutrients) or closed (for technological nutrients) loops, the human society can continue production, consumption and economic growth indefinitely. CTC also puts emphasis on regenerative processes, non-human species and future generations.
3734
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
The premise of BM is using nature as model, measure and mentor (Benyus, 2002). Using nature as a model involves studying the models and processes of nature and adapting these to solve human problems and using an ecological standard to judge the rightness of innovations. The rationale behind using nature as an ecological standard is that as a result of 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned what works and what is appropriate. Using nature as a mentor puts emphasis on learning from nature rather than exploiting it. BM defines three theoretical and practical levels of biomimicry: first is mimicking forms of nature, second is mimicking processes of nature and third is mimicking ecosystems. BM, similar to CTC, advocates using waste as a resource and closing loops in production and consumption. A range of methods and tools to integrate BM into the product design process are available (e.g. Baumeister et al. 2013).
2.5 Design for the Base of the Pyramid The Base of the Pyramid (BoP) is the poorest portion of the global population that, (in addition to a lack of income to satisfy basic needs, is characterised by a lack of access to basic services and by social, cultural and political exclusion (London, 2007). Prahalad (2004) and Prahalad and Hart (2002) showed that the traditional development aid strategy has not been effective to solve the problem of poverty, and suggested a market-based perspective through which companies can realise profit and at the same time bring prosperity. Different approaches have been proposed (Rangan et al. 2007): BoP as Consumer, BoP as Producer and more recently, BoP as business partners. Over the past years design researchers have explored the role of Design for the Base of the Pyramid (DfBoP) (e.g. Kandachar, de Jong and Diehl, 2009). Designing solutions at the BoP requires addressing specific issues that are different from those in high-income markets (Jagtap, Larsson and Kandachar, 2013; Jagtap and Kandachar, 2010). In this respect a number of manuals and tools have been proposed in the past years, providing a set of different and complementary approaches, such as: Design for Sustainability, D4S (UNEP, 2006) with a focus prevalently on sustainability and business development; Human Centred Design toolkit (IDEO, 2009), which provide guidance and tools on user-centred design; the BoP Protocol (Simanis and Hart, 2008), and the Market Creation toolbox (Larsen and Flensborg, 2011), which offer approaches and tools for business model co-creation. Recently the attention of design researchers on the BoP has moved from product design to PSS design (see section 3).
3. Product-Service System innovation level The design approaches included in product innovation level are crucial to reduce the environmental impact of products and production processes but they are not on their own sufficient to obtain the radical improvements required to achieve sustainability. (SchmidtBleek, 1996). Within this perspective, several researchers have started to look at ProductService System (PSS) innovation as a promising approach for sustainability (e.g. White, Stoughton and Feng, 1999; Stahel et Al. 2000; Mont, 2002). PSSs can be defined as “a mix of tangible products and intangible services designed and combined so that they are jointly
3735
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
capable of fulfilling final customer needs” (Tukker and Tischner, 2006): value propositions that satisfy users through the delivery of functions instead of products and shift the focus from a consumption based on ownership to a consumption based on access and sharing. The environmental potential of a PSS-oriented business model is that it can potentially decouple economic value from material and energy consumption. In fact, since manufacturers keep the ownership of products and deliver a performance to customers, they are economically incentivised in reducing, as much as possible, the material and energy resources needed to provide that performance (Halme et al., 2004). Being complex artefacts composed of products, services, and a network of actors, designing a PSS requires a systemic approach considering all these elements simultaneously. Design researchers have initially focused on PSS design for eco-efficiency, looking at the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability (e.g. Brezet et al. 2001; Manzini, Vezzoli and Clark, 2001). More recently, researchers have looked at integrating also the socio-ethical dimension, referring to PSS design for sustainability (e.g. Vezzoli, 2007; Vezzoli et al. 2014). Another area where design researchers have been focusing is the application of PSS design for the Base of the Pyramid (e.g. UNEP, 2009; Jagtap and Larsson, 2013).
4. Spatio-Social innovation level 4.1 Design for Social Innovation Literature on social innovation in general and on design for social innovation specifically has been just emerging in the past decade. Social innovations, are either those innovations aiming to solve social problems (Schaltegger and Wagner, 2008) such as poverty and access to safe drinking water, or those targeting behavioural change and social well-being (Manzini, 2007). More broadly social innovation is a creative re-combination of existing assets (Manzini, 2014). In social innovation a key role is played by people and communities sometimes in collaboration with grassroots technicians and entrepreneurs, local institutions and civic society organizations (Meroni, 2007; Jégou and Manzini, 2008). Manzini (2014) defines design for social innovation as “a constellation of design initiatives geared toward making social innovation more probable, effective, long-lasting, and apt to spread (p. 65)” and points that it can be part of top-down (driven by experts, decision makers and political activists), bottom-up (driven by local communities), or hybrid (a combination of both) approaches. Even if social innovations are often driven by nonprofessional designers, professional designers can play a significant role in promoting and supporting them (Manzini, 2015).
4.2 Nature-inspired Design: Systemic Design Systemic Design is another nature-inspired approach that, differently from CTC and BM, focuses on the third level of biomimicry, i.e. mimicking natural ecosystems. It combines elements of biomimicry, Cradle to Cradle and industrial ecology. Using the words of Barbero and Toso (2010), “the Systemic Design approach seeks to create not just industrial products,
3736
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
but complex industrial systems. It aims to implement sustainable productive systems in which material and energy flows are designed so that waste from one productive process becomes input to other processes, preventing waste from being released into the environment.� Systemic Design adopts a territorial approach, looking at local socio-economic actors, assets and resources, with the aim of creating synergistic linkages among productive processes (agricultural and industrial), natural processes and the surrounding territory (Barbero and Fassio, 2011). This approach allows to design/plan the flow of material and energy from one element of the system to another, reducing the waste flow by transforming outputs of each system element into an input for another system element (Bistagnino, 2009; 2011), potentially resulting in new, locally-based, value chains (Barbero, 2011).
5. Socio-technical system innovation level Some developments in the science and technology studies which took place in 1990s, such as projects that focused on sustainable need fulfilment with a long-term approach (Green and Vergragt, 2002; Quist and Vergragt, 2004; 2006; Weaver et. al, 2000) and in 2000s, such as development of the multi-level perspective of system innovation (e.g., Kemp, 1994; Kemp, Rip and Schot, 2001; Geels, 2005a, 2005b; Geels and Schot, 2007) and development of transition management theory (Loorbach, 2007; 2010) created opportunities for crossfertilisation in the DfS field. Although recent and emerging, currently there is an observable body of work being developed by a handful of design scholars. Ceschin (2012; 2013; 2014a) and Joore (Joore, 2010; Joore and Brezet, 2015) have been exploring connections between PSS design and system innovations and transitions theories. Gaziulusoy (Gaziulusoy, 2010; Gaziulusoy and Brezet, 2015), on the other hand, has integrated sustainability science, futures studies and theories of transitions and system innovations to develop a theory of design for system innovations and transitions. Design researchers have also started to investigate how to design socio-technical experiments to trigger and support socio-technical changes. Ceschin proposed to design experiments as Labs, Windows and Agents of change (Ceschin, 2014b). Even if not referring to transition studies, researchers in the area of design for social innovation have proposed to use Living Labs to experiment, explore and support the scaling-up of grassroots social innovations (Hillgren, Seravalli and Emilson, 2011). In addition to these, a group of scholars have developed curriculum on what they call as transition design for the first time (Irwin, Tonkinwise and Kossoff, 2015). It is understood that this curriculum is not specifically referenced to system innovations and transitions theories but to a wider body of literature studying change in systems. More recently, design research efforts have started to be focused on cities (e.g. Ryan, 2013b; Ryan et al., Forthcoming), which are essentially systems of socio-technical and socioecological systems. This focus on cities, as distinct from conventional sustainable urban design and planning which focuses on urban form, urban growth, liveability, walkability, energy reduction and place-making separately and sustainable architecture which focuses
3737
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
on individual buildings, finds its ground in theoretical framings of cities as complex adaptive systems (see e.g. Bettencourt and West, 2010; Portugali, 2012). Framing cities as complex adaptive systems requires understanding and taking into account the interrelationships between technologies, ecosystems, social and cultural practice and city governance in design decisions (Marshall, 2012). In order to achieve this, design for system innovations and transitions integrates different theoretical domains that might be relevant to cities as well as utilises a multiplicity of supportive design approaches such as speculative design, design futures and participatory design.
6. Discussion and Conclusions 6.1 DfS Evolutionary Framework A recent review on sustainability-oriented innovations (Adams et al. 2015) showed that innovations for environmental and social benefits have evolved from a narrow technical, product and process-centric focus towards large-scale system level changes. Adams et al. (2015) also identify two important dimensions that characterise this evolution:
Technology/People: evolution from a technically focused and incremental view of innovation towards innovations in which sustainability is seen as a socio-technical challenge where user practices and behaviours play a fundamental role. This is linked to an increasing attention towards the social aspects of sustainability. Insular/Systemic: evolution from innovations that address the firm’s internal issues towards a focus on making changes on wider socioeconomic systems, beyond the firm’s immediate stakeholders and boundaries.
Drawing on these dimensions, Adams et al. (2015) proposed an initial framework to picture how the field of sustainability-oriented innovations has evolved. Taking inspiration from their analysis model we developed an adaptation of that framework (Figure 1), which is then used to map DfS approaches.
3738
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Figure 1 The DfS Evolutionary Framework.
In the previous sections the DfS approaches have been categorised in four different innovation levels: Product innovation level, Product-Service System innovation level, SpatioSocial innovation level and Socio-Technical System innovation level. These four levels can be layered on our framework, onto which we position the DfS approaches. The process of constructing the framework and mapping the approaches has iteratively developed (the positioning of the approaches has been driven by the initial framework and at the same time has also influenced the identification of the four previously mentioned innovation levels). Each DfS approach is mapped as an area, in order to show the overlaps across different innovation levels. A colour code is used to indicate whether the approach is addressing the environmental dimension of sustainability and/or the socio-ethical one. The resulting framework (Figure 2) is meant to provide an understanding of the overall evolution of DfS, as well as a clear picture of how the various DfS approaches contribute to particular sustainability aspects. The framework also visualise linkages, overlaps and complementarities between the different DfS approaches. A table summarising the key features of each DfS approach is also provided (Table 1).
3739
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
Figure 2 The DfS Evolutionary Framework with the existing DfS approaches mapped onto it. The timeline shows the year when the first key publication of each DfS approach was published.
3740
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Table 1 Main characteristics of DfS approaches. Approach, focus & main contributors
Limitations
Potential future research directions
PRODUCT INNOVATION LEVEL Green Design Lowering environmental impact through redesigning individual qualities of individual products Burall (1991); Mackenzie (1997); Fiksel (1996)
-Lacks depth, promotes green consumerism (Madge, 1997); -Focuses on single-issues therefore does not provide significant environmental gain.
-Exploring potential synergies with other approaches
Ecodesign Lowering environmental impact focusing on the whole life-cycle of products from extraction of raw materials to final disposal Tischner and Charter (2001); Brezet and van Hamel (1997); Binswanger (2001)
-Lacks complexity, focuses only on environmental problems and disregards problems which cannot be accounted for in life-cycle assessments (Gaziulusoy, 2015); -Associated efficiency gains did not resolve the impact due to ever increasing consumption, has a technical perspective with a limited attention to the human related aspects (e.g. user behaviour in the use phase) (Ryan 2002; 2003; 2013a; Bhamra, Lilley and Tang, 2011).
-Exploring potential synergies with other approaches
Emotionally Durable Design (EDD) Strengthening and extending in time the emotional attachment between the user and the product Van Hinte (2007); Mugge et al. (2005); Chapman (2005); Mugge (2007)
-It is particularly challenging to effectively stimulate productattachment: the same product can generate different meanings and different degrees of attachment on different individuals (Mugge, 2007); -Product attachment determinants are less relevant for some product categories (e.g. utilitarian products) (Mugge et al. 2005); -For some product categories extending longevity beyond a certain point might not be environmentally beneficial (Vezzoli and Manzini, 2008); -Manufacturers might be averse to implement product attachment strategies because this might lead to reduce sales (Mugge et al. 2005).
-Undertake studies exploring product attachment during the whole lifespan of a product (Mugge, 2007); -Test the effectiveness of EDD strategies in different product categories; -Investigate the role of culture and user values in product attachment (Mugge, 2007).
Design for Sustainable Behaviour (DfSB)
-Ethical implications of applying DfSB (who is entitled to drive user
-Development of assessment metrics and techniques for
3741
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
Making people to adopt a desired sustainable behaviour and abandon an unwanted unsustainable behaviour Lilley (2009); Lockton, Harrison and Stanton (2010); Bhamra, Lilley and Tang (2011)
behaviour?) (Brey, 2006; Bhamra, Lilley and Tang, 2011); -Lack of metrics to measure the effect of DfSB strategies and a lack of evidence based examples (Niedderer et al. 2014); -Business stakeholders might not be incentivised in implementing DfSB strategies because this might not be counterbalanced by financial gains (Lilley, 2009; Niedderer et al. 2014).
analysing and evaluating of DfSB cases (Niedderer et al. 2014); -Test the effectiveness of DfSB strategies (Niedderer et al. 2014); -Develop a more accessible language and tools for professionals (Niedderer et al. 2014).
Cradle-to-Cradle Design (CTC) Emphasis on a regenerative approach by the industry and closing the loops; focus on non-human species and future generations McDonough and Braungart (2002)
-These emphases remain at a rhetorical level and, despite its inspiring vision, CTC design is technically not well justified (Bakker et al., 2010; Gaziulusoy, 2015).
-Improving its underlying assumptions; -Exploring synergies with other approaches.
Biomimicry Design (BM) Mimicking nature in design of forms, products and systems by using nature as model, measure and mentor Benyus (2002)
-Claiming that innovation resulting from mimicking nature is sustainable is misleading (Volstad and Boks, 2012) for isolating a principle, structure or process from nature and imitating it does not necessarily yield to sustainability (Reap, Baumeister and Bras, 2005); -Technologically-optimistic (Gaziulusoy, 2015)
-Improving its underlying assumptions; -Exploring synergies with other approaches
Design for the Base of the Pyramid (DfBoP) Improving the lives of people who live at the base of the pyramid through market-based solutions Kandachar et al. (2009); Jagtap and Kandachar (2010); Gomez Castillo et al. (2012); Jagtap et al. (2013)
-Targeting the poor as consumers has raised criticisms: in particular, moral dilemma that BoP approaches do not differentiate between satisfying essential needs and offering non-essential goods (Karnani, 2007; Oosterlaken, 2008; Jaiswal, 2008).
-Better explore the application of ProductService System design to the BoP (Ceschin et al. 2015).
PRODUCT-SERVICE SYSTEM INNOVATION LEVEL Product-Service System design PSS design for ecoefficiency: design of
-Not all PSSs result in environmentally beneficial solutions (UNEP, 2002); -PSS changes could generate
3742
-Better understand what factors influence user satisfaction, as well as how to measure and evaluate this satisfaction (Vezzoli et al.
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
product-service propositions where the economic and competitive interest of the providers continuously seeks environmentally beneficial new solutions. Brezet et al. (2001); Manzini et al. (2001); UNEP (2002); Tukker and Tischner (2006) PSS design for sustainability: as above, but integrating also the socio-ethical dimension of sustainability. Vezzoli (2007); Vezzoli et al. (2014) PSS design for the Bottom of the Pyramid: as above, but applied to the BoP. UNEP (2009); Moe and Boks (2010); Schafer et al. (2011); Jagtap and Larsson (2013)
unwanted environmental rebound effects (e.g. increase in transportation impacts) (UNEP, 2002); -PSSs (especially in the B2C sector) are difficult to be implemented and brought to the mainstream because they challenge existing customers’ habits (cultural barriers), companies’ organizations (corporate barriers) and regulative frameworks (regulative barriers) (Vezzoli et al. 2015).
2015); -Develop a deeper understanding on the process of introduction and diffusion of sustainable PSSs, and how this can be designed, managed and oriented (Vezzoli et al. 2015); -Identify effective strategies to transfer PSS design knowledge and know-how from research centres and universities to companies and designers (Vezzoli et al. 2015).
SPATIO-SOCIAL INNOVATION LEVEL Design for Social Innovation Assisting with conception, development and scaling-up of social innovation Manzini (2007); Manzini (2014); Meroni (2007)
-Criticisms have been raised about the naiveté of designers proposing superficial solutions and high cost of design services (Hillgren et al., 2011); -A sole focus on social innovation is not likely to achieve the levels of change required in large sociotechnical systems meeting society’s energy, mobility or housing/ infrastructure needs.
-Further explore the role of designers in social innovation processes, particularly in replication and scaling-up (Jégou and Manzini, 2008; Manzini and Rizzo, 2011; Hillgren et al., 2011); -Develop social innovation toolkits (e.g. Murray, CaulierGrice and Mulgan, 2010); -Research about how to change professional culture and improve design education to support social innovation.
Systemic Design Designing locally-based productive systems in which waste from one productive process becomes input to other processes. Bistagnino (2009, 2011); Barbero and Toso (2010)
-The approach is mainly focused on the production aspects, without addressing the issue of reducing individual consumption (Gaziulusoy, 2015).
-Exploring synergies with other approaches.
3743
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM INNOVATION LEVEL Design for System Innovations and Transitions Transformation of sociotechnical systems through (strategic) design Ceschin (2012); Gaziulusoy (2010); Joore (2010); Irwin et Al. (2015)
-Too “big picture” and need to be supported by approaches that focus on development of products and services that can be part of new socio-technical systems.
-Developing theoretical insights and practical tools to linking micro-innovation with macro-innovation; -Investigating how other DfS approaches can support design for system innovations and transitions.
6.2 Reflections and Observations Emerging from the DfS Evolutionary Framework Looking at the framework, a first consideration can be done on the relationships between the various DfS approaches, and in particular on their linkages, overlaps and complementarities. To begin with, we must acknowledge that there is not always a clear separation between the approaches. In a few cases we can see this distinction (e.g. Emotionally Durable Design and Systemic Design have a completely different focus and no point of contact), but in general the approaches overlap with one another and are interrelated. For example, Design for Social Innovation and Sustainable PSS design have shared elements: PSS design can in fact be combined with, and applied to, community-based innovations. Another example is related to Sustainable PSS Design and Design for the BoP, which overlap on Sustainable PSS design for the BoP. Similarly, Systemic Design shares some elements and principles with Cradle to Cradle Design and Biomimicry. It is also interesting to highlight how some approaches complement one another. For example, at product innovation level, Ecodesign, Emotionally Durable Design and Design for Sustainable Behaviour provide a set of complementary strategies to improve products’ environmental performance: the first of these approaches looks at the stages and processes in product life cycle; the second one focuses on the emotional attachment between the user and the product; the third one investigates how user behaviour can be influenced through product design. The framework also shows how some approaches have evolved into others. For example, there is a clear link between Green Design and Ecodesign, with the former gradually evolving into the latter. Finally, it must be highlighted that some approaches are not limited to a single innovation level and they cross over various innovation levels. For example Design for Sustainable Behaviour can be applied at a Product, Product-Service System and Spatio-Social levels. Similarly, PSS Design is relevant to both the second and the third levels and Design for System Innovations and Transitions cross-cut spatio-social and socio-technical system levels.
3744
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Another consideration can be made on the importance of each DfS approach in regard to the overall sustainability goal. Nowadays it is a common understanding that sustainability is a challenge to be addressed at a socio-technical system level. However, this does not mean that some DfS approaches are less important than others. It is true that the approaches at the lower level (the ones focusing on product innovation) cannot alone be sufficient to achieve sustainability, but it would be a mistake to consider these approaches less useful. For example, PSS innovations require material artefacts that need to be properly designed. The potential environmental benefits of a PSS cannot be achieved if the products included in the solution are not designed to reduce and optimise resource consumption. Therefore, each DfS approach should be acknowledged for associated strengths and shortcomings, and should be utilised in conjunction with complementing approaches for any given project following a systemic analysis because addressing sustainability challenges requires an integrated set of DfS approaches spanning various innovation levels. Approaches that fall under Socio-technical Innovation Level demonstrate this requirement well. Design for System Innovations and Transitions focuses on transforming systems by actively encouraging development of long-term visions for completely new systems than we currently have and linking these visions to activities and strategic decisions of design and innovation teams. Achieving these visions will require design and innovation teams to select one or more of the approaches in lower levels and use in development of new products and services (Level 1), new business models (Level 2), new social practices (Level 3) that can be part of the envisioned future systems. Finally, some considerations can be made on the different sets of skills required from the practitioners of various DfS approaches. We highlighted before that the focus of DfS has progressively expanded from single products to complex systems. We can observe that this has been accompanied by an increased need for human-centred design knowledge and know-how. Initial DfS approaches related to the product innovation level (i.e. Green Design, Ecodesign, Biomimicry), predominantly require technical knowledge (e.g. on materials, production processes, renewable energies, etc.) and know-how (e.g. Life Cycle Assessment tools, ecodesign tools, etc.). On the other hand, more recent product DfS approaches, such as Emotionally Durable Design, Design for Sustainable Behaviour, require designer to be provided with a different set of expertise. In particular human-centred design skills become crucial for them. For example they need to understand consumption dynamics (what users want and why) and behaviour dynamics (behaviour change models and strategies). Thus, techniques to gather insights from users (such as cultural probes, ethnographic observations, focus groups, etc.), and techniques to co-design with them become essential in the designer toolkit. A similar observation can be made on the DfS approaches related to the other innovation levels. For example in PSS design the development of new business models and new ways of satisfying customers require an in depth understanding and involvement of users, and in Design for social innovation the understanding and involvement of communities in co-design process is essential.
3745
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
We can also note that enlargement of the design scope requires designers to be equipped with strategic design skills. Manzini and Vezzoli (2003) emphasised the need for PSS design for sustainability to move from product thinking to system thinking and to become more strategic. This entails that designer must be capable to: address sustainability operating on the integrated system of products, services and communication through which a company (or an institution, NGOs etc.) presents itself (Manzini, 1999; Meroni, 2008; Vezzoli, 2007); create clear, comprehensible and shared visions to orient innovations (Borja de Mozota, 1990); contributing to create relations between a variety of stakeholders of a value constellation (Zurlo, 1999), and act as facilitator to stimulate a strategic dialogue and codesign processes with them (Meroni, 2008). This is also true for the Spatio-social level (for example, in relation to Design for social innovation see Meroni (2008) and Sangiorgi (2011)), and becomes even more crucial when operating at a socio-technical system (Ceschin, 2014a).
6.3 Concluding Remarks DfS field has broadened its interventional scope over the years displaying a chronological evolution. In the first half of the 90’s DfS was prevalently focused on the product level, with the development and consolidation of Green Design and Ecodesign. Other approaches at the product level were delineated in the late 90’s (see Biomimicry), and in the first half of the past decade (see Cradle to Cradle Design, Emotionally Durable Design, Design for the BoP, Design for Sustainable Behaviour), with some approaches (for example Design for Sustainable Behaviour) still primarily remaining within the interest scope of academic research. Looking at the Product-Service System Design approaches, the first discussions took place in the late 90’s but the main boost to the development of the approaches came in the 2000’s. In relation to the Spatio-Social level, Design for Social Innovation was initially delineated in the first half the 2000’s and is currently under investigation and development. The approaches on both the PSS and the Spatio-Social levels are not fully consolidated, and the research interest on various aspects of these approaches is still very high (as shown, e.g. in relation to PSS design, by Vezzoli et al. (2015)). The attention on the role of design at the socio-technical system level is even more recent, with the first PhD researches on the topic completed in the last few years (Ceschin, 2012, Gaziulusoy, 2010, Joore 2010). This area is increasingly gaining research attention in design schools. The focus of DfS has also progressively expanded from single products to complex systems. This has been accompanied by an increased attention to the ‘people-centred’ aspects of sustainability. In fact, while the first approaches have been focusing predominantly on the technical aspects of sustainability (e.g. see Green Design, Ecodesign, Biomimicry), the following ones have recognised the crucial importance of the role of users (e.g. see Emotionally Durable Design, Design for Sustainable Behaviour), communities (e.g. see Design for Social Innovation), and more in general of the various actors and dynamics in a sociotechnical system (e.g. see the fourth innovation level).
3746
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Similarly, the sustainability focus of the various approaches have expanded. The earlier approaches (and in particular most of the approaches at the Product level) deal with the environmental aspects of sustainability. Moving on, aspects such as labour conditions, poverty alleviation, integration of weak and marginalised people, social cohesion, and more in general quality of life, have been increasingly integrated into the later DfS approaches (e.g. see PSS Design and in particular Design for Social Innovation). The enlargement of the design scope has also entailed a shift from insular to systemic design innovations. In fact we can observe that initial DfS approaches (and in particular most of the approaches at the Product level) focus on sustainability problems in isolation (e.g. improving recyclability, improving product energy efficiency in use, etc.), whose solutions can be developed and implemented by an individual actor (e.g. a firm). On the other hand, PSS innovations are much more complex and their implementation might require a stakeholder value chain that includes a variety of socio-economic actors. In these cases the activities of an actor (e.g. firm) need to be linked and integrated with other process outside that actor. The same can be said for example for social innovations, which might require forming coalitions with a variety of local stakeholders. Changes at the socio-technical system level require an interwoven set of innovations and therefore a variety of socio-economic actors are implicated, including users, policy-makers, local administrations, NGOs, consumer groups, industrial associations, research centres, etc. To conclude, this paper contributes into design theory in general and DfS field specifically by providing a review of historical evolution of response to sustainability problems in design profession and by proposing a framework. This evolutionary framework displays how the various DfS approaches contribute to particular sustainability aspects. The proposed framework in meant to support practitioners and organisations to navigate the complex DfS landscape. The framework is also meant to engage design researchers in the discussion on how DfS has evolved in the past two decades and how it will evolve in future.
7. References Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., and Overy, P. (2015) Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 00: pp. 1-26. DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12068 Bagheri, A., and Hjorth, P. (2007) Planning for sustainable development: A paradigm shift towards a process-based approach. Sustainable Development, 15(2), pp 83-96. Bakker, C. A., Wever, R., Teoh, C., and Clercq, S. D. (2010) Designing cradle-to-cradle products: a reality check. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 3(1), pp 2-8. Barbero, S. (2011) Systemic design for the development of local distributed economies (Unpublished PhD thesis). Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy. Barbero, S. and Fassio, F. (2011) Energy and Food Production With a Systemic Approach. Environmental Quality Management, 21(2): pp 57-74. Barbero, S. and Toso, D. (2010) Systemic Design of a Productive Chain: Reusing Coffee Waste as an Input to Agricultural Production. Environmental Quality Management, 19(3): pp 67-77.
3747
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
Baumeister, D., Tocke, R., Dwyer, J., Ritter, S., and Benyus, J. (2013) Biomimicry Resource Handbook: a Seed Bank of Best Practices. First Public Print ed. Biomimicry 3.8, Missoula. Benyus, J. M. (2002) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. New York: Perennial. Bettencourt, L., and West, G. (2010) A unified theory of urban living. Nature, 467(7318), pp 912-913. Bhamra, T., and Lofthouse, T. (2007) Design for Sustainability. A practical approach. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing, Ltd. Bhamra, T., Lilley, D. and Tang, T. (2011) Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour. The Design Journal 14(4): pp 427-445. Bistagnino, L. (2009) Design sistemico: Progettare la sostenibilità produttiva e ambientale. Bra, Italy: Slow Food Editore. Bistagnino, L. (2011) Systemic Design: Designing the productive and environmental sustainability. Bra, Italy: Slow Food Editore. Borja de Mozota, B. (1990) Design & management. Paris, France: Les Editions d’Organisation. Braungart, M., McDonough, W., and Bollinger, A. (2007) Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13–14), pp 1337-1348. Brey, P. (2006) Ethical aspects of behavior-steering technology. In: Verbeek, P.P. and Slob, A. (Eds) User Behavior and Technology Development: Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technologies. The Netherlands: Springer, pp 357–364. Brezet, H., and van Hemel, C. (1997) ECODESIGN: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption. Paris: UNEP. Brezet, H., Bijma, A.S., Ehrenfeld, J., and Silvester, S. (2001) The design of eco-efficient services. Methods, tools and review of the case study based “Designing eco-efficient Services” project. Report for Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM). The Hague: VROM. Burall, P. (1991) Green Design. London: Design Council. Ceschin, F. (2012) The introduction and scaling up of sustainable Product-Service Systems: A new role for strategic design for sustainability. PhD thesis. Milan, Italy: Politecnico di Milano. Ceschin, F. (2013) Critical factors for implementing and diffusing sustainable Product-Service Systems: Insights from innovation studies and companies' experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45: 74-88. Ceschin, F. (2014a) Sustainable Product-Service Systems: Between Strategic Design and Transition Studies. Springer, London. Ceschin, F. (2014b) How the Design of Socio-technical Experiments Can Enable Radical Changes for Sustainability. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 1-21. Chapman, J. (2005) Emotionally Durable Design. Objects, Experiences, and Empathy. London: Earthscan. Chapman, J. (2009) Design for (Emotional) Durability. Design Issues 25(4): pp 29-35. Chiu, M-C., and Kremer, G.E.O. (2011) Investigation of the applicability of Design for X tools during design concept evolution: a literature review. International Journal of Product Development, 13(2): pp 132–167. Cooper, T. (2004) Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy 27(4): pp 421-449. EC (2005) Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements of Energy-Using Products and
3748
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Faber, N., Jorna, R., and Van Engelen, J. (2005) The sustainability of "sustainability" - A study into the conceptual foundations of the notion of "sustainability". Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 7(1), pp 1-33. Fiksel, J. R. (Ed.) (1996) Design for environment: creating eco-efficient products and processes. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fuad-Luke, A. (2002) Ecodesign: The Sourcebook. London: Thames & Hudson. Gaziulusoy, A. I. (2010) System Innovation for Sustainability: A Scenario Method and a Workshop Process for Product Development Teams. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Gaziulusoy, A. I. (2015) A critical review of approaches available for design and innovation teams through the perspective of sustainability science and system innovation theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 366-377. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.012 Gaziulusoy, A. I., and Brezet, H. (2015) Design for System Innovations and Transitions: A Conceptual Framework Integrating Insights from Sustainability Science and Theories of System Innovations and Transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 558-568. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.066 Geels, F. W. (2005a) Technological transitions and system innovations: a co-evolutionary and sociotechnical analysis. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar. Geels, F. W. (2005b) Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the coevolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6 SPEC. ISS.), pp 681-696. Geels, F. W., and Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), pp 399-417. Gomez Castillo, L., Diehl, J.C. and Brezet, J.C. (2012) Design Considerations for Base of the Pyramid (BoP) Projects. Cumulus Conference, Helsinki, 24-26 May 2012. Green, K., and Vergragt, P. (2002) Towards sustainable households: A methodology for developing sustainable technological and social innovations. Futures, 34(5), pp 381-400. Hillgren, P. A., Seravalli, A., and Emilson, A. (2011) Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social innovation. CoDesign, 7(3-4), pp 169-183. Hjorth, P., and Bagheri, A. (2006) Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Futures, 38(1), pp 74-92. Holling, C. S. (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), pp 390-405. IDEO (2009) Human Centered Design Toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.ideo.com/work/humancentered-design-toolkit. Irwin, T., Tonkinwise, C., and Kossoff, G. (2015) Transition Design Seminar Spring 2015 Course Schedule: Carnegie Mellon Design School. Jagtap, S. and Kandachar, P. (2010) Representing Interventions from the Base of the Pyramid. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(4): pp 58-73. Jagtap, S., Larsson, A. and Kandachar, P. (2013) Design and development of products and services at the Base of the Pyramid: a review of issues and solutions. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 5(3): pp 207–231.
3749
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
Jaiswal, A.K. (2008) The Fortune at the Bottom or the Middle of the Pyramid? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 3(1): pp 85-100. Jégou, F. and Manzini, E. (Eds.) (2008) Collaborative services: social innovation and design for sustainability. Milan: Edizioni POLI.design. Joore, P. (2010) New to Improve, The Mutual Influence between New Products and Societal Change Processes. (PhD thesis), Technical University of Delft, Delft. Joore, P. and Brezet, H. (2015) A Multilevel Design Model - The Mutual Relationship between Product-Service System Development and Societal Change Processes, Journal of Cleaner Production, 97: pp 92-105. Kandachar, P., de Jong, I. and Diehl, J.C. (Eds.) (2009) Designing for emerging markets: Design of products and services. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Karnani, A. (2007) The Mirage of Marketing to the Bottom of the Pyramid: How the Private Sector Can Help Alleviate Poverty. California Management Review 4: pp 90-111. Kemp, R. (1994) Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: the problem of technological regime shifts. Futures, 26(10), pp 1023-1046. Kemp, R., Rip, A., and Schot, J. (2001) Constructing Transition Paths thorugh the Management of Niches. In R. Garud and P. Karnøe (Eds.), Path Dependence and Creation (pp. 269-299). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Larsen, M. L. and Flensborg A. (2011) Market creation toolbox: your guide to entering developing markets. Copenhagen: DI International Business Development. Lilley, D. (2009) Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Design Studies 30(6): pp 704–720. Lockton, D. (2013) Design with Intent: A design pattern toolkit for environmental & social behaviour change. PhD dissertation, Brunel University London, UK. Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N.A. (2010) The Design with Intent Method: a design tool for influencing user behaviour. Applied Ergonomics 41(3): pp 382-392. London, T. (2007) A Base-of-the-Pyramid Perspective on Poverty Alleviation. Washington, DC: United Nations Development Program. Growing Inclusive Markets Working Paper Series. Loorbach, D. (2007) Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable Development. Utrecht, Netherlands: International Books. Loorbach, D. (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexitybased governance framework. Governance, 23(1), pp 161-183. Loorbach, D., and Wijsman, K. (2013) Business transition management: exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, pp 20-28. Ludden, G.D.S. and Offringa, M. (2015) Triggers in the environment: Increasing reach of Behavior Change Support Systems by connecting to the offline world. Third International Workshop on Behavior Change Support Systems (BCSS 2015), June 3-5, Chicago, Illinois (USA). Mackenzie, D. (1997) Green Design: Design for Environment (2 ed.). Hong Kong: Laurence King. Madge, P. (1997) Ecological Design: A New Critique. Design Issues, 13(2), pp 44-54. Manzini, E. (1999, July 13) Sustainable solutions 2020 - Systems. Paper presented at the 4th international conference towards sustainable product design, The Centre for Sustainable Design, Brussels, Belgium. Manzini, E. (2007) Design Research for Sustainable Social Innovation. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design Research Now (pp. 233-245). Basel: Birkhäuser
3750
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Manzini, E. (2014) Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30(1), pp 5766. Manzini, E. (2015) Design, When Everybody Designs. An introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, US: MIT Press. Manzini, E., and Rizzo, F. (2011) Small projects/large changes: Participatory design as an open participated process. CoDesign 7(3-4): pp 169-183. Manzini, E., and Vezzoli, C. (2003) A strategic design approach to develop sustainable product service systems: Examples taken from the ‘environmentally friendly innovation’ Italian prize. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(8): pp 851-857. Manzini, E., Vezzoli, C., and Clark, G. (2001) Product Service Systems: Using an Existing Concept as a New Approach to Sustainability. Journal of Design Resesearch, 1(2). Marshall, S. (2012) Planning, Design and the Complexity of Cities. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk and E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design (pp. 191-205): Springer. Mathews, F. (2011) Towards a Deeper Philosophy of Biomimicry. Organization & Environment, 24(4), pp 364-387. McDonough, W., and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things (1st ed.). New York: North Point Press. Mackenzie, D. (1997) Green Design: Design for Environment (2 ed.). Hong Kong: Laurence King. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press. Meroni, A. (Ed.) (2007) Creative communities. People inventing sustainable ways of living. Milan, Italy: Edizioni Polidesign. Meroni, A. (2008) Strategic design: Where are we now? Reflection around the foundations of a recent discipline. Strategic Design Research Journal, 1(1): pp 31-38. Metcalf, L., and Benn, S. (2012) The Corporation is Ailing Social Technology: Creating a 'Fit for Purpose' Design for Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), pp 195-210. Moe, H.P., and Boks, C. (2010) Product Service Systems and the Base of the Pyramid: A Telecommunications Perspective. Proceedings of the 2nd CIRP IPS2 Conference 2010, 14-15 April, Linköping, Sweden, pp 35-42. Mont, O. (2002) Clarifying the concept of product-service system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3): pp 237-245. Mugge, R. (2007) Product attachment. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Mugge, R., Schoormans, J.P.L. and Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2005) Design strategies to postpone consumers’ product replacement: The value of a strong person-product relationship. The Design Journal 8(2): pp 38-48. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., and Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation: The Young Foundation. Niedderer, K. (2007) Designing Mindful Interaction: The Category of the Performative Object. Design Issues 23(1): pp 3-17. Niedderer, K. (2013) Mindful Design as a Driver for Social Behaviour Change. Proceedings of the IASDR Conference 2013. Tokyo, Japan: IASDR. Niedderer, K., Mackrill, J., Clune, S., Lockton, D., Ludden, G., Morris, A., Cain, R., Gardiner, E., Gutteridge, R., Evans, M., and Hekkert, P. (2014) Creating Sustainable Innovation through Design
3751
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
for Behaviour Change: Full Report. University of Wolverhampton, Project Partners & AHRC. Online: http://www.behaviourchange.eu/ Oosterlaken, I. (2008) Product innovation for human development: A capability approach to designing for the Bottom of the Pyramid. Internal report for the 3TU Centre for Ethics and Technology. Parrish, B. D. (2007) Designing the sustainable enterprise. Futures, 39(7), pp 846-860. Portugali, J. (2012) Complexity Theories of Cities: Implications to Urban Planning. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk and E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design (pp. 221-244): Springer. Prahalad, C.K. (2004) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing. Prahalad, C.K. and Hart, S.L. (2002) The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy+Business 26: pp 2-14. Quist, J., and Vergragt, P. J. (2004) Backcasting for Industrial Transformations and System Innovations Towards Sustainability: Relevance for Governance? Paper presented at the Governance for Industrial Transformation 2003 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Berlin. Quist, J., and Vergragt, P. (2006) Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures, 38(9), pp 1027-1045. Rangan, V.K., Quelch, J.A., Herrero, G. and Barton, B. (2007) Business Solutions for the Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic Value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reap, J., Baumeister, D., and Bras, B. (2005) Holism, Biomimicry and Sustainable Engineering. ASME 2005 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2005) ASME, pp 423431. Ryan, C. (2002) Global Status Report: Sustainable Consumption. Paris: UNEP Ryan, C. (2003) Learning from a decade (or so) of eco-design experience, Part I. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(2), pp 10-12. Ryan, C. (2013a) Critical Agendas: Designing for Sustainability from Products and Systems. In S. Walker and J. Giard (Eds.), The Handbook of Design for Sustainability. London, New York: Bloomsbury. Ryan, C. (2013b) Eco-Acupuncture: designing and facilitating pathways for urban transformation, for a resilient low-carbon future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, pp 189-199. Ryan, C., Gaziulusoy, I., McCormick, K., and Trudgeon, M. (Forthcoming) Virtual City Experimentation: A Critical Role for Design Visioning. In J. Evans, A. Karvonen and R. Raven (Eds.), The Experimental City: Routledge Sangiorgi, D. (2011) Transformative services and transformation design. International Journal of Design, 5(1): pp 29-40. Schafer, C., Parks, R., and Rai, R. (2011) Design for emerging bottom of the pyramid markets: a Product Service System (PSS) based approach. Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2011 August 28-31, 2011, Washington, DC, USA. Schaltegger, S., and Wagner, M. (2008) Types of sustainable entrepreneurship and conditions for sustainability innovation: from the administration of a technical challenge to the management of an entrepreneurial opportunity. In R. WĂźstenhagen, J. Hamschmidt, S. Sharma and M. Starik (Eds.), Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 27-48). Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd. Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1996) MIPS Book or the Fossil Makers - Factor 10 and More. Berlin, Boston, Basel.
3752
Design for Sustainability: An Evolutionary Review
Simanis, E. and Hart, S. (2008) Base of the Pyramid Protocol. 2nd Edition, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Stahel, W.R, et. al. (2000) From Manufacturing Industry to a Service Economy, from Selling Products to Selling the Performance of Products. Geneva: Product-Life Institute. Stern, N. (2006) STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change. Tang, T. and Bhamra, T.A. (2012) Putting consumers first in design for sustainable behaviour: a case study of reducing environmental impacts of cold appliance use. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 5: 1–16. Tischner, U., and Charter, M. (2001) Sustainable Product Design. In M. Charter and U. Tischner (Eds.), Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future (pp. 118-138). Wiltshire, UK: Greenleaf. Tukker, A. and Tischner, U. (2006) New Business for Old Europe: Product Services, Sustainability and Competitiveness. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), (2002) Product-Service Systems and Sustainability. Opportunities for sustainable solutions. Paris, France: UNEP, Division of Technology Industry and Economics, Production and Consumption Branch. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), (2006) Design for sustainability: a practical approach for developing countries. Paris: United Nations Environmental Program. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), (2009) Crul, M., Diehl, J.C. and Ryan, C. (Eds.) Design for sustainability: a step-by step approach. Paris: United Nations Environmental Program. Van Halen, C., Vezzoli, C., Wimmer, R. (Eds.) (2005) Methodology for Product Service System. How to develop clean, clever and competitive strategies in companies. Assen: Van Gorcum. Van Hinte, E. (1997) Eternally Yours: Visions on Product Endurance. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. Vezzoli, C. (2007) System design for sustainability. Theory, methods and tools for a sustainable “satisfaction-system” design. Rimini, Italy: Maggioli Editore. Vezzoli, C., and Manzini, E. (2008) Design for Environmental Sustainability. London, UK: Springer. Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., Diehl, J.C. and Kohtala, C. (2015) New design challenges to widely implement ‘Sustainable Product–Service Systems’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97: pp 1-12. Vezzoli, C., Kohtala, C., Srinivasan, A., Xin, L., Fusakul, M., Sateesh, D., and Diehl, J.C. (2014) ProductService System design for sustainability. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing. Volstad, N. L., and Boks, C. (2012) On the use of Biomimicry as a Useful Tool for the Industrial Designer. Sustainable Development, 20(3), pp 189-199. WBCSD. (2000) Eco-efficiency: Creating More Value with Less Impact. WBCSD. WBCSD. (2004) Running the Risk e Risk and Sustainable Development: a Business Perspective. WBCSD. WBCSD. (2010) Vision 2050: the New Agenda for Business. WBCSD. WCED. (1987) Our common future. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Weaver, P., Jansen, L., van Grootveld, G., van Spiegel, E., and Vergragt, P. (2000) Sustainable Technology Development. Sheffield: Greenleaf. White, A.L., Stoughton, M., and Feng, L. (1999) Servicizing: The Quiet Transition to Extended Product Responsibility. Boston: Tellus Institute. Zurlo, F. (1999) Un modello di lettura per il design strategico. La relazione tra design e strategia nell’impresa contemporanea. [An interpretation model for strategic design. The relationship between design and strategy in contemporary firm] (Doctoral dissertation). Milan, Italy: Politecnico di Milano.
3753
Fabrizio Ceschina and Idil Gaziulusoy
About the Authors: Fabrizio Ceschin is a Lecturer in Design for Sustainability at Brunel University London with 10 years of research and teaching experience in the areas of Design for Sustainability, co-design and open innovation. Idil Gaziulusoy is a system innovation for sustainability expert, helping design and innovation teams to align their activities and strategic decisions with the long-term, systemic and structural transformations which need to take place at the societal level to achieve sustainability.
3754
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, present and future Robin Roy The Open University r.roy@open.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.48
Abstract: This paper summarises some of the content and conclusions of a new book which discusses the innovation, design and evolution of six consumer products – bicycles, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, electric lamps, television and mobile (cell) phones – from their original inventions to the present. It discusses common patterns of innovation, how environmental concerns and legislation have influenced design, and some of the effects these products have had on the environment and society. The paper also uses lessons from the successes and failures of examples of these products to draw out guidelines for designers, engineers, marketers, managers and educators on how to design successful new products and to design for the environment. It concludes with trends and sustainability challenges for future consumer product design and innovation. Keywords: consumer, products, innovation, sustainability
1. Introduction This paper summarises some of the content and conclusions of a new book, Consumer Product Innovation and Sustainable Design (Roy 2016). The book was inspired by the author’s archive collection of Which? magazine. This (UK) Consumers’ Association publication, and the more recent Which? website, provide a unique written and visual record of the evolution of consumer products marketed in Britain from 1957 to the present. The core of the book comprises case studies of six classes of consumer product – bicycles, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, electric lamps, television equipment and mobile (cell) phones. The case studies draw upon the author’s previous research (e.g. Roy 1994; Roy 1999; Roy and Tovey 2012); relevant reports in Which?; plus numerous other sources, to track the technological innovation and design evolution of these products from their original This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Robin Roy
inventions to the present day. The case studies also examine when, why and how environmental criteria, such as improved energy and materials efficiency, became part of the specification of these product classes; the influence of socio-economic and cultural factors on their innovation and design; and some impacts of these products on society and the environment. The paper draws on empirical evidence from the product case studies to provide general conclusions about patterns of technological innovation and design evolution. The paper also makes use of the evidence of the case studies to provide practical lessons for product designers, engineers, managers and marketers, and for educators of these professions. The lessons cover, for example, what makes some consumer products successful and others market failures; how to design for reduced environmental impacts; and general trends to help plan future products. Before developing the product case studies it was important to understand how the reports published in Which? are produced. The Consumers’ Association buys the products to be tested from ordinary retailers and then employs a variety of methods to evaluate them (Which Ltd. 2014). The methods have evolved over the years, but from the early days they have included laboratory tests to provide objective measures of performance; for example how well a washing machine cleans samples of stained fabric. Another long-established method is obtaining the views of panels of experts on products in use in the laboratory; for example opinions on the picture and sound quality of a TV set. Other evaluation methods include trials of products by consumers chosen from Consumers’ Association members. Such trials might involve, for example, users with children steering different pushchairs around a obstacle course in the test lab, and/or using the products at home, and then completing a feedback questionnaire. The results of these evaluation methods, plus information on prices, product specifications and features, are then analysed. Conclusions on which products consumers are recommended to buy (or avoid) based on their price, specifications and performance are provided in Which? magazine and, more recently, also online. Given the range of consumer products that Which? tests, it was necessary to choose which ones to focus on. The choice of the six product classes listed above was based on selecting for examples of mechanical, electro-mechanical, electrical and electronic products; different levels of complexity and rates of technological and design change; and the relative importance of engineering, aesthetics, ergonomics and environmental factors in their design. A case study of the invention, design, innovation and evolution of the bicycle provided a framework for researching the other product classes. The framework involved investigating each product class’s technological and design history; the effects on design of environmental regulation and socio-economic forces; the product’s impacts on the environment and society; and likely future developments. A variety of methods were employed to conduct the research, including reviewing Which? reports on the products from the early 1960s to the present; internet and literature searches; visits to museums and shops; and interviews with users and retailers.
3756
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, Present and Future
There is not space in this paper to give full details of the case studies – these are provided in the book. Instead it will provide conclusions from the case studies and extract some practical lessons for those involved in the planning, design and introduction of new products and innovations.
2. Patterns of innovation The first conclusion is that the different product classes follow similar patterns of technological innovation and design evolution; going through one or more divergent, convergent and divergent phases – a pattern first identified by the author for the case of bicycles (see the bicycle evolution diagram in Roy and Tovey 2012, p. 176). For all the products, one or more key inventions, such as the 1861 Velocipede pedal cycle or Edison’s 1879 carbon filament electric lamp, were created that started an divergent phase of design experimentation and technical development. Early designs often look like an assembly of functional components, but which become increasingly integrated as the parts are enclosed and the product is designed as a whole. This phase of evolution is typically driven by the attempts by inventors, designers, engineers and manufacturers to eliminate the deficiencies of existing designs and produce better performing, more usable and desirable products. Utterback and Abernathy (1975) described this as the ‘Fluid Phase’ of innovation. Following this early divergent, experimental phase, one or more ‘dominant designs’ typically emerge – as originally proposed by Abernathy (1978). The dominant products’ designs converge on one or more technologies and configurations, for example the classic diamond frame bicycle or conventional upright and cylinder vacuum cleaners (Figures 1a, 1b). Instead of the divergent experimentation of the fluid phase, the efforts of designers, engineers and manufacturers focus on making incremental product improvements and stylistic changes and on introducing new or improved components, materials and production processes. The changes in this phase are driven by continued attempts to improve, and eliminate the shortcomings of, existing designs, to reduce production costs and respond to customer feedback and changing fashions. Manufacturers typically create product variants for different market segments and may start designing to reduce environmental impacts. The case studies show that this dominant design phase is typically followed by another period of technological divergence and design variety. This phase arises because designers, engineers, manufacturers, and new entrants to the market, start to apply new product or process inventions, technologies, materials and components to create radically new products and so-called ‘disruptive’ innovations (Utterback 1994; Christensen 2000), such as Dyson’s first cyclonic vacuum cleaner (Figure 1c). The new technologies, materials and components may also be applied to reduce the costs of and improve existing products. An important driver for the development of these innovative and improved products is to cope with stagnating or saturated consumer demand. Innovation is also required to fend off competition from low cost manufacturers, to generate new consumer wants, and to meet
3757
Robin Roy
environmental and safely legislation or standards. The technological competition seen in the early divergent phase of product innovation reappears in this second divergent phase. In this phase dominant designs may endure alongside the innovative products – as conventional bicycles have since the successful introduction of many recumbent, folding, electricallyassisted, and other new cycle designs, and incandescent light bulbs did in competition with compact fluorescent lamps – or may disappear, as analogue mobile phones and TV sets did when digital phones and television systems were introduced.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 1 Dominant designs: cylinder and upright suction vacuum cleaners. (a) 1937 Electrolux Model XXX cylinder cleaner styled by industrial designer, Lurelle Guild, with streamlines to suggest speed, which remained in production until 1954. (b) 1950 Hoover Model 29 upright vacuum cleaner designed by Hoover’s consultant industrial designer, Henry Dreyfuss. (c) Disruptive innovation: Dyson’s first dual cyclone vacuum cleaner, the 1986 ‘G-Force’, made and sold in Japan.
Although there are patterns of divergence, convergence and divergence for all the case study products, there are differences in the rates and extent of change depending on their technologies. Washing machines, an electro-mechanical product, are still in an early second divergent phase with front- and top-loading automatics still dominant, but with new technologies appearing, such as washers that clean with the aid of air bubbles, electrolysed water or reusable plastic beads. Electric lighting, after converging on the dominant tungsten filament incandescent lamp in the early 20th C, has since been in a divergent phase with fluorescent and halogen lamps challenging, but is about to converge again towards solid state LED designs. The electronic products, television and mobile phones, have already passed through two divergent and convergent phases and are entering another divergent phase, for example with designs with bendable organic light emitting diode (OLED) screens. For business strategists, product planners and marketers understanding such patterns of innovation is important. This is because if they know where their business and products are located in the evolution of their industry, they should be better able to anticipate change, exploit opportunities and avoid being overtaken by new competitors or technologies.
3758
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, Present and Future
3. Designing for product success While many innovations and new products fail to diffuse into widespread use, others have become highly successful in terms of adoption and/or commercial profitability. What do the case studies suggest distinguishes these successful products from the less successful ones?
3.1 Genuine innovation For a genuine innovation, or ‘first to the world’ product, to succeed it must offer a function or other benefit that previously did not exist and that consumers need or want, at an acceptable price. Here are some examples: Solid state, light emitting diode (LED) lamps offer greater energy efficiency and compactness, cooler operation and lower running costs than halogen incandescent and compact fluorescent lamps and so, as their price falls, LEDS are gradually displacing these older technologies (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Electric lamps and their relative energy efficiency ratings on the EU Energy label. Left: tungsten halogen electric lamp (rated C); centre: compact fluorescent lamp (rated A); right: LED lamp (rated A+).
Digital television offered the advantages of multiple channels, higher definition and better sound than analogue TV; and then flat panel LCD, LED and OLED screens have provided advantages of much slimmer TV sets with larger screens providing even higher picture quality and using less energy than previous CRT designs. The iPhone when first introduced in 2007 offered many advantages over other smartphones, including greater ease of use, touchscreen keyboard and icons, and a desirable design. Its successor, the iPhone 3G (Figure 3 left), then also offered an increasing number of ‘apps’ via the App Store. Other manufacturers were forced to develop their own touchscreen smartphones based on the concepts pioneered by the iconic iPhone. Dyson’s first UK-made cyclonic cleaner, the 1993 DC-O1, offered several benefits over conventional vacuums: no loss of suction, no replacement dust bags and innovative-looking, user-centred designs. Despite selling at twice the price it quickly captured 20% market and forced other manufacturers to produce bag-less and cyclonic cleaners.
3759
Robin Roy
Figure 3 The 2008 iPhone 3G (left), which succeeded the original 2007 2G iPhone, was a genuine innovation with its touchscreen, icons, screen-dominated design and access to the App Store. These smartphones have been developed through five models to the 2014 iPhone 6 Plus (right) and 2015 iPhone 6s/6s Plus with larger screens and new operating systems.
3.2 Relative advantage Very few new products are ‘first to the world’ innovations, but are based on established technologies and so must compete with products from rival suppliers. To succeed such new products must offer what consumers consider to be genuine advantages over rival products, services or systems; what Rogers (1995) calls ‘relative advantage’. For example, Sony’s Trinitron colour TV tube offered better picture quality than conventional colour CRTs, something highly valued by consumers, and so made Sony TVs very successful in the 1970s (Figure 4a). Conversely, the LaserDisc (Figure 4b), a high definition rival to video-recorders launched in the 1980s failed the test of relative advantage. The player and discs were more expensive than VCRs and videocassettes, could not be recorded on, and could only store a shorter recording. For consumers, all these disadvantages outweighed the LaserDisc’s higher definition pictures.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4 (a) Significant relative advantage: 1970s Sony TVs with an innovative colour Trinitron cathode ray tube which provided a superior picture formed from lines rather than dots. This was valued by consumers and so made Sony TVs highly successful. (b) Inadequate relative advantage: the Philips LaserDisc player provided superior picture quality to rival videocassette recorders, but this advantage was out-weighed by the LaserDisc’s higher price, shorter playback time and inability to record. It failed to catch on.
3760
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, Present and Future
Thus to be chosen in preference to competing products, manufacturers must develop products that offer a set of advantages; especially an equal or higher specification and a better functional performance than rival products at a competitive price. They should of course address other factors influencing consumer choice, including brand image; emotional appeal; and practical issues such as fitting space in the home.
3.3 Good design In the early experimental phase of innovation, products are often conceived as assemblies of functional or engineering components with relatively little attention paid to their ease of use, form, colour, finish and user interfaces. As the products evolve, increasing effort is normally devoted to their industrial design in order to make the products more useable, visually and tactilely appealing, contemporary or fashionable. This involves an increasing role for industrial and product designers and ergonomists in the development process. For example, Gantz (2012 p.107) writes about the use of industrial designers by vacuum cleaner manufacturers to boost sales from the 1930s onwards (see Figures 1a and 1b above): “For these early industrial designers, getting into the business was like shooting sitting ducks. Every product…was ugly, ungainly and obsolete in style having been designed by engineers who were totally focused on functional performance, but oblivious to the new modern design trends and unaware of the public desire for more attractive appearance.”
a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5 (a) Electric washing machine with powered wringer, made in Canada c.1920. The wooden tub with a rotating wooden ‘dolly’ inside is like those of earlier manual machines. The exposed motor could be hazardous; (b) Modern Indian top loading twin-tub washing machine; (c) Samsung Ecobubble™ washing machine, with electronic controls, 2013.
Electric washing machines are another example of a consumer product that started as an assembly of functional parts – wooden tub, external motor, drive belts, wringer, etc. (Figure 5a). As they evolved the parts became more integrated; first with the mechanical parts enclosed, then with the cabinet design changing from round tubs on legs reminiscent of earlier machines to box shapes (Figure 5b). With the introduction of automatic washing
3761
Robin Roy
machines the drying mechanism was integrated into the cabinet instead of being provided by a separate spin drier. With further evolution washing machine controls became more sophisticated and so more attention was paid to user interface design and informative displays (Figure 5c). The latest machines are increasingly sleek in form with large flush glass portholes and electronic displays echoing contemporary product and kitchen aesthetics.
3.4 Affordable price When first introduced innovative products command premium prices and so are mainly adopted by wealthy consumers or enthusiasts. For example, before World War 2 vacuum cleaners were luxury goods only afforded by the upper middle classes, who bought them partly to address the ‘servant problem’. Then with improved scale and efficiency of production, and in order to expand the market, manufacturers normally reduce prices. If the unique functions or advantages relative to the competition are considered by consumers to represent ‘value for money’, many more then begin to adopt or purchase the product. For example, small-screen colour TV sets, when first introduced in the USA in 1954, cost the equivalent of about $13,000 so, until the launch of much lower priced, larger screen models, had a very limited market. In 1967 Britain a colour TV cost about £300 (about £4750 today) so most people rented. Six years later the price had almost halved, and sets had become more reliable, so it became more worthwhile to buy (Consumers’ Association 1972). Today you can pay from £150 to nearly £3000 for a high definition TV, depending on screen size and resolution (Which? Ltd. 2015). However, the technology, product platforms and many components are common to different models across the price ranges. Thus good quality TV sets have become affordable for almost everyone in industrialised countries, with upmarket models available at premium prices for those who can afford or want them.
3.5 System compatibility Consumer products often have to interface with other products and systems, so compatibility with these other technologies is essential. To diffuse widely the products have also to be compatible with consumer preferences and meet any prevailing national or international standards and legislation. Thus, the success of the first digital mobile phones was facilitated by the EU’s agreement to adopt GSM digital technology, which became the standard most widely adopted outside the USA. The importance of system interdependency and compatibility has been highlighted by Shove (2003). She argues that clothes laundering should be viewed as a ‘system of systems’ in which washing machine designers have to take into account the actions of detergent manufacturers, textile and fabric producers and users. Thus washing machines designed for different markets need to provide wash temperatures and programmes that suit the existing – and likely changes – in detergent formulations, fabrics, clothes and laundry habits of consumers in different countries and climates.
3762
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, Present and Future
4. Designing for the environment Making, transporting, using, maintaining and disposing of products all have impacts on the environment, which may include ecological damage (e.g. climate change, loss of landscapes and wildlife), resource depletion, and risks to human health. Designing products to reduce impacts on the environment (DfE) may be undertaken to different levels. Brezet (1997) proposed four levels of DfE; subsequently termed green design; ecodesign; sustainable design; and sustainable innovation (Figure 6).
Figure 6 Different approaches to, or levels of, designing for the environment. (Roy (2006) adapted from Brezet (1997) p. 22)
4.1 Green design Green design is the approach most manufacturers use when they begin to address product environmental impacts; typically focusing on tackling one or more impacts necessary to satisfy environmental regulations, even if these impacts are not the most significant. For example, concern about the environmental impacts of television did not become a significant factor in equipment design until the early 21st Century. However, there was growing concern about the electricity used when TV equipment was left on standby, although this was relatively minor problem in the context of total energy use. This stimulated the 1999 International Energy Agency’s ‘1 Watt Initiative’, which led to ‘green’ TV designs whose standby energy use fell from about 5 watts to 1 watt or less. Similarly, concern about the large amount of TV and other electronic waste led to the 2003 EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) legislation aimed at promoting recycling of equipment such as discarded TV sets, while the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), introduced at the same time, forced manufacturers to reduce or eliminate hazardous materials (e.g. mercury and lead) in TV equipment.
4.2 Ecodesign Ecodesign, the next level of DfE, attempts to assess environmental impacts throughout a product’s life cycle in order to focus on the most important impacts. The main driver for manufacturers to shift from green design to ecodesign has been environmental regulation and legislation. These include the US 1992 voluntary Energy Star program, the EU’s 2009 Ecodesign for Energy-related Products Directive and Directives on
3763
Robin Roy
Eco- and Energy Labelling of products. ‘Environmental champions’ within companies may hasten the adoption of ecodesign approaches in advance of legislation. The EU Ecolabel for washing machines, for example, rested on a 1991 life cycle analysis (LCA) study that demonstrated that over 90% of the machines’ environmental impacts occurred at the use phase (Figure 7a). This determined that the main Ecolabel criteria for washing machines were low energy, water and detergent consumption. This stimulated Hoover (UK), under the leadership of its Engineering Director at the time, to ecodesign its ‘New Wave’ range of washing machines (Figure 7b), which were awarded the first Ecolabel in 1993, replaced in 1996 by an EU Energy label (Roy, 1999).
(b)
(a)
Figure 7 (a) Washing machine life cycle impacts (Adapted from Durrant et al 1991) (b) Design of the electronic control panel for the 1993 Hoover New Wave washing machine range, awarded the first EU Ecolabel for its low energy, water and detergent use achieved by scooping up water with perforated ‘spray paddles’ and showering it over the wash in the tub.
LCA studies of mobile phones carried out by different manufacturers indicated that the impacts of their products varied widely, but were concentrated on the materials extraction, component manufacture and use life cycle phases. In response different manufacturers focussed their efforts on different measures; from Apple auditing its Far Eastern factories to ensure pollution compliance to Nokia (before it was taken over by Microsoft) designing energy efficient phone chargers. A drawback of LCA-based ecodesign is that it is complex and often difficult to translate into designs. Most companies therefore employ methods based on life cycle thinking, rather than LCA studies. At Philips, for example, product development teams are expected to focus on one or more Green Focal Areas – energy efficiency; packaging; substances; weight; recycling and disposal, and lifetime reliability (Philips 2014). Philips found that using its Green Focal Areas checklist helps to identify the most important environmental impacts of products. For example, Philips Lighting found that as well as energy efficiency, product life is important for reducing the impacts of lamps because a long life saves materials.
3764
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, Present and Future
4.3 Sustainable design Sustainable design aims to provide a product’s essential function using the least environmentally harmful technical solution; for example, powering it with solar energy instead of grid electricity or batteries. Sustainable design also includes socio-economic considerations, such as a product’s fair trade implications and/or workplace health and safety. The main drivers for attempts at sustainable design tend to be NGO and media pressure acting with internal corporate sustainability policies or environmental champions. An example of sustainable design concerns smartphones. In moving from ecodesign to sustainable design, Microsoft and Apple now attempt to reduce smartphone energy and resource use by incorporating power-saving software, minimising materials use, and eliminating more harmful substances than is required by legislation. They have also been persuaded (by pressure groups such as the Gaia Foundation) to consider factory conditions and raw materials sources; for example to avoid child labour and ‘conflict minerals’ such as tantalum and gold, which may be mined by African slave labour and traded under the control of violent armed groups A more radical approach to sustainable smartphone design is the ‘Fairphone’, which was conceived by a Dutch social enterprise to avoid using conflict minerals. The new Fairphone 2 has a modular design for ease of repair and its Chinese manufacturers are chosen to provide fair pay and good working conditions. The Fairphone was funded via pre-orders from the public with about 60,000 phones sold by December 2015 (Fairphone 2016).
4.4 Sustainable innovation Sustainable innovation is even broader in scope than sustainable design and goes beyond products to systems. Sustainable innovation involves providing a particular function using environmentally optimal product-service systems, taking into account the socio-economic sustainability of any proposed new product-service system. The main drivers for attempts at sustainable innovation are ideas from research, niche market trials, or future-oriented government policies such as the Dutch National Programme for Sustainable Technology Development (Weaver et al 2000). For example, a more sustainable system for providing clean clothes might include: innovative washing machines (e.g. plastic bead washers for domestic use that use minimal water and detergent); commercial or communal laundries equipped with additional environmentally efficient technologies (e.g. water recycling); a clothes loan or rental service (e.g. M&S has proposed a clothes rental, repair and cleaning service – the ‘infinite wardrobe’ – as part of its environmental ‘Plan A’ (Barry 2015)).
3765
Robin Roy
5. Social influences and impacts Inventors, engineers, designers and manufacturers need to understand that new products and innovations are not the inevitable result of technological progress or human creativity. Socio-economic, political, commercial and cultural forces influence which new products and innovations are created, introduced and adopted. For example, Burns (1998) describes how the historical development of television was not simply the result of scientific and technological innovations. Its evolution was shaped by government controls on broadcasting frequencies, international alliances on broadcast standards, patent disputes, and dedicated engineering teams in companies like RCA in America and EMI in Britain. Shove (2003) furthermore argues that people’s behaviour in the use of products is strongly influenced by conceptions of what is ‘normal’, itself shaped by cultural and economic forces. For example, with post-War cultural shifts in Western society towards higher standards of cleanliness and hygiene – and as more textiles became machine washable – clothes and linen began to be washed more frequently. The spread of automatic washing machines then increased the weekly wash to an almost daily wash in many industrialised countries. Likewise, the design and marketing of vacuum cleaners has, since their invention, been shaped by socio-cultural concerns about home cleanliness, health and hygiene (Gantz 2012). Hence, although designers, engineers and manufacturers cannot control socio-economic, cultural and political forces, it is important that they appreciate that such forces affect innovation and so should consider the wider context in which they are attempting to innovate.
6. Designing for the future Anticipating future technologies or classes of consumer product is difficult, but it is possible to discern some general trends.
6.1 Computers in product development and manufacture Computers have become essential tools for design and manufacture, as well as for remote collaboration between research engineers, product development teams and companies around the world. Computer communications have enabled the globalisation of production and computer-aided design, rapid prototyping and 3D printing have allowed designers and manufacturers to produce a much greater variety of products and variants than was previously possible. This has provided consumers with a great increase in product choices. But it has also encouraged companies to launch new models more frequently, leading consumers to discard and replace products more often (Pereti 2014). The shorter product development and replacement cycles are resulting in greater resource consumption and waste, lessening the benefits of attempts at the same time to design for reduced environmental impacts.
3766
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, Present and Future
6.2 Smart consumer products Information and communications technology (ICT) is being applied in many more consumer products. This goes beyond the information processing capabilities of products such as ultrahigh definition TVs and robotic vacuum cleaners. For example, internet-connected washing machines will enable the machine to be turned on remotely by an energy supplier when the grid is lightly loaded or when a domestic solar energy system is generating electricity (Bourgeois et al. 2014). This is part of a general trend towards the interconnection of different products and systems; the so-called ‘internet of things’, in which everyday objects have network connectivity allowing them to send and receive data. Examples include mobile phones becoming the remote control for lights, washing machines and televisions and TVs sharing content wirelessly with other devices such as tablet computers and mobile phones. As part of this process, companies such as Apple, Microsoft and Amazon try to get consumers to buy into their whole ‘eco-systems’ of related products and services with smartphones as the integrating component. Google’s ecosystem, for example, attempts to encourage consumers not only to use its internet browser and search engine, but also buy its Android tablet computers and smartphones, use its email and online software services, and buy its apps (Which? Ltd. 2015). Apple’s great commercial success, Riedel (2014) argues, is due to its product-service innovation of bundling products such as its iPhones with services such as iTunes and the App Store. This has not only enabled Apple to offer chargeable content to consumers but also to take a percentage of the revenue. Apple also opened up the App Store to third party developers to allow them to offer software and services to users and charge for these, from which Apple also takes a cut.
6.3 User-centred and inclusive design Designers and manufacturers are beginning to understand the importance of developing products to meet the needs, wants and demands of users that go beyond what can be discovered by conventional market research. User-centred design involves, for example, making detailed observations of user behaviour; product developers co-designing with consumers in creative workshops; and designers becoming users in order to understand how to improve the consumer experience. Inclusive design extends the user-centred approach by trying to design for the needs and abilities of all potential users, including the young, the old and people with disabilities. The idea is that if a product is designed for those who may have difficulties, it should be easy to use by all – for example, by ensuring that the controls of a washing machine can be understood and operated by anyone. Donald Norman (2007) has pointed out, however, that the simultaneous trends towards making products more user-centred and automating them can conflict. He gives the examples of the built-in programmes on products such as washing machines, microwave ovens and heating controls that unnecessarily restrict what the user is able to do. Norman
3767
Robin Roy
therefore advocates designing products that provide for appropriate inputs of human and machine intelligence in their operation and maintenance. Smart products such as internetconnected lighting and refrigerators have also been criticised for being over complex for most consumers. For example, a refrigerator that warns when the food inside is out of date or you are running out of an item, requires users to scan barcodes and log their shopping into the appliance’s computer. The ‘fridge will also suggest healthy recipes on its door screen if the user has entered their age, weight and Body Mass Index. Reviews in Which? have questioned whether consumers can be bothered to use such innovations (O’Leary, 2012).
7. Conclusion: the need for sustainable design and innovation As noted earlier, designing for the environment is evolving from green design approaches to sustainable product-service systems innovation. Examples of the latter approaches are now emerging, such the M&S infinite wardrobe. It is now possible, for example, to lease LED lighting as a service package, thus overcoming the initial cost of buying an efficient lighting system. The shift to sustainable design and innovation is of growing urgency as ownership of consumer products spreads from industrialised countries, first to newly industrialised countries such as China and then to low income countries. For example, over two billion people already own a washing machine and an estimated further three billion in developing countries will want machine laundering by 2050 (Rosling 2010). The level of smartphone ownership in China already exceeds that in Britain. Electric lighting and TV will spread to the over one billion people in India and Africa currently without electricity. At the same time consumers in industrialised, and the middle classes in newly industrialised, countries, are likely to continue buying higher specification, ‘smarter’ products, such as robot vacuum cleaners and larger screen TVs. They are also able to choose from an increasing variety of new products emerging in the divergent phases of innovation – discussed in Section 2. In the future global ownership of consumer products seems likely to approach saturation, which combined with an expected increase in population to 9.6 billion by 2050, will contribute towards unsustainable emissions and pollution levels and pressure on natural resources unless future products, services and systems are designed for sustainability. Acknowledgements: Linda Wolfe and Pam Matthews of Intertek, for providing access to the Which? archive. Intertek’s specialists, Paul Rogers; Jeremy Owens; Ian Mann; Michael Meed and Stephen Higgins, and Tim Lister of IBR UK Ltd., who commented on the product case studies. Figure 1a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electrolux_vacuum_cleaner_Model_30_DMA.j pg This work has been released into the public domain by its author User FA2010. Figure 1b INTV1980 / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoover_model_29_ad.jpg This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Figures 1c, 2, 3, 4b, 5b, 5c, 7a, 7b Robin Roy; Figure 4a Rob Skitmore / http://objectwiki.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wiki/Image_E2005.343.2_Sony_Trinitron_TV.h tml Creative Commons Attribution Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Figure 5a www.oldewash.com Courtesy of Lee Maxwell.
3768
Consumer Product Design and Innovation: Past, Present and Future
8. References Abernathy, W. J. (1978) The Productivity Dilemma, Johns Hopkins University Press. Barry, M. (2015) Plan A, Presentation at the Sustainable Innovation 2015 international conference, University of the Creative Arts, 9-10 November, Epsom, Surrey, UK. http://tinyurl.com/gwck93h (Accessed February 2016). Bourgeois, J., van der Linden, J., Kortuem, G., Price, B. A. and Rimmer, C. (2014). Conversations with my washing machine: an in-the-wild study of demand-shifting with self-generated energy, in 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 2014), 1317 September, Seattle, Washington, US, ACM, pp. 459–470, http://oro.open.ac.uk/40465/ (Accessed October 2015). Brezet, H. (1997) Dynamics in ecodesign practice, UNEP Industry and Environment, 20(1–2), pp. 21– 24. Burns R.W. (1998) Television: an International History of the Formative Years, Institution of Electrical Engineers, London. Christensen, C. M. (2000) The Innovator’s Dilemma, First Harper Business. Consumers’ Association (1972) Colour TV rentals, reliability and servicing, Which? September, pp. 279-286. Fairphone (2016) Fairphone, https://www.fairphone.com/ (Accessed February 2016). Gantz, C. (2012) The Vacuum Cleaner. A history, Macfarland and Co. Norman, D. A. (2007) The Design of Future Things, Basic Books. O'Leary, J. (2012) I’m not hungry for a smart fridge, Which? Conversation, 19 January http://tinyurl.com/pwctbgc (Accessed October 2015). Peretti, J. (2014) The men who made us spend. Episode 1, BBC2 TV, 28 June. Philips (2014) Our Green Products, http://tinyurl.com/ou34hgb (Accessed February 2015). Riedel, J.C.K.H. (2014) Towards an understanding of Apple's success — Conceptualising productservice-business bundles, in Proceedings International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE), Bergamo, June 23-25, IEEE, pp. 1-6 http://tinyurl.com/pak4mk4 (Accessed October 2015). Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, (4th edition), The Free Press. Rosling, H. 2010, The magic washing machine, [YouTube video of TED Talk], December, http://tinyurl.com/4gsx2wq (Accessed November 2014). Roy, R. (1994) The evolution of ecodesign, Technovation, 14(6), pp. 363-380. Roy, R. (1999) Design and Marketing Greener Products: the Hoover Case, in Charter, M. and Polonsky, M.J. (eds.) Greener Marketing (2nd Edition), Greenleaf, pp. 126-144. Roy, R. (2006) Products: new product development and sustainable design, T307 Innovation: designing for a sustainable future, Block 3, The Open University, Milton Keynes. Roy, R. and Tovey, M. (2012) Bicycle design: creativity and innovation, in Tovey, M. (ed.) Design for Transport. A User-Centred Approach to Vehicle Design and Travel, Gower, pp. 167-200. Roy, R. (2016) Consumer Product Innovation and Sustainable Design. The Evolution and Impacts of Successful Products, Routledge. (ISBN Hb: 978-0-415-86997-3 Pb: 978-0-415-86998-0) Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality, Berg. Utterback, J. M. and Abernathy, W. J. (1975) A dynamic model of product and process innovation, Omega 3(6), pp. 639-656. Utterback, J.M. (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press.
3769
Robin Roy
Weaver, P., Jansen, L., van Grootveld, G., van Spiegel, E. and Vergracht, P. (2000) Sustainable Technology Development, Greenleaf. Which? Ltd. (2014) About Which? Which? research, http://tinyurl.com/ole645v (Accessed August 2014). Which? Ltd. (2015) Test lab buyers guide. TVs, audio and home entertainment, Which? August, pp. 68-73. About the Author: Robin Roy is Emeritus Professor of Design and Environment, the Open University. Since 1971 he has contributed to many OU courses on design, innovation and environment. He has published books, chapters and papers on topics from creativity and new product development to consumer adoption of sustainable technologies. He is a Fellow and Council member of the Design Research Society
3770
Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘ByProducts’? A Systems Thinking Approach John Darzentas* and Jenny Darzentas University of the Aegean *idarz@aegean.gr DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.506
Abstract: Service Design has developed, in the last two decades, to be an autonomous multi/interdisciplinary paradigm of a complex domain affecting Design Thinking. Product-Service Systems (PSS) is a representative model of designing through services related to existing products. Terms such as ‘servitising’ are used to declare that, for instance, inventing and adding services based around existing products will increase the value of any related intervention. This paper posits that Service Design should follow a Systems Thinking approach, without the presupposition of related products, allowing for these products to emerge as ‘byproducts’ of the process. It is also claimed that, in order to positively utilise the inherent complexity of Service Design, thinking tools such as Systems Thinking are required to capture the design space. This should be a primary concern in such a human centred complex domain as Service Design. Design methodologies and approaches can then be used to continue with the design process Keywords: Service Design, Product-Service Systems, Systems Thinking, Design Thinking
1. Introduction The design of services, under the label of ‘Service Design’ has developed, in the last two decades, to be an autonomous multi/interdisciplinary paradigm of a complex domain. It has obviously affected design thinking and praxis. Traditionally used taxonomies of design, as far as frameworks, methodologies, methods and their interventions are concerned, include Industrial Design and Product Design. There is, in addition, an array of design areas of application and praxis at a higher resolution such as Human-Computer Interaction. Service Design appears nowadays to be accepted as a major generic paradigm of the design domain. It has been influencing the modelling, the choice and evolution of design methodologies and approaches at all levels of design praxis. One
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
John Darzentas and Jenny Darzentas
basic reason for these changes is the acknowledging of the complexity of design problems due mainly to the realisation that most of these problems should be characterised as ‘human-centric’. The work of grounding Service Design through theoretical frameworks could be said to still be in its infancy. Yet it should be noted that, in the multi/interdisciplinary sense, there is much knowledge to draw from (from Management, Operational Research, Design Thinking and others). In addition, the evolving Service Science (Maglio et al, 2010) is expected to offer substantial theoretical hospitality (Darzentas & Darzentas, 2014b). However, the acknowledging of its human-centric nature and the need to welcome and utilise the inherent complexity are the two main requirements for successfully designing services, and at the same time, the requirements that will probably, at the very least, strongly influence design thinking and praxis. An important and influential model in the designing of services is that of Product-Service Systems (PSSs). It is a model of designing through services and characterises the design intervention by considering the product with the service and using both of them for adding value to the end result. Terms such as ‘servitising’ (Gray, 2013) are used to declare that, for instance, inventing and adding services onto existing products will increase the value of any related intervention. It is considered here as a representative model which has produced very interesting results and remains an important design paradigm in service design. In this paper, PSSs are used to examine a number of issues about Service Design and to speculate on possible directions for structuring methodologies and methods for designing services and forming a theoretical attitude towards design. Open issues which drive the main themes of the paper include: the availability of frameworks and tools to deal with the increased complexity of Service Design in general and of PSSs in particular. the hypothesis that: Service Design interventions should be delivered using the design problem space considered as a holon’1, and not subscribed to a PSS paradigm where product(s) are from the beginning part of the problematique. the above hypothesis has a major creative consequence in that any product(s) emerging and added to the design intervention will actually be ‘by-product(s)’ of the design praxis the hypothesis also implies that the complexity of the design space will probably increase even more by considering holistically a larger one with less restrictions. As a result that will demand a range of tools capable of dealing with that inherent complexity. This paper introduces the use of Systems Thinking in the designing of services as a thinking tool that can capture and utilise complexity without being constrained by the need to
1
A holon (Greek: ὅλον, holon neuter form of ὅλος, holos) "whole"
3772
Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘By-Products’? A Systems Thinking Approach
servitise any pre-existing products. This then allows for having any emerging products to be established as part of the design praxis.
2. Background 2.1
Services and the need for Service Design
Traditionally, ‘Services’ is the name given to economic activities that cannot be classified as agriculture or manufacturing. The service sector includes services such as those provided by government, healthcare, education, retail, financial, business and professional activities, as well as services providing communications, transportation and utilities. It currently accounts for the bulk of a developed nation’s economy: as much as 80% compared with 15–25% in the manufacturing sector, and about 5% in the agricultural sector (Maglio et al., 2010, Maglio et al., 2006). This is also reflected in employment figures, with more people employed in the service sector than in other sectors. Newer, less resourced manufacturing economies are also growing their service sectors, especially taking advantage of travel and tourism industries (UNCTD, 2013). As a sector, services required a new framing to understand them. Two established frameworks are the older IHIP model (Regan, 1963; Rathmell, 1966; Shostack, 1977; Zeithaml et al. 1985) that characterises services as being intangible, heterogeneous, inseparable and perishable. That is, services cannot be perceived with senses, they are nonstandard (heterogeneous); it is impossible to separate the production from the consumption of a service (inseparable); and that services cannot be stored (perishable). Other guidance is offered by the model of Service Dominant Logic as opposed to Goods Dominant Logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008) which holds that service (as a process) rather than goods, should be the basis of economic and social exchange where value is co-created, and goods are something for the service to deliver. The occupation of designers with services is fairly recent. In the past it has been the remit of academic disciplines such as Management and Marketing, Operational Research and Engineering, (Bitner et al., 2008). With the move to increasing automation, self-services and online services, Information Systems and Computer Science disciplines are also now heavily involved. Services are currently understood and promoted as representing problem spaces that are complex and require multi/interdisciplinary input. Indeed, recently, IBM, understanding that its core business is no longer in hardware manufacture, but in services, has championed the understanding of services as ‘complex systems’ (Maglio et al, 2006). These complex systems are defined as specific arrangements of people and technologies which take actions that provide value for others. In this way, the idea of a ‘service science’ has been advanced (Maglio et al., 2010). It is against this background that the role of designers in service design can best be understood. For the last two decades, designers have been engaged in realising the shift in working practices from product to systems design: that is, understanding the wider context
3773
John Darzentas and Jenny Darzentas
of use in which the designed product is to function (Brown, 2008). This incorporates the users, producers, (including the designers themselves) the activities and functions expected, as well as and constraints and freedoms offered by the technologies used in the product. Such work has recently been undertaken under other labels, such as ‘Interaction Design’ and/or ‘User Experience Design’ (UX). Lately, this wider context has begun to incorporate services, and Service Design has taken hold, as evidenced by a number of researcher1 and practitioner2 networks and courses in Universities, as well as other research activities (Glushko, 2010, 2012; Gotzen et al., 2014). Given this, what do these services look like; what are their common features and how do designers design them? A striking characteristic of the movement from product to services is the emphasis on service outcomes or what the customer wants from a product or a service: “A customer does not want a drilling machine, he wants a hole in the wall “. An example is that of Rolls Royce’s “Power-by-the-hour®” the continuous maintenance and servicing of the engines is paid by how many hours the customer obtains power from the engine, rather than by paying for spares and repairs (Ng et al., 2009). This outcome-based understanding is very interesting and is understood as a particular class of Product-Service Systems (PSSs).
2.2
Product-Service Systems (PSSs)
PSSs are convenient vehicles that serve the interests of different actors and lobbies. For example, the manufacturing industries that have seen that they must move on from only producing products because:
it is a means of differentiating their offerings they need to move to sustainability models as worldwide resources shrink recycling responsibilities are becoming a major part of the product lifecycle consumer markets are saturated owning goods is becoming less fashionable among consumers
These incentives are also based in new models of business relations with customers, as consumers begin to exercise power with brand loyalty and valuing customer relations and other support mechanisms. Thus PSSs can provide customers values and functionalities, as well as physical products, to fulfil economic, social and environmental goals (Tran & Park, 2015). Studies on PSSs have distinguished three categories: the first is intensely product-based and is also known as ‘servitising’. This represents the move from manufacturing to creating other types of consumer offerings based around the product, an example being cars and car maintenance services. The second revolves around ownership, and offers services to provide
1
Service Design Research http://www.servicedesignresearch.com/ Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability http://www.desis-network.org/ 2 Service Design Network gmbh http://www.service-design-network.org/
3774
Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘By-Products’? A Systems Thinking Approach
the outcome provided by the product without the necessity for the consumer to purchase and own the product. For instance, there is no need to own a car for the times one might need it, but rather one can use renting or leasing services. The third category focuses only on the results that someone would expect from the product, for instance, lighting from bulbs (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015); a painted wall from a can of paint (Tran & Park, 2015). Within these three main distinctions, it is possible to make more sub categorisations (Tukker, 2004). For instance, the first category of servitising can include advice and consultancy, while the ownership category can include models such as resource sharing by renting and leasing, and the results or outcome based category can look to mechanisms such as ‘pay per use’. Industry experts calculate that manufacturers now depend upon services. A third of large manufacturing firms globally are now ‘servitised,’ according to research from the Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM, 2010). The figure stands at 60% in the USA, while in the UK, the figure is estimated at around 40% of manufacturing companies (Gray, 2013). For designers, this means their roles as product designers in industrial design contexts has been changing. The role of designers in the design of services is variously seen as: facilitators in the co-designing process (Vargo et al, 2008); or as active innovators in the codesigning process (Vosinakis et al., 2008), but it is still new ground. More specifically, with PSSs, as Morelli (2003) has noted, designers need new understandings of their role and its extent and new tools. “Designers, who have usually focused their activity on material products, have rarely been involved in the debate about the development of [PSSs]. The shift to PSS therefore, represents a challenge for designers, who now need to extend their traditional logical domain and to develop new methodological tools” (Morelli, 2003, p1).
In the search for the fundamentals of design methodologies for PSSs, designers have recognised the need for planning at a wider level and that the involvement of the consumer in the creation process is critical (Beuren et al., 2013). Going even further, Morelli (2006) claims that what is needed are methodologies and methods for the identification of the actors involved; for possible scenarios, real use cases, roles and actions of involved actors; for a means of defining requirements for the PSSs and its logical and organisational structure; and tools to represent all these. Faced with this state of affairs, we observe changes in design praxis (Darzentas & Darzentas, 2014c). Design praxis follows, but also influences, changes in Design. For example, in traditional industrial design, it can be said that the designer and the manufacturer did collaborate in as much as they each performed a part of a process, with one carrying out design work and the other accepting or not the resultant designs. Currently, it is clear that in activities like service design the nature of the design work is highly interactive, using participative co-designing methodologies and tools (Binder et al. 2009; Holmlid, 2009). The service thus designed and produced is enriched by incorporating results from the involvement of the various stakeholders who are collaborating to co-produce the outcome. In addition, the designing of a product may encompass much more than the artefact. It may
3775
John Darzentas and Jenny Darzentas
include related aspects such as its packaging and the way it will be distributed, which reach back to influence the artefact at the heart of the design effort. It is also not uncommon that these aspects become more important than the artefact in terms of influence. In this way the usability of a product, becomes more important than the product itself. This is because it is touching on the dynamics of the interaction between the user and the product. (Darzentas & Darzentas, 2014a)
2.3
Systems Thinking
Complexity is now accepted as an expected feature that characterises most design praxis (Sevaldson, 2009; Norman, 2010; Ryan 2014; Darzentas & Darzentas, 2012). That is, a large part of the design effort is concerned with complex human-centric problems that require to be understood so that design interventions may take place. Given this, Design should seek complexity in its grounding and application. Complexity should be encouraged as it enriches the process of design and necessitates that Design considers a larger variety in its definition and its understanding of the problem space. However, thinking tools to help to deal with complexity are needed, and Systems Thinking is put forward as a main contributor. Historically, Systems Thinking as an approach appeared more than half a century ago, in response to the failure of mechanistic thinking to solve problems. A ‘system' is a complex and highly interconnected network of parts, which exhibit synergistic properties, where the whole exceeds the sum of its parts. In its trajectory through time, Systems Thinking has been applied in disciplines such as Biology, Information Theory, Management, Engineering and Cybernetics. Systems Thinking requires a perspective shift from traditional classical decomposition or reductionist ways of doing things. It looks at relationships (rather than unrelated objects) and ‘connectedness’; at process (rather than structure): at the whole (rather than just its parts), at the patterns (rather than at the contents) of a system, as well as looking at context. It offers a perspective which provides tools for understanding relationships between things and does not look for a single answer to a problem within the confines of a single discipline (Moore & Kearsley, 2005, Cameron & Mengler, 2009). One of the most striking features of Systems Thinking is that it accepts that some properties will emerge from a system, and that these (emergent) properties cannot be deduced from a system’s component parts and are therefore ‘invisible’ in a reductionist perspective. When applied to the high complexity of ill-structured problems, which are normally those which are human-centric, Systems Thinking helps to understand and learn about the situation of concern. The connection between such kinds of problems and design is strong since design is often called upon to address “intractable human centred ‘wicked problems’” (Buchanan, 1992). A growing number of designers and design researchers have been using Systems Thinking in their research, teaching and practice (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012; Jonas, 2007, 2011; Valtonen, 2010; Sevaldson, 2009, 2011, Mugadza, 2014; Ryan, 2014; Jones, 2014a,b Darzentas & Darzentas, 2015) and have formed a thriving community around the
3776
Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘By-Products’? A Systems Thinking Approach
theme of Relating Systems to Design (RSD1). Other design oriented Systems approaches have been applied to organisational design, (Pourdehnad et al., 2011) and sustainable design (Charnley & Lemon, 2011).
3. Approach 3.1 The ‘by-product’ hypothesis and increased complexity So far in the tackling of design problems there is the tendency to accept that reductionism is possible. In other words holistic views of the problem space are not necessary. In the case of PSSs, the product(s) are considered or remain part of the service design problem space right from the start. In the case of servitising, for example, the added value is generated mainly by devising new services provided by the same products. However, this means, according to the hypothesis presented in this paper, that the complexity which very usefully characterises the services to be designed is ‘damaged’ by the assumptions that products associated with those services pre-exist, and are not emerging as part of the design process. Capturing as much as possible of the design problem space obviously provides a more robust description of it. Imposing a major constraint on the problem space such as the retaining of the product(s) and assuming that, by default, the product is associated to the service does exactly the ‘damage’ mentioned above to the manufacturers, the customers and more generally, the stakeholders. In other words the hypothesis here is that the product(s) are ‘by–products’ of the service design process. PSS models obviously are not to be removed from the tools of service design. However if one has the luxury of not having to include pre-existing products then, it is claimed, the results may be more robust. In existing examples of services, and of PSSs, the shadow of the product is present to a greater or lesser extent in all types of service offerings. For example, in the case of car manufacturing: services such as maintenance, insurance, financial assistance to purchase a vehicle, (product oriented PSSs) or services such as renting, leasing or car sharing that remove the onus of ownership (user oriented- PSSs). The shadow of the product is also present in outcome-based PSSs such as subscription services to car pools. This is a service for people who want to get from A to B. The subscription service gives users access to cars that are variously located so that the subscriber can pick up a car from the most convenient car pool and carry out the journeys he wishes and simply return the car when he has finished. This car pool model is an approximate description of actual services such as ZipCar2. Such outcome based PSSs are the least vulnerable to disruptions. The locus of disruptions is often technology based. For instance, the interest in new forms of transport, such as intelligent or automated cars, have the potential to have a serious negative impact upon product oriented PSSs, causing them to have to shift their product and service offerings. In 1 2
http://systemic-design.net/ http://www.zipcar.com/
3777
John Darzentas and Jenny Darzentas
order to have more stable or robust offerings, it is important to shift from the product base to the whole system based enquiry to understand the present, and as much as possible, anticipate, future needs. A pertinent recent example is that of the music industry, where the product has shifted from aiming at the purchase and customer ownership of records, tapes and CDs to downloading music, and now to streaming music.
3.2 Capturing the ‘System’ of the Service to be designed. A System Thinking approach for Service Design A real problem emerging from the above is that new tools for Design Thinking and praxis are required that are capable of taking on and tackling the richness and complexity of the design problem space. A main assumption here is that theory and praxis must aim at capturing, understanding and learning about the design space. Naturally the more complex the problem is, the more important this is. The design problem space that is grounded through Systems Thinking is expected in its turn to produce a systemic view of the problem space, in as far as it can. Accepting that when designing in complex human centric situations, such as Service Design, the primary concern of the designer(s) is the capturing, understanding, and learning as much as possible, of and about the design problem space (the ‘System’), with which and for which they design. In other words, they will encapsulate as much as possible in the System from the beginning of the design ‘journey’. An example to demonstrate the three main facets of the design problem space considered here can have the following descriptions: The design of an accessible cash card for blind users (product design). The design of a number of accessible bank services based on the existing accessible cash card for blind users (PSS). The design of accessible bank services for blind customers (By-product(s)? (Systems Thinking)). Systems Thinking is not suggested as a complete methodology for service design or design in general, but as the core of a grounding framework that can act as a platform to be used to capture, understand and learn about the design problem space, or ‘situation of concern’ since problem solving is not necessarily the aim of the activity. Once this is achieved to a practical level, a number of approaches and methodologies from the relevant multi/interdisciplinary spectrum of tools can help us to utilise the utilise the System that representing the situation of concern since they are passed the ‘baton’, and take over to deliver designed interventions. As has been mentioned (Darzentas & Darzentas, 2014b; Sevaldson, 2009; Ryan, 2014) the acknowledged complexity of design problems is continuously increasing. This can be seen by the move away from strict engineering approaches to ones that blend the human element, and thereby recognise the human-centric character of the design problems. These problem
3778
Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘By-Products’? A Systems Thinking Approach
must be operationally and usefully expressed and understood by the stakeholders, including the designers. Systems Thinking, as presented in the previous section, possesses the appropriate properties and nature for encapsulating the holistic thinking necessary for containing the holon of the problem area, i.e. the relevant components and the relations amongst them. It is very important to create and retain as rich as possible a picture of that holon when designing with it and for it. There are two main questions: 5. How does one acquire a useful and as-representative-as-possible picture of the holon of the design problem space? 6. How does one use that picture to produce an intervention? Or what does one do with it? The Systemic description of a design problem space will emerge with the use and application of a number of approaches, methodologies and tools from a wide range of related domains (ethnography, participatory design, etc.). In addition, methodologies and tools (such as customer journeys, blueprints, rich pictures) already proven in related domains such as Management, Operational Research, Psychology, Sociology and others can be used to feed the creation of the System as well as to plug into it and carry on towards an added value point of intervention. Furthermore, an important range of tenets and principles become available once a ‘Systemic’ view of the design problem space is established and accepted. These can guide the understanding and the discovery of a representative System of the design space. These are principles (Darzentas & Darzentas, 2014a, 2015) of Systems Thinking such as: ‘emerging properties’, ‘variety’, ‘self reference’, ‘organisation’ and ‘self organisation’ (autopoeisis), ‘distinction’, which would guide the representation of the problem space as a System in terms of its parts (components) and the relationships amongst and between them. Notional tools such as ‘structure’, ‘states’, ‘control’, ‘attractors’, ‘code’, etc. can aid the forming of the System of the problem space, mainly in terms of its dynamic characteristics and processes. The result would be a System that would represent as faithfully as possible the problem space, in its parts, the interconnections between and amongst those parts, and their ‘life’. The proposal for concentrating on the building of a System that is representative of the design problem space derives from our hypothesis that this is the ‘main door’ to successful design interventions. A range of methodologies such as those coming from the Management domain could complement those commonly used in design currently, especially as this already happens in service design, for example with ‘Service Blueprints’ (Bitner, 2008) and aid the design praxis. Although it could be claimed that these methodologies can be directly applied to design, the ideas of Systems Thinking have special distinct ways of supporting Design praxis which should be picked up and utilised accordingly.
3779
John Darzentas and Jenny Darzentas
4 Summary and Conclusions The paper does not claim the offering of theoretical grounding for design and especially Service Design. It does not present a complete method or methodology for Service Design or for tackling complex design problems. It offers the notion of a Design Thinking tool based on Systems Thinking with the main purpose to produce System(s) which capture, understand and learn about the design concern, called here the design problem space. The paper remains focused on the notion of the System and the design problem space seen and considered as a System. The paradigm of service design is the main vehicle because of its rapid emergence and influence on the general domain of design and its inherent complexity. The model of Product-Service Systems (PSSs) is used to emphasise the fact that the ‘System’ of the design problem space should be understood and created as free as possible from suppositions and restrictions such as pre-accepted constraints in the form of products. It is understood here that the Systemic description of such a problem space offers itself, by its grounding, to productive alliances with methodologies and tools already proven in relative domains such as Management, Operational Research, Psychology, Sociology and others. Those can be used to feed the creation of the ‘System’ as well as to plug on to it and carry on towards an added value point of intervention. Thankfully, there remain open questions. While PSSs remain a staple feature in Service Design and servitising appears as be a natural extension of product design, with Systems Thinking considering the design problem space as a system and not being constrained in this by pre-existing products, will ensure that important creative complexity will be included in the systemically expressed design problem space allowing for by-products to emerge.
5. References Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM) Growth of Services http://tinyurl.com/jdonsq8 Beuren F.H., Ferreira M.G.G., Miguel P.A.C. (2013) Product–service systems: a literature review on integrated products and services Journal of Cleaner Production 47: 222-231 Binder, T., Löwgren, J., & Malmborg, L. (2009). (Re)Searching the Digital Bauhaus: London: Springer Publishing Company. (Human-Computer Interaction Series). Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. & MorganF. N. (2008) Service Blueprinting: A Practical Technique for Service Innovation California Management Review 50(3), 66-94 http://tinyurl.com/p5gc4k7 Brown, T. (2008) Design Thinking Havard Business Review, Reprint no R0806E http://tinyurl.com/phukpnq Buchanan, R. (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking Design Issues 8, 2, pp. 5-21 http://tinyurl.com/nov6nfv Cameron, F. & Mengler, S. (2009) Complexity, Transdisciplinarity and Museum Collections Documentation, Journal of Material Culture 14(2), 189-218 Charnley, F. & Lemon, M. (2011) Exploring the process of whole system design, Design Studies, 32, 156-179
3780
Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘By-Products’? A Systems Thinking Approach
Darzentas, J. & Darzentas, J.S. (2014a) Designers in complex problem solving: the contribution of Systems Thinking in Lim, Y.-K., Niedderer, K., Redström, J., Stolterman, E., & Valtonen, A. (Eds.). (2014). Proceedings of DRS 2014: Design's Big Debates. Umeå, Sweden: pp.1085-1095 Darzentas, J & Darzentas, J.S. (2014b) Systems Thinking for Service Design: a natural partnership Proceedings of Relating Systems to Design Symposium (RSD3) Oslo, http://tinyurl.com/gtxajm Darzentas, J. & Darzentas, J.S. (2014c) On the role of Systems Thinking in Design and its application to public Self-Services, FORMAkademisk 7 (4) Darzentas, J & Darzentas, J.S. (2015) Systems Thinking for Design Thinking, Towards Proposing a Generic Approach to Design, Proceedings of Relating Systems to Design Symposium (RSD4) Banff (to appear) Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Philips and Turntoo, http://tinyurl.com/nf9fakt Gloppen, J. (2011) The Strategic Use of Service Design for Leaders in Service Organizations FORMAkademisk 4(2), 3-25 Glushko, R.J. (2010) Seven Contexts for Service ‘System Design in P.P. Maglio et al. (eds.), Handbook of Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy, Springer (pp.219-249) Glushko, R.J. (2012) Describing Service Systems Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 23 (1), 11-18 Gotzen, Amalia de, Morelli, N. & Grani, F. (2014) Challenges and Perspectives in Service Design Curricula, In Daniela Sangiorgi, David Hands, Emma Murphy (2014). ServDes.2014 Service Future; Proceedings of the fourth Service Design and Service Innovation Conference http://tinyurl.com/hxba8cj Gray, J. (2013) Servival: The servitisation of manufacturing The Manufacturer http://tinyurl.com/p7l3o9x Holmlid, S. (2009) Participative, co-operative, emancipatory: From participatory design to service design Proceedings of First Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation http://tinyurl.com/ot7tdvk Jonas, W. (2007) Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model of designing design foundations, Kybernetes, 36 (9/10), pp.1362-1380 Jonas, W. (2011) A Sense of Vertigo, Design Thinking as General Problem Solver in Proceedings of Endless End, Proceedings 9th European Academy of Design International Conference (EAD09) http://tinyurl.com/q8e9n9w Jones, P. (2014a). Design research methods for systemic design: Perspectives from design education and practice. Proceedings of the 58th Annua Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Science ISSS 2014, http://journals.isss.org/ Jones, P. (2014b). Systemic design principles for complex social systems. In G. Metcalf (ed.), Social Systems and Design, Volume 1 of the Translational Systems Science Series, pp 91-128. Springer Japan. Lerney, E. & Poels, G. (2012) Towards a Process Model for Service Systems, in Exploring Services Science, Lecture notes in Business Information Processing, (Ed Snene, M.) Springer Verlag Heidleberg-Berlin pp1-15 Maglio, P.P., Srinivasan,S., Kreulen, J.T., & Spohrer, J. (2006) Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation Communications of the ACM, 49(7) 81-85 Maglio,P.P., Kieliszewski, C.A.,& Spohrer, J.C.(Eds) (2010) Handbook of Service Science Springer Verlag Heidleberg Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd Edn) Thomson
3781
John Darzentas and Jenny Darzentas
Morelli, N. (2003) Product-service systems, a perspective shift for designers: A case study: the design of a telecentre, Design Studies 24, 73–99 Morelli N. (2006) Developing new product service systems (PSS): methodologies and operational tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 2006; 14: 1495-1501 Mugadza, G.S (2014) Systems Thinking and Design Thinking: Complimentary approaches. Systems Thinking World Journal, Vol 4. Feb 9, Nelson, H.G. and Stolterman, E. (2012) The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World: Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence MIT Press (2nd Edn)Cambridge, MA: Ng, C.L., Maull, R &Yip, N. (2009) Outcome-based contracts as a driver for systems thinking and service-dominant logic in service science: Evidence from the defence industry European Management Journal, 27, 377-387 Norman, D. (2010) Living with Complexity MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Pourdehnad, J., Wexler, E.R. & Wilson, D.V. (2011) Systems and Design Thinking: A Conceptual Framework for their Integration Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Science pp 807-822 http://journals.isss.org/ Rathmell J.M. (1966) What is Meant by Services? Journal of Marketing, 30, 32-36. Regan W.J. (1963) The Service Revolution Journal of Marketing, 47, 57-62. Ryan, A. J. (2014) A framework for Systemic Design, FORMAkademisk 7(4), 1-14 Sevaldson, B. 2009. 'Why should we and how can we make the design process more complex? A new look at the systems approach in design' in Shaping Futures. Berg, M.L. (Ed). Oslo School of Architecture and Design Sevaldson, B. 2011. 'GIGA-Mapping: Visualisation for complexity and systems thinking in design NORDES 2011 http://tinyurl.com/oogplgr Shostack G. (1977) Breaking Free from Product Marketing Journal of Marketing, 41, 73-80 Tran, T. A. and Park, J.Y. (2015) Development of integrated design methodology for various types of product-service systems Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 1 (1) 37-47 Tukker A. (2004) Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet Business Strategy and the Environment 13: 246-260. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004) Evolving to a new service dominant logic for marketing Journal of Marketing, 68, 1-17 Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2008) Service dominant logic: continuing the evolution Journal of Marketing, 36, 1-10 Vargo,S.L. Maglio, P.P. & Akaka, M.A (2008) On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective, European Management Journal 26(3) 145-152 UNCTD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2013) http://tinyurl.com/q3q9yuq Valtonen, A. (2010) Is systemic design the next big thing for the Design profession? Proceedings of Design Research Society Conference http://tinyurl.com/prhpwwr Vosinakis, S., Koutsabasis, P., Stavrakis, M., Viorres, N., Darzentas, J. (2008) Virtual Environments for Collaborative Design: Requirements and Guidelines from a Social Action Perspective CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 133-150 Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry L.L. (1985) Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing Journal of Marketing, 49, 33 - 46.
3782
Product-Service Systems or Service Design ‘By-Products’? A Systems Thinking Approach
About the Authors: Professor John Darzentas established the Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, University of the Aegean. His interests are wide-ranging and include Systems Thinking and Design; Service Design; Human Computer Interaction; Universal Design; Learning Technologies (MOOCs), and issues of Multi-Inter-TransDisciplinarity Dr Jenny Darzentas is a lecturer in the Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, University of the Aegean. Her interests are in Information Design; Universal Design (practices-policies); Service Design (self-services for vulnerable populations); Learning Technologies; Standards for Accessible Design.
3783
This page is left intentionally blank
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP: a strategic design tool Silvia Emili*, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison Brunel University London *silvia.emili@brunel.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.349
Abstract: About 1.4 billion people from the Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) currently lack sustainable energy services. In these contexts, SMEs and practitioners need to combine feasible technical solutions and appropriate business models. Distributed Renewable Energy (DRE) systems emerge as possible solution to provide small-scale and locally based electricity. DRE can be implemented with sustainable business models (Product-Service Systems – PSS) that shift the business focus from selling products to providing a combination of products and services that are able to fulfil customers’ satisfaction. In this paper we explore the combination of DRE and PSS by presenting a strategic design tool that aims at supporting SMEs and practitioners in designing sustainable business models for energy in the BoP. The tool finds several applications which have been tested with companies and practitioners in South Africa and Botswana. The new version of the tool is then presented to support ideageneration for designing business models for energy access for the BoP. Keywords: Product-Service Systems (PSS), Distributed Renewable Energy (DRE), Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP), strategic design tool
1. Introduction One of the greatest challenges nowadays is to provide clean energy services to the so-called Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP), the around 4 billion people living with less than $1500 per year (Prahalad & Hart 2002). Among them, 1.4 billion people lack access to modern electricity (OECD-IEA 2010) and they live mostly in urban slums or rural areas in low-income and developing contexts. The lack of energy access represents a fundamental barrier to development and it is in fact addresses in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all) (UN 2014). In low-income and developing contexts the grid connection is not suitable to satisfy energy This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
needs in the short term due to infrastructure constraints, financial barriers and required policy measures (Zerriffi 2011; Myers 2013). Furthermore BoP customers usually have low energy demand and a large part of their income, about 30%, is spent usually to buy small expensive units from a diverse range of dangerous and polluting sources (e.g. kerosene, LPG, dry-cell and car batteries) for cooking, heating and lightning (IFC & WRI 2007). Hence the little financial availability of BoP customers is not adequate to ensure economic sustainability of grid extension. For these reasons Distributed Generation (DG) appears as a viable option to provide energy services (Zeriffi 2011). Distributed Generation is defined as “electric power generation within distribution network or on the customer’s side of the network” (Ackerman et al. 2001). When Distributed Generation uses renewable energy sources, such as hydropower, sun, biomass, wind or geothermal power, we refer to Distributed Renewable Energy (DRE). Many authors agree on the benefits of DG in providing energy access to off-grid customers, such as lower transmission costs for remote regions; greater flexibility and economic resilience; reduced environmental impact, democratisation of energy access and communities self-sufficiency (Friebe et al. 2013; Terrado et al. 2008; Zerriffi 2011). However, even if promising, the implementation of DRE models is not always straightforward. There are in fact some technological barriers (e.g. limited capacity, low voltage and transmission). However, in most cases the issue is not of a technical matter. DRE systems require adequate policies (Beck & Martinot 2004; Terrado et al. 2008) but the biggest barrier is an economic one: companies venturing in these contexts need access to capital. Most importantly, solutions must be affordable for low-income customers, who have a very limited purchasing power and cannot pay a high initial investment. Enabling local maintenance is another key issue (Schäfer et al. 2011; Terrado et al. 2008). There are several examples of DRE systems that stopped working short time after installation because of the lack of a planned maintenance and repair service. Thus, it is a matter of designing appropriate business models (Jun et al. 2013). In this context the model of Product-Service System (PSS) emerge to be relevant. In a PSS, defined as “a mix of tangible products and intangible services designed and combined so that they are jointly capable of fulfilling final customer needs” (Tukker & Tischner 2006), the business focus shifts from just selling products to providing customer’s satisfaction (e.g. from selling lighting systems to providing an agreed amount of lux). In terms of environmental sustainability, PSSs presents several advantages: when properly designed, PSSs can decouple economic value from consumption of materials and energy (White et al., 1999; Stahel 2000; Heiskanen & Jalas 2000; Wong, 2001; Zaring et al. 2001; UNEP 2002).This means that providers are economically motivated to reduce energy and material resources to provide the agreed satisfaction to customers because they are paid per unit of performance and not per unit of product sold. In this way the stakeholders providing the PSS are interested in improving productivity, for example by producing long lasting products and avoiding disposal and manufacturing of new products (Halme et al. 2004).
3786
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
In BoP markets PSSs can tackle challenges where traditional business models fail in reaching customers (Shäfer et al. 2011) by offering integrated solutions instead of traditional productfocused approaches (Jagtap & Larsson 2013). PSSs have been studied as promising models for reaching BoP customers by several authors (Castillo et al. 2012; Jagtap & Larsson 2013; Shafer et al. 2011; Moe & Boks 2010). The reasons why this type of value proposition is suitable for BoP markets are several: PSSs favour a low-resource intensive economy that can facilitate socio and economic development by jumping the stages of individual consumption/ownership (Tukker & Tischner 2004); these value propositions can address some critical BoP issue such as resource use and waste due to their sustainability potential (Schafer & Parks 2011); they enable communities to access services and products through new business models that favour locally-based solutions (Castillo et al. 2012); PSSs represents a more accessible alternative for lower-income customers who cannot afford to pay for the whole value of products (Tukker et al. 2006). Within the applications of Product-Service Systems in BoP markets, energy access appears as a sector where PSSs and DRE models can be successfully combined. In fact, the combination of these models present several benefits: environmental ones (reduced environmental impact, increased reliability and efficiency); economic advantages (lower costs of transmission, reduced investment costs, flexibility) and socio-ethical benefits (increased energy independence, strengthening of local economies and increase of employment, customisation to users’ needs) (Vezzoli et al. 2015). An example of PSS applied to DRE: Gram Power, India Gram Power connects households and small businesses in off-grid villages through mini grid running on solar, wind or biomass power. Customers get connected and receive a 240 VAC connection to plug the appliances they need. Once the micro grid is installed, Gram Power recruits a local entrepreneur and trains him/her for operation, management and fee collection. Customers have smart meters installed and pre-pay for the energy they consume while the entrepreneur earns a commission fee on the energy credits. Gram Power keeps ownership of the energy systems and distribution systems and remains responsible for maintenance and repairs.
Although PSS, DRE and BoP concepts have been widely explored by scholars, there is a lack of studies that look at these models combined and that provide design-supporting methods and tools for practitioners and companies operating in these contexts. A variety of methodologies and tools exist for PSS design (Beuren et al. 2013) but none of them has a specific focus on energy. Morelli (2006) in fact states that the PSS discipline has not yet defined a standard set of tools that support the design process but that these apply differently according to the context of use. On the other side, DRE tools and methodologies provide guidelines, successful examples and best practices by focusing solely on one or few aspects at time. Schillebeeckx et al. (2012) affirm that DRE literature focuses either on the applications of different technologies, or the
3787
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
impacts of specific projects, on the institutional and regulatory factors or on the financial and business aspects The literature on design for the BoP and design of PSS in BoP contexts focuses mainly on design approaches and strategies without providing specific tools for specific issues. Some authors consider the application of PSS tools (Moe & Boks 2010; Jagtap & Kandachar 2011; Jagtap & Larsson 2013) and in particular Moe & Boks (2011) combine some of the PSS tools (stakeholder mapping or network analysis, value creation and focus on customers) with BoP strategies (stakeholders involvement and co-design, avoiding business as usual). In terms of energy access, specific tools that link PSS design applied to BoP contexts are missing. The aim of this investigation is to look into the applications of PSS to DRE for the Bottom of the Pyramid customers and to provide supporting tools for SMEs (Small Medium Enterprises) and practitioners for designing energy services for the BoP. The first part of this research aimed at exploring PSS and DRE models and classifying them (Emili et al. 2015; Emili et al. 2016) and in this paper we summarise its findings and conclusions. In this paper we present the latest outcome: the PSS+DRE Innovation Map, a tool to classify PSSs applied to DRE models and to support SMEs and practitioners in designing sustainable energy systems for BoP contexts. The paper is structured as follows. First we illustrate the methodology adopted in this research. Then we describe the first version of the PSS+DRE innovation map and how it has been tested and evaluated. In the last section we present the improved version and its applications as strategic design tool for SMEs for generating sustainable PSS ideas for energy access in BoP contexts. We conclude discussing future research activities.
2. Methodology The methodological approach adopted in this research has been structured in three stages: a theory building approach1 and case studies analysis has been applied to develop the first version of the Innovation Map. The tool has then been tested in Botswana and South Africa with local companies, energy experts and practitioners. The feedback collected has been used to refine the Innovation Map and develop new features and applications. The three steps, illustrated in Figure 1, are detailed as following: 1. Development of the 1st version of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map. Drawing conclusions from the literature review and having identified the main characterising dimensions of PSS and DRE, the Innovation Map is built with a polarity diagram (Section 3.1). The map has been then empirically populated with 56 case studies, bundled in groups of similar cases. This process has led to the identification of 15 archetypal models of PSS applied to DRE that present key similar characteristics (Figure 4). 1
This refers to the "analytical conceptual research" approach (Meredith 1998; Wacker 1998) and involves the integration of literatures from different backgrounds, in this case PSS and DRE, and proposing relationships between their variables. The aim is to build new insights starting from the defined concepts of PSS and DRE and logically develop the relationships between them.
3788
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
2. Testing activities. The first version of the Innovation Map and its archetypal models has been used as strategic design tool by companies and practitioners operating in Botswana and South Africa. The aim was to test its completeness, its ease of use and its usefulness. In total 21 participants (from eight companies, one research centre on innovation and technology, one design consultancy and five DRE experts) have been engaged in the activities. Testing activities were structured as follows: Introduction: participants were introduced to the concept of PSS applied to DRE. Testing the completeness: in order to validate the completeness of the tool, we asked companies and experts to verify that the tool can include all possible models of PSS applied to DRE and that archetypal models comprehend all existing cases of PSS+DRE. Testing the ease of use: with the purpose of verifying the ease of use and clarity of the tool, we asked participants to position a set of five case studies on the PSS+DRE Innovation Map. Testing the usefulness: in a third phase, participants were asked to use the tool for mapping their offers, analyse the energy context, explore new business opportunities and to rate the applications of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map. Feedback and suggestions have been collected through questionnaires and the results are presented in Section 3.2. 3. Refinement and new features. The testing activities led to draw some considerations for improving the tool. In Section 4 the new PSS+DRE Innovation Map is presented as a strategic design tool that supports the idea generation process of PSS applied to DRE.
3789
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
Figure 1 - Methodology adopted in this research
3790
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
3. The PSS+DRE Innovation Map: first version 3.1 PSS and DRE: characterising dimensions and classifications Both PSS and DRE models have been extensively explored by scholars, but there is a lack of research that studies the combination of these models and a classification that encompasses both. In PSSs literature, most authors use the classification proposed by Tukker (2004) which distinguishes three categories of Product-Service Systems and their eight archetypal models (Table 1): Product-oriented PSS: a value proposition where the provider(s) sells products with additional services concerning the life-cycle of the products involved (e.g. maintenance, repair, recycling) Use-oriented PSS: a value offer where the provider(s) offers the access to a product or tool or capability that enables him to get the desired satisfaction. The customer pays for the time the product is used without a shift in ownership. Result-oriented PSS: a value proposition where the provider(s) offers a “final result” as combination of products and services that fulfil customer’s satisfaction. In this case users do not own and operate on the products, but they pay to receive the integrated solution. Table 1 - PSS archetypal models considered by Tukker (2004) PSS archetypal models Product-oriented
1- Advice and consultancy 2- Product-related services
Use-oriented
3- Leasing model 4- Renting/sharing model 5- Pooling model
Result-oriented
6- Activity management 7- Pay per service unit 8- Functional result
While the PSS classification is largely accepted by scholars, on the other hand DRE literature presents different approaches in classifying these models and a unified classification that considers all dimensions is still missing. A broad differentiation classifies DRE systems in: Stand-alone energy systems: off-grid generation serving a single user (Rolland 2011). They can be differentiated in: - Mini kits: composed by a small generator (1-25W) and appliances (e.g. lights, phone chargers). - Individual energy systems: fixed system installed at a household, business activity or at a larger community building (e.g. hospital).
3791
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
- Charging stations: individual system composed of generator and storage system for the provision of charging services or other energy-related services (e.g. internet connection) (Rolland 2011).  Grid-based systems: it is composed by a large generation system with a local distribution network and it can be connected or not to the main electricity grid. - Isolated mini grids: independent grids that supply power locally. - Connected mini grids: grids that supply electricity through the local distribution and are able to exchange power with the main electricity grid. In order to fill the lack of a shared classification, the first part of this research aimed at identifying the major characterising dimensions used in literature to classify PSS and DRE models, i.e. the elements used to describe these models and their relative classifications (Emili et al. 2015; Emili et al. 2016). In particular, a detailed analysis of literature of PSS and DRE models has been carried out with the purpose of identifying the dimensions used to classify PSS and DRE models. Once these have been determined, we have established PSS+DRE characterising dimensions (Emili et al., 2016). These are summarised in Table 2. Table 2 - Dimensions describe PSS applied to DRE PSS Dimensions
DRE dimension
PSS+DRE dimensions and description
Energy system
Energy system: Defines the connection type (stand-alone, grid-based systems) and renewable source involved (solar, wind, biomass etc.)
Value proposition / payment structure
Value proposition / payment structure: Represents the value offered to the customer, i.e. the combination of product and services for which the customer is willing to pay.
Capital financing
Capital financing: Describes how the capital costs are covered (e.g. loans, grants, subsidies etc.)
Energy system ownership
Ownership (of energy system & energy-using products): Refers to who owns the energy system and products involved in the offer, i.e. the provider, the end user or a number of users.
-
Organisational form
Organisational form: Defines the type of organisation providing the energy solution (private company, NGO, cooperative, community etc.)
Product operation
Energy system operation
Energy system operation1: Defines who operates the energy system.
-
Value proposition / payment structure -
Products ownership1
1
In PSS classification the ownership refers to all products involved in the PSS solution, while DRE ownership refers only to the energy system.
3792
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
-
Provider/customer relationship
Environmental sustainability potential
Target customer
Target customer: Indicates the type of end-user (e.g. household, community, public building etc.)
-
Provider/customer relationship: Refers to the nature and intensity of interaction between the two actors and varies from transaction-based (product-oriented PSSs) to relationship-based (result-oriented PSSs) according to the responsibilities and activities performed on the product.
-
Environmental sustainability potential: Refers to the PSS environmental impact, which can potentially be lower than traditional productbased business models. It generally goes from high sustainability potential in result-oriented PSSs, to low sustainability potential in productoriented PSSs.
3.1 PSS+DRE Innovation Map Having defined the dimensions characterising PSS and DRE models, the first version of the PSS+DRE innovation map has been built by clustering the majority of them (eight out of ten) in two groups. The innovation map is essentially a polarity diagram that aligns these dimensions (Figure 2): –
‘x’ axis: on the horizontal axis we combined the energy system and the target customer dimensions. These are in fact strictly related: stand-alone systems satisfy individual use of energy, from smaller (mini kits) to larger generation (individual energy systems). Charging stations target groups of users but they still allow the individual use of products (e.g. lanterns sharing systems). Lastly, PSSs using mini grids target communities of a variety of users.
‘y’ axis: on the vertical axis we combined several dimensions together. The value proposition/payment structure can be aligned with the ownership (of energy system and energy-using products) as they range from user-owned products (in Product-oriented PSSs) to provider-owned products (in Use and Result-oriented PSSs). Energy system operation can also be aligned with the value proposition because it refers to who operates on the energy system. In Product-oriented PSS the user operates on the energy system while moving towards Result-oriented this becomes responsibility of the PSS provider. The provider/customer relationship ranges from being transaction-based (selling products) in Product-oriented PSSs, to relationship-based in Result-oriented PSSs where a more intense relationship between provider and customer is established. For these reasons it is aligned with the value proposition. Lastly, the environmental sustainability potential is higher in
1
The PSS+DRE dimension, energy system operation, refers only to the operation of the energy system. Energy-using products in fact are always operated by the user, thus it is not considered as a PSS+DRE dimension.
3793
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
result-based solutions1 and it can also be aligned in this axis.
Figure 2 - Dimensions selection and combination to form the polarity diagram
Figure 3 represents the PSS+DRE Innovation Map as polarity diagram while the Innovation Map populated with case studies and clustered in 15 archetypal models is showed in Figure 4 (Emili et al. 2016). The archetypes represent different types of existing PSS models applied to DRE, meaning that each archetype encompasses similar cases in terms of offering type, target customer and energy system involved but that other elements, such as financing models or organisational form, can differ from case to case. The Innovation Map finds several applications not only as a classification system for PSS applied to DRE, but also a strategic design tool for SMEs and practitioners. In fact, it can be applied to explore all possible models of PSS+DRE, to position companies’ offers and map competitors in a selected geographic area, to explore new business opportunities by repositioning and combining offers. More in details, the applications of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map are discussed in the following section.
1
Environmental sustainability potential:
3794
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
Figure 3 - The PSS+DRE Innovation Map
3795
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
Figure 4 - The PSS+DRE Innovation Map populated with case studies which have been grouped in 15 archetypal models
3796
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
3.2 Empirical applications and testing The first version of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map and its archetypal models has been empirically tested in order to verify its completeness, ease to use and its usefulness as strategic design tool. In the following paragraphs we summarise the main outcomes of the testing activities with companies, experts and practitioners.
3.2.1 Tool’s completeness This step aimed at demonstrating that the PSS+DRE innovation map can encompass all possible models of PSS+DRE and that archetypal models cover all existing models of PSS+DRE. We asked participants to indicate whether they know other cases that could be included in the archetypal models and all of them (21 out of 21 responses) were not able to identify cases that fall out of 15 archetypes (Table 3). This means that the Innovation Map represents a complete picture of PSS applied to DRE models.
3.2.2 Tool’s ease of use A second step aimed at validating the ease of use, i.e. we intended to demonstrate that the meaning of the axis could be easily understood by users and that the classification system is clear. In order to prove that, we asked participants to position case studies on the Innovation Map and to rate the tool’s usability through the questionnaire. Most interviewees mapped the cases correctly (87% has been placed properly). Participants commend the clarity of the tool (“ the visual nature of the mapping tool makes it extremely user-friendly”; “[the map] clearly separates cases [offers] making it easy to use”) and considered the positioning of cases simple to perform, however some suggested few improvements to help distinguishing PSS types with short text descriptions and colourcoding (see Section 3.3).
3.2.3 Tool’s usefulness Application 1: analysis of energy solutions provided in a specific context. The first application of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map lies in mapping energy solutions in a selected geographical area. For example companies can map their competitors by exploring the most diffuse type of energy system in a specific market and the type of offering provided (Figure 5). Another opportunity lies in mapping offerings for a selected technology (e.g. solar home systems) and in visualising which empty areas on the map can be potentially explored (Figure 6). Interviewees support this application of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map and expressed appreciation in using the tool for picturing “gaps in the market” and get a ”better understanding of competition”.
3797
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
Figure 5 - The Innovation Maps used for mapping existing energy offers in a determined context (adapted for optimised view)
Figure 6 - The Innovation Map used for mapping offerings relative to a selected technology (individual energy systems)
3798
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
Application 2: mapping of companies’ offer(s). Companies can use the PSS+DRE Innovation Map to position their offerings on the map. A company can simultaneously position more than one offering, for instance selling individual energy systems with additional services offer a- and renting energy-using products through charging stations –offer b- (Figure 7). Similarly to the exercise of positioning case studies, participants have been asked to position their offerings. Most of them found this application of the tool very useful: they appreciated the fact they could understand better the existing offerings in relation to potential alternatives and that they stated they would use the tool for this purpose in the future (“A company can easily locate where it fits in”; “companies can see where they are and plan where they want to be”).
Figure 7 - The Innovation Map used for mapping a company's offers
Application 3: exploration of new business opportunities. Companies can use the PSS+DRE Innovation Map to explore new scenarios by repositioning their offers or by combining different offers together. For instance a company selling individual energy systems with additional services -offer a- can shift towards a leasing model –offer A1- (Figure 8). Another application is for companies that can combine more offers together, for example by offering energy services through individual systems on a pay-per-consumption basis and, at the same time, providing renting of energy-using products charged through the same energy system – offers B+B1 - . Interviewees appreciated the possibility of picturing new business
3799
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
opportunities and exploring innovative models of providing energy solutions (“it paints a picture of opportunities that lie outside of what [the company] does” and “[explore] other ways by providing solutions instead of the traditional way of selling products”).
Figure 8 - The Innovation Map is used to explore new opportunities: offering repositioning and combination of two offers. Table 3 - Feedback collected from the questionnaires with companies, practitioners and experts Testing the completeness
1. Can you think of other types of offer or other examples/cases that are not included in the archetypal models? If yes, which ones?
100% of interviewees (21/21) agreed that there are no other cases that fall outside the classification system and that cannot be included in the archetypal models.
Testing the ease of use
3800
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
Questions
1: very poor
2: poor
3: sufficient
4: good
5: very good
Average
2. To what extent is the classification system easy to understand (i.e. the meaning of each axis is clear)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (10%)
7 (33%)
12(57%)
4.5
3. To what extent is the positioning of case studies in the classification system easy for you?
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (10%)
6 (28%)
13 (62%)
4.5
Questions
1: very poor
2: poor
3: sufficient
4: good
5: very good
Average
4. The classification system is intended to be used for positioning a company’s offer(s). To what extent is the classification system contributing to the achievement of this objective?
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (10%)
8 (38%)
11 (52%)
4.4
4.1 Would you use the classification system for this purpose in the future?
Yes: 21 (100%) No 0 (0%)
5. The classification system is intended to be used for mapping the existing offers of PSS applied to DRE (competitors in the same business sector, other companies operating in the selected context etc.). To what extent is the classification system contributing to the achievement of this objective?
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
9 (43%)
11 (52%)
4.5
5.1 Would you use the classification system for this purpose in the future?
Yes: 20 (94%) No 1 (6%)
6. The classification system is intended to be used for exploring new business
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
12 (57%)
9 (43%)
4.4
Testing the usefulness
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3801
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
opportunities (repositioning of offer, combination of different offers). To what extent is the classification system contributing to the achievement of this objective? 6.1 Would you use the classification system for this purpose in the future?
Yes: 21 (100%) No 0 (0%)
7. The classification system and archetypal models can be used for generating ideas. To what extent is the classification system contributing to the achievement of this objective?
0 (0%)
7.1 Would you use the classification system for this purpose in the future?
Yes: 21 (100%) No 0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
7 (33%)
13 (62%)
4.6
3.3 Considerations and new design opportunities Some issues and limitations emerged from the testing activities. Regarding the completeness of the tool, participants confirmed that the archetypes cover all existing models and that all possible models of PSS+DRE can be mapped on the tool. This however can be linked to the fact that participants were from a similar socio-economic context (Botswana and South Africa) and that they might have a limited overview of the energy sector. Future testing activities will aim at involving a broader number of companies and practitioners from different geographical contexts. Other issues led to improve the tool. In particular, in relation to the ease of use, some participants reported initial doubts in distinguishing between renting and leasing models and between mini kits and individual energy systems. Although they affirmed it was mainly related to more time needed to fully understand the Innovation Map, we added a short text description of both PSS types and energy systems to avoid confusion distinguishing different PSS+DRE model. We also differentiated PSSs types with colour-coding (red, orange and yellow) and thus simplified their classification. The testing activities also led to identify new design opportunities to add features to the PSS+DRE Innovation Map. What emerged is that the tool can support strategic conversations within a company’s managerial team and facilitate discussions about the existing situation and new innovation in the chosen context. Participants have particularly appreciated the possibility of
3802
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
envisioning new business opportunities and plan what possible offerings the companies might add to their portfolio. This application resulted from positioning companies’ offers and during the discussion about the identification of new solutions. These feedback and the fact that participants endorsed the potential application of the tool for generating ideas (Table 3) led to explore the application of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map as tool to generate new sustainable business models that could support SMEs in generating PSS+DRE design concepts. In the following section we present the second version of the Innovation Map and its applications as supporting tool for sustainable business model generation.
4. The new PSS+DRE Innovation Map: a tool to generate sustainable business models for energy 4.1 New features Drawing conclusions from the testing activities, the PSS+DRE Innovation Map has been improved with new features that allow the tool to be applied in idea generation sessions for designing sustainable energy solutions. We added a step-by-step guide on the left-hand side of the map, which explains the main steps to be undertaken (Figure 9). The idea generation is thought to be structured in layers: first by drawing a picture of the current situation which consists in positioning the company’s offers, its competitors in the selected context and choosing the areas that are promising to be explored. Then, the idea generation layer includes all design elements of new PSSs applied to DRE: target customers, products and services included, the network of stakeholders and payment modality.
3803
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
Figure 9 - The new PSS+DRE Innovation Map with a step-by-step guide for Phase 1: the current situation
3804
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
Figure 10 - Detail of the step-by-step guide for Phase 1
3805
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
3806
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
Figure 12 - Detail of the step-by-step guide of Phase 2: Idea generation
3807
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
4.2 Applications of the new PSS+DRE Innovation Map 7. Phase 1: the current situation. The first step aims at picturing the current scenario of competitors, existing energy solutions and the company’s offerings. Following the same dynamics of the previously tested applications, the new PSS+DRE Innovation Map presents a step-by-step guide to position the competitors’ offerings, map the company’s existing offers and select an area that users want to explore (Fig 13). At the end of this stage, users will be able to draw a picture of gaps in the market and envisage possible solutions to explore.
Figure 13 - The PSS+DRE Innovation Map describes the current situation of company's offer, competitors and promising models to explore
8. Phase 2: idea generation. The second step focuses on using the tool for generating innovative solutions of PSS applied to DRE. In this phase, users follow the guide on the left-hand side of the tool that suggests what elements need to be considered when designing PSS applied to DRE. In order to facilitate the idea-generation process, the step-by-step guide is composed of specific questions and accompanied with colour-coded post-it notes to write down ideas and place them on the map.
3808
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
In particular, the first step is to detail the type of target customer, specifying for example if the PSS addresses the needs of households, small businesses, or communities of a variety of users. Users write down their ideas and place the postit on the area they are planning to explore. Then the idea generation focuses on detailing the products and services provided in the offer, specifying what type of energy-using products are included (e.g. lights or phone chargers) and what services are provided (e.g. maintenance, upgrade). In a third moment, the stakeholders involved in the provision of the energy solution are listed with their roles in providing the PSS solution (e.g. manufacturing company, local NGOs). Detailing the payment modality completes the process, i.e. specifying how users are paying for the energy solution (e.g. mobile payments, monthly fee collection). Moreover, during the idea generation, the archetypal models descriptions with case studies are used to support the process as inspiration for SMEs and practitioners. For each area of the map it is possible to brainstorm different ideas, therefore, placing several post-its and grouping them as concepts with several ideas (see Figure 14). The final result is a set of concepts that encompass all the design elements of PSSs applied to DRE. For example, as showed in Figure 14, two concepts emerge from the “Offering individual energy systems in leasing�: the first one involves solar home systems and appliances to be leased to households; the second one refers to leasing wind systems and appliances to productive activities. These ideas can then be further selected and developed when refining the concepts.
3809
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
Figure 14 - Detail of a complete session of idea generation and how the generated ideas form PSS+DRE concepts, by including all design elements
3810
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
4.3 Discussion The PSS+DRE Innovation Map can be used to design sustainable energy solutions by SMEs, practitioners and other actors involved in the energy sector. By embedding most of the characterising dimensions of DRE systems and adopting a systemic approach, the Innovation Map aims at simultaneously consider several aspects of the energy solution, not only in terms of technology options but also considering the target customer, network of providers, services offered, type of offer and payment methods . For this reason, this study aims at filling the lack of a comprehensive approach that currently characterises DRE literature and tools. In comparison to other tools used in the PSS literature or for generating solutions applied to BoP contexts, the Innovation Map adds a specific focus on energy and combines some of the approaches used in PSS literature: the strategic analysis, the exploration of opportunities and PSS idea generation. In sum, the new PSS+DRE Innovation Map supports the creation of sustainable energy business models by combining three elements: a PSS design approach with a narrow focus on energy, a multi-dimensional approach to the design of DRE models that include most elements of energy solutions, a systemic approach required to target BoP markets.
5. Conclusions and future research activities This research aims at exploring the application of Product-Service Systems to Distributed Renewable Energy in BoP markets and at designing supporting tools for SMEs and practitioners venturing in these contexts. The first results led to identifying the characterising dimensions of PSS+DRE models and providing a classification system. By populating the system with case studies we identified a set of 15 archetypal models that illustrate the applications of PSS and DRE. The classification system can be applied not only to understand the applications of PSSs to DRE but also as a strategic design tool: the PSS+DRE Innovation Map. Validation of the tool has been achieved by using it with companies, experts and practitioners and we have identified its several applications: the tool is used for mapping competitors in a specific context, to position companies’ offerings and to explore new business opportunities. Drawing feedback from the testing activities, we identified new features and applications of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map: it can be used as a tool to support the idea generation of sustainable energy solutions for the BoP. The new version of the PSS+DRE Innovation Map is presented in this paper with its applications for supporting the design process of PSS applied to DRE. Further research activities will focus on testing its envisioned applications in idea-generation sessions with companies and practitioners in Kenya and South Africa.
3811
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
Acknowledgements: This research is framed within the LeNSes project (Learning Network for Sustainable energy systems), a three yearlong project funded by the EU (Edulink II) that involves seven African and European Universities.
6. References Ackermann T., Andersson G., Söder L. (2001) Distributed generation: a definition. Electric Power System Research 57 194-204 Beck F. & Martinot E. (2004) Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers. Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 5. Elsevier Inc. Beuren F., Gomes Ferreira M., Cauchick Miguel P. (2013) Product-Service Systems: a literature review on integrated products and services. Journal of Cleaner Production 47, 221-231 Castillo L.G., Diehl J.C., Brezet J.C. (2012) Design Considerations for Base of the Pyramid (BoP) Projects. Proceedings of the Cumulus Helsinki 2012 Conference Friebe C. a., Flotow P. Von, & Täube F. a. (2013) Exploring the link between products and services in low-income markets—Evidence from solar home systems. Energy Policy, 52, 760–769. Halme M., Jasch C., Scharp M. (2004) Sustainable homeservices? Toward household services that enhance ecological, social and economic sustainability. Ecological Economics 51 (1-2), 125-138 Heiskanen E., Jalas M. (2000) Dematerialisation through Services: A Review and Evaluation of the Debate. Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Department. IFC & WRI (2007) The Next 4 Billion — Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid. Washington, USA: International Finance Corporation and World Resources Institute Emili S., Ceschin F., Harrison D. (2015) Product-Service Systems applied to Distributed Renewable Energy systems: a classification system and a strategic design tool. Conference proocedings KIDEC – Indigenuous Design - Kampala 2015 Emili S., Ceschin F., Harrison D. (2016) Product-Service Systems applied to Distributed Renewable Energy: a classification system and 15 archetypal models. Energy for Sustainable Development (in press) Jagtap S., Larsson A.(2013) Design of Product Service Systems at the Base of the Pyramid. International Conference on Research into Design, Chennai, India. A. Chakrabarti and R. V. Prakash (eds.), ICoRD’13, Springer India. Jun S., Dongmyung L., Park J. (2013) Determining business models in bottom-of-the-pyramid markets. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113 1064-1082 Meredith J. (1993) Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, 3-11. Myers S. (2013) The Economic Challenge of Rural Electrification : Community Solutions Initiative in Africa. Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), IEEE. Moe H.P., Boks C. (2010) Product Service Systems and the Base of the Pyramid: A Telecommunications Perspective. CIRP IPS2 Conference 2010 Morelli N. (2006) Developing new product service systems (PSS): methodologies and operational tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, pp. 1495-1501 OECD/IEA (2010) Energy poverty. How to make modern energy access universal? World Energy Outlook, Paris
3812
Supporting SMEs in designing sustainable business models for energy access for the BoP
Prahalad C.K. & Hart, S. (2002) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy+Business Magazine Issue 26. Rolland S. (2011) Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy. Technologies , quality standards and business models. Alliance for Rural Electrification (ARE) Brussel, Belgium Schäfer M., Kebir N., Neumann K. (2011) Research needs for meeting the challenge of decentralized energy supply in developing countries. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 324–329. Schafer C., Parks R., Rai R. (2011) Design for emerging Bottom of the Pyramid markets: a ProductService System (PSS) based approach. Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Washington DC 2011. Schillebeeckx S.J.D., Parikh P., Bansal R., George G. (2012) An integrated framework for rural electrification: Adopting a user-centric approach to business model development. Energy Policy 48, 687–697 Stahel W.R, et. al. (2000) From Manufacturing Industry to a Service Economy, from Selling Products to Selling the Performance of Products. Geneva: Product-Life Institute. Terrado E., Cabraal R. A., Mukherjee I. (2008) Designing Sustainable Off-Grid Rural Electrification Projects: Principles and Practices. Operational Guidance for World Bank Group staff, Washington Tukker A. (2004) Eight types of Product-Service: eight ways to Sustainability? Experiences from Suspronet. Wiley InterScience, 260, 246–260. Tukker A. & U. Tischner (2004) New business for old Europe: Product Service Systems as means to enhance competitiveness and ecoefficiency. Final report of Suspronet Tukker A., Tischner U., and Verkuijl M. (2006) Product-services and Sustainability. In: Tukker, A., and Tischner, U. (eds.) New business for Old Europe. Product Services, Sustainability and Competitiveness. Sheffield: Greenleaf publishers. Tukker A. & Tischner U. (2006) Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1552–1556. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2002) Product-Service Systems and Sustainability. Opportunities for Sustainable Solutions. UNEP, Division of Technology Industry and Economics, Production and Consumption Branch, Paris. United Nations General Assembly (2014) Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals. Vezzoli C., Ceschin F., Diehl. J.C. (2015) Sustainable Product-Service System Design applied to Distributed Renewable Energy Fostering the goal of sustainable energy for all. Journal of Cleaner Production. Wacker J.G. (1998) A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 361385. White A.L., Stoughton M., Feng L. (1999) Servicizing: The Quiet Transition to Extended Product Responsibility. Boston: Tellus Institute Wong M. (2001) Industrial Sustainability (IS) and Product Service Systems (PSS): A strategic Decision Support Tool for Consumer Goods Firms. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering Zaring O., Bartolomeo M., Eder P., Hopkinson P., Groenewegen P., James P., de Jong P., Nijhuis L., Scholl G., Slob A., Örninge M. (2001) Creating Eco-Efficient Producer Services, report of an EU project. Gothenburg Research Institute, Gothenburg.
3813
Silvia Emili, Fabrizio Ceschin and David Harrison
Zerriffi H. (2011) Rural Electrification. Strategies for Distributed Generation. Springer International Publishing.
About the Authors: Silvia Emili is a PhD design student at Brunel University London. With a background on sustainable Product-Service System and strategic design, she is currently exploring the applications of PSS to DRE systems and the design of sustainable business models for energy. She is an active member of the EU-funded LeNSes project. Fabrizio Ceschin is a Lecturer in Design for Sustainability at the Design Department of Brunel University London. He holds a BSc and MSc degrees in Industrial Design, and a Ph.D. degree (awarded by Politecnico di Milano in 2012) on the topic of sustainable ProductService Systems. He was research fellow at Politecnico di Milano before joining Brunel University London in September 2012. He has 10 years of research experience in the areas of Design for Sustainability, co-design and open innovation. His most recent book is ‘Sustainable Product-service Systems: Between Strategic Design and Transition Studies’, Springer (2014) David Harrison is a Professor of Design Research and Theme Leader for Sustainable Manufacturing at Brunel University London. David Harrison holds a Chair in Design in the College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences. He is a Chartered Engineer and has been an investigator on nineteen EPSRC grants, eight of these as principal investigator. He has research interests in sustainable design and printed electronics, and is a Member of the IET, and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.
3814
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges. Lynn Oxborrow* and Stella Claxton Nottingham Trent University * Lynn.oxborrow@ntu.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.482
Abstract: The environmental impact of clothing could be reduced if average garment lifetimes were increased. The paper explores the design and supply chain implications of clothing longevity, adapting models from sustainable clothing design research, and evidence from interviews and expert roundtables. The research concludes that the process of design for longevity could be adopted by clothing retailers and brands, but that the principles behind adopting this strategy lack credence in industry, because the mandate to do so, and robust business models, are lacking. The paper identifies a range of conflicting priorities between commercial and sustainable practice that must be addressed to reduce the environmental impact of clothing by extending its useful life, and makes recommendations for industry and future research. However, the limitations to adopting more sustainable practice relate to fashion and market segment, are systemic within the clothing supply chain and attempts to resolve these require a commercial imperative.
Keywords: Clothing longevity; sustainable design; supply chain management; new product development
1. Introduction Designing clothing that has a useful lifetime, extended beyond current norms, could help to reduce excessive, unsustainable product disposal and waste. However, for retailers to enhance clothing longevity would require the simultaneous adoption of new business models to reduce any impact on competitiveness (WRAP, 2012a), updated design practices to underpin both technical and emotional durability of clothing, and changes to consumer expectations and behaviour. To date, research has shown that, although over a third of the population claim that they could buy more clothes that are ‘made to last’ and would like to
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton
do so (WRAP, 2012b), there is limited evidence that this view is shared by industry strategists. The paper uses evidence from interviews and round table discussions with clothing industry stakeholders to explore the conflicting priorities, perceptions and tensions between commercial and sustainable practice in this emerging field. It goes on to discuss the drivers exerted on the new product development process and consequences for the supply chain that would be necessary to address the commercial, technical and design aspects of reducing the environmental impact of clothing through extending its useful life. The research on which the paper is based was undertaken for Defra (UK Department for Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs) and aims to identify ways to identify and overcome the problematic trade-offs concerned with extending clothing life-times and make recommendations for industry and future research.
2. Review of existing literature Longevity of clothing takes into account durability as well as user behaviour and wider sociocultural influences (Cooper, 2010). Drawing upon this understanding of longevity, a review of recent studies explored issues associated with clothing longevity from technical and consumer perspectives, as well as the commercial aspects of designing new clothing products and the clothing supply chain.
2.1 Clothing longevity: technical and consumer considerations Discarded clothing accounts for around 5% of total UK household waste, even though carbon, water and waste footprint studies indicate that extending the useful life of clothing, assuming this reduces product sales, could effectively reduce negative life-cycle impacts (WRAP, 2012). Most of these impacts are embedded in clothing production, rather than its use and care, and the WRAP report (2012) concluded that extending the active usage of clothing by an average of three months would reduce its carbon, water and waste footprint by 5-10%, while extending average clothing lifetime by one third could reduce its environmental footprint by over 20% (ibid). However, at present a range of fabric, component, construction and colour failures restrict clothing lifetimes, even though these are often avoidable (WRAP, 2014). WRAP (2012) estimates that 1.7m tonnes of materials are used annually to make some 1.14m tonnes of finished clothing in the UK. Of this 0.9% is wasted through premature product failure, and 48% discarded for re-use, but some 31%, or 350,000 tonnes, of used clothing is added to landfill every year. Designing products for longer lifetimes has therefore become a UK Government policy objective to minimise clothing sent to landfill, as well as reduce the amount of clothing waste produced through unnecessary production and early product failure. An assumption that longevity need not have a negative commercial impact if appropriate business models and pricing strategies are adopted is central to this policy (WRAP, 2013b) but appears to be at odds with the view of some clothing industry strategists.
3816
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges
However, research into consumer behaviour and expectations suggests that consumers, particularly the young, make increasingly regular purchases (Fisher et al., 2008) of low price, lower quality (Leonard, 2008), fast turnaround clothing (Black, 2008) and discard items they consider out of fashion (WRAP, 2012). While in the WRAP report (2012) only 21% of consumers said they consider the latest trends in fashion as influential when buying clothes, some 58% of 16-24 year olds admitted to owning clothes they consider too out-of-fashion to wear. Meanwhile, 57% of consumers owned clothes that remained unworn because they no longer fit (WRAP, 2012). Concern surrounding issues associated with fast fashion is increasingly evident from some retailers, consumers and media commentators (Muton, 2012). However, concerned consumers, primarily mature women who favour durable clothing and are influenced by the relationship between price, quality and value (Mintel Oxygen, 2011; WRAP, 2012; Fisher et al., 2008), create an opportunity to increase the longevity of classic items in particular. Furthermore, the relative importance of fit in determining clothing use suggests that design for adaptation and alteration is a potentially important contributor to clothing longevity, while schemes for clothing buy-back and re-use (WRAP, 2012) can help clothing lifetimes to be extended as an alternative to disposal in landfill. Increased garment longevity would clearly require changes in industry practices. For example, testing for product longevity by carrying out extended wearer trials can help product developers to make decisions that avoid or delay garment failure (Cooper et al., 2014), but the cost and time taken can be prohibitive. However, extreme durability testing for outdoor and sports clothing, and other recent advances in testing that could fit better with the supply chain’s speed and cost imperatives and better reflect consumer behaviour, are now available (Annis, 2012; Cooper et al., 2014).
2.2 Sustainable clothing design New product development (NPD) of clothing incorporates idea generation, market screening, commercialisation of concept and technical developments, leading to the design and specification for each clothing item (Swink, et al., 2010). NPD is an important contributor to clothing sustainability as some 80% of clothing’s environmental impact is determined at the design stage (Defra, 2011). Sustainable design requires multi-disciplinary co-operation between designers, merchandisers, business strategists, production teams, marketing staff, end of life and corporate responsibility managers in order to achieve both customer value and sustainable design (Hong, 2009; Curwen et al., 2012). This must be underpinned by organisational values and ethos, as well as a systems thinking approach to addressing all perspectives holistically (Hong et al., 2009) if those involved in NPD are to be able to act effectively. Allwood et al., (2008) conclude that the environmental impact of clothing is greater from use and maintenance than from materials and production, and that this should be reflected at the design stage. However, customer value, and cost must figure alongside sustainability metrics during the design process (Huang et al., 2009).
3817
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton
Based on established mapping of clothing design processes, Gam et al.’s (2008) C2CAD model for sustainable clothing design adopts such a collaborative approach, using the ‘cradle to cradle’ closed loop design strategy (McDonagh and Braungart, 2002), breaking down products into ‘nutrients’ that are recycled through a technical or biological system to achieve a net environmental benefit. The model has four main steps: problem definition and research; sample making; solution development and collaboration; and production. The first phase results in an initial design, taking into account functional, aesthetic and economic needs, while sample making focuses on identifying and testing resources, identifying their cost and potential environmental impact (in terms of biological or technical nutrients) as well as evaluating the product’s marketability, ease of production and post-use pathways. To achieve solutions and collaboration, Gam et al.’s model suggests that the network of suppliers should be engaged in information sharing to address issues with materials, design and consumption. The final stage is production, which should consider materials and resource usage and emissions, as well as efficiencies, quality and reliability.
Figure 1 Sustainable Design Process Map: based on the principles behind Eileen Fisher’s Peru Project (Curwen et al., 2012) and its upstream supply chain. Illustrated by the authors.
The collaborative aspect of sustainable design is further developed in a later applied case study, based in a real business setting. Curwen et al. (2012) reported that the company, Eileen Fisher, found it necessary to compromise on the breadth of ranges designed, but otherwise achieved their sustainable objectives by enabling designers to benefit from a proactive business culture, objectives, structure and processes that support sustainable design. This culture enabled designers to have direct communications with suppliers to make best use of their capabilities, and facilitated numerous cross-functional teams to implement
3818
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges
improvements. Based on this experience, Curwen et al. (2012) identified five principles of design for sustainable clothing: company mandate, shared values, knowledge sharing, reorganisation and supply chain simplification, as illustrated in Figure 1.
2.3 Designing clothes that last for longer Clothing products have an average lifetime of 3.3 years, although there is considerable variation between different types (WRAP, 2012b). While some items are reused, or recycled, many discarded items end up in landfill because they are deemed to be too damaged or worn out. While the UK Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP) seeks to reduce the environmental impacts of clothing supply it is based on the assumption that extending garment lifetimes should not be commercially detrimental and could help to increase brand value, and this challenge has become of increasing relevance to subsequent projects. Subsequent research (WRAP, 2014; Claxton et al., 2015) reflected on the development and trial of a ‘Longevity Protocol’, combining a ‘best practice’ approach to product development with physical tests to provide an indication of life expectancy for specific garment types, for use by retailers and the clothing sector more widely to support commercial implementation. The Protocol addressed the call from retailers for a more standardised approach to testing for longevity. Claxton et al. (2015) concluded that further research was necessary to ensure that tests could better represent consumer behaviour and could be time- compressed to enable longevity testing in a manner more sympathetic to the pressured new product development cycle for clothing. Much of the UK research has focused attention on clothing lifetimes on the physical performance of the clothing items. An alternative perspective is that design for clothing longevity should lengthen the emotional attachment between consumers and clothing items, so that use is for longer and greater care taken (Laitala and Boks, 2012; Niinimäki, 2012; Niinimäki and Armstrong, 2013). To achieve this aspect of longevity, known as emotional longevity or durability, it is necessary to enhance product satisfaction by designing in features that provide the benefits that accrue from longer use, such as flexibility to changing fit, emerging trends and individual style and to redefine the service-product mix. However, this requires a systems thinking and more pro-active, visionary and far-sighted design approach (Laitala and Klepp, 2011; Niinimäki, 2012). Such an approach needs to apply to the acquisition, maintenance and disposal of clothing, and business model innovations such as swapping, rental, redesign, repair, customisation and style/skills advice could extend garment life (Armstrong et al., 2014; WRAP, 2013b). Laitala and Klepp (2011) also acknowledge that very short life-cycle, fashion products need to be more easily recyclable. However, design for clothing longevity research is prescriptive regarding what should be achieved, but lacks the practical detail of how this could be realised that appears in models such as those of Gam et al. (2008) and Curwen et al. (2012).
3819
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton
2.4 New product development and the clothing supply chain Curwen et al. (2012) stress the importance of cultivating strong supply chain relationships to SC design, while others stress the importance of supplier selection and capability to support the NPD process (Petersen, Handfield, and Ragatz, 2005) and the significance of knowledge sharing and trust among competitive and cooperative firms in sustainable supply chains (Cheng, Yeh, & Tu, 2008). In addition, solving sustainability problems by implementing strategies such as early supplier involvement, information sharing and integrative product development have been acknowledged (Kogg, 2003; McDonough et al., 2003; Petersen, Handfield, & Ragatz, 2005). In practice, the multiple interests contributing to the NPD process may cause delays in the supply chain through indecision associated with conflicting priorities and functional constraints of the design and technical staff, marketing, purchasing, production, sourcing and finance roles of retailers and brands, all compounded by the trend for rapid proliferation of fashion products and globalisation of supply. Armstrong and LeHew (2011) suggest that fast fashion is a partly sustainable supply chain solution because it regulates supply in line with demand and limits material use and inventory. This is contrasted to the concept of slow design and design activism which requires a rethink of the relationship between consumers and their products, but is not specifically applied to fashion, and would require a resolution to the conflict in costing ethos of market price rather than ecological value in clothing and rapid new product demands, rather than product improvement. Models such as that by Gam et al. 2008 go some way to bridging the gap by broadening the problem definition stage from purely commercial and aesthetic to include ecology. However in practice, in spite of the spread of fast fashion, which depends on fast decision making, shorter lead-times and reduced sampling, aided by use of virtual technologies (Cachon and Swinney, 2011; Khan et al., 2012), the demands of design and brand integrity result in slow decision making and added product testing (Brun and Castelli, 2008), reinforcing a resistance to innovative design practices that could shorten the design or manufacturing process (Oxborrow, 2015). Caniato et al. (2012) found two different approaches to environmental sustainability performance. Large companies tend to focus more on incremental products and process improvement, whereas small companies have been able to completely reshape their supply chain. Early supplier involvement in the design process, while it can shorten lead times and reduce costs, is in practice used to compensate for the increasingly slow and low cost global supply that has become the industry norm (Khan et al., 2012; Scheffer, 2012). Meanwhile Aage and Belussi (2008) found that globalisation of firms has fragmented the clothing industry clusters hitherto able to acquire fashion and technical knowledge. Barriers to the adoption of sustainable design and supply chain practices include lack of transparency, data reliability and influence over upstream suppliers (Rauer and Kaufmann, 2015). This paper goes on to explore the barriers, including technical limitations, conflicting priorities, perceptions and organisational tensions that hinder the adoption of design and
3820
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges
supply of longer lasting clothing. It then discusses ways in which the commercial, technical and design limitations of reducing the environmental impact of clothing through extending its useful life can be mitigated.
3. Methodology The research draws on 25 interviews with industry representatives from UK clothing retailers, brands, suppliers and service providers; three expert roundtable discussions bringing together industry and academic specialists and a thought-leaders’ workshop comprised of multi-disciplinary academic and industry experts. Interviews were face-to-face or by phone, lasted one hour on average. The roundtables and workshop lasted 2.5 to 3.5 hours; the roundtables involved on average 6 contributors, while the workshop involved 26 participants, and collectively they covered the significance of product development and testing, garment failure (commonly pilling) and consumer perspectives on clothing longevity, and the business case. All activities were recorded and transcribed. Findings have been analysed using a framework based on Gam et al.’s (2008) paper and Curwen et al.’s (2012) case study.
4. Findings and Analysis The findings follow two principal themes, based on the authors’ initial evaluation of the design and supply chain challenges to extending the useful life of clothing and on the models for designing sustainable clothing discussed above. In the first instance, Gam et al’s (2008) model is adapted to accommodate the stages of design for longer lasting clothing. Illustrated in Table 1, this model takes into account the “what needs to be done” or physical aspects of extending the lifetime of clothes. Subsequent analysis builds upon the experiential model developed by Curwen et al. (2012) which is discussed below before the findings are compared.
4.1 Design for Clothing Longevity – key stages Table 1 Stages of Design for Clothing Longevity - Adapted from Gam et al, (2008) Design stage
Aspects relating to clothing longevity
Problem definition
Consumer perceptions represent emotional attachment and desire to change The business case is poorly defined in most organisations Slower fashion niche: quality equates to durability
Sample making
Sourcing durable materials Testing Impact on cost, time, environment, etc.
Solution development
Engages suppliers’ skills and knowledge Trust/ lack of trust Extended testing is hard to implement
3821
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton
Addition of services such as repair Production
NPD and testing regime does not fit into critical path Mass produced garments do not always represent tested samples Requires change to product/service mix Potential to use less production resources: reduced consumption of higher quality clothing Contrast with overall sustainable design objectives: making a difference depends on early process stages.
The findings show that in general terms, each stage of the design process for developing and producing longer lasting clothing can be supported to some extent by practice. The problem can be clearly defined, and for some consumers durability is a desirable garment quality, provided that they also have a desire or reason to keep and use clothing items for longer. More contentious is how this translates into the business case. Some of the retail/brand respondents claimed that durability enhances brand value, while one high value supplier was negative about the commercial case for durability and there is no clear correlation between those supporting durability and market level of brand. Furthermore, some industry participants were sceptical about the concept of emotional durability, referring only to aspects of comfort and fit to foster attachment to specific items. The sample making stage can be supported by sourcing materials that are durable and promote garment longevity, and findings show that testing both materials and finished garments supports initial quality and fitness for purpose reasonably well. Some suppliers express concern that poor durability leads to high return to manufacture (RTM) rates which are costly and damage their reputation with retail buyers. In contrast, some garments regularly fail tests, notably knitwear and sublimation printed jerseys. These are among items commonly accepted for resale anyway, because of commercial imperatives. For example, fast fashion suppliers expected their products to fail tests for pilling and other characteristics, while commercial pressure means that problems are not addressed. Therefore, testing of both materials and finished garments for longer life is an obstacle as most testing regimes support initial quality and fitness for purpose for one to five wash cycles only, and adding additional or extended tests both adds to cost and causes delays to the critical path. One supplier anticipated that testing will increasingly be carried out at supply locations in the Far East, while testing experts acknowledged the lack of a commercial imperative to upgrade and develop new tests to reduce time delays and improve objectivity and effectiveness. Solution development is another stage where conflicts are apparent. While it is desirable to engage supplier skills and knowledge to improve access to upstream materials there are barriers to doing so, and some respondents report a lack of skills within the supply chain. There is also evidence of a lack of trust, which affects both exchange of information/ knowledge and practical steps such as quality assurance and testing processes. Several
3822
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges
suppliers suggested that their recommendations of fit-for-purpose fabrics, yarns or finishes were sometimes over-ruled in favour of less durable options. Production is arguably the least well-developed aspect of design for longevity, as the limitations identified above are exacerbated by the challenges of bulk production, in terms of scheduling and potentially conflicting priorities, such as use of higher grade materials and supplier trust. However, the production of higher quality clothing for longer use is possible if the preceding stages can be resolved.
4.2 Implementing Design for Clothing Longevity Given the obstacles facing some specific stages in the development of longer life clothing, it is also important to explore the principles behind the design for longevity and the obstacles to adopting these. Based on Curwen et al.’s (2012) model, Table 2 summarises the key principles concerned with the implementation of, or “how to” approach to design for clothing longevity. Table 2 Principles of design for clothing longevity – adapted from Curwen et al. (2012) Design Principle
Aspects relating to clothing longevity
Company Mandate
Participants are signatories to SCAP Sustainability managers/ representatives in place Sustainability objectives evident include supplier codes, waste metrics, fibre scorecard
Shared values within and between companies
Focus on aesthetics and/or cost ‘Blame’ attributed to supplier and/or consumer Distrust of testing regimes and accuracy/relevance of test reports
Knowledge sharing
Lack of skills/knowledge or limited by confidentiality Lack of technical knowledge relating to product/component environmental impacts Complex, confusing, care instructions inconsistent with consumer practice, laundry appliances and product test protocols
Re-organisation
Lack of time/ capacity and capability; Sustainability implementation led by individuals Limited intra-organisational project teams and lack of interorganisational teams addressing longevity projects
Supply chain
Global and complex; long and slow; buyer dominated; Lack of transparency within supply chain; Focus on product proliferation, cost and volume.
The findings show that the retailers and brands are likely to be UK Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP) signatories, but that longevity of products is not the focus of their sustainability objectives, and as a result designers and NPD teams lack a mandate to focus on extending clothing life specifically. At the same time, while sustainability generally is
3823
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton
considered a strategic priority, it is poorly integrated into other functions and is of low priority when compared to cost and aesthetics. Of equal concern, the researchers found a lack of “agency� with regard to clothing longevity, with blame extended to consumers with regard to their clothing care and suppliers with regard to inferior materials and garment quality, even though the supply chain is, in the main, controlled by retailers and brands. The expert panel concluded that the capacity of design teams to make changes is often influenced by organisational structure, with small company designers able to represent the whole NPD process but lacking financial resources, while the design team in a large company may lack strategic influence. The lack of trust and agency across the supply chain combine to create barriers to the sharing of knowledge. While the UK suppliers interviewed were able to evidence high levels of technical knowledge, global fragmentation of the supply chain has created both physical and cultural barriers to established knowledge sharing and problem solving practices. This extends both upstream and downstream in the supply chain, including sharing of accurate and realistic guidance with consumers relating to product care. Furthermore, respondents suggest that some suppliers take advantage of the distance between themselves and their customers to disguise or even falsify information regarding quality tests and upstream supply. Round-table participants identified cases where inferior materials and processes have resulted in shorter fibres more likely to pill or lower cost dyes which leach more readily. The commercial trade-off between product quality, durability and other garment/fabric characteristics, aesthetics and price, combine with pressure on the critical path timeline to undermine the case for durability. Lack of traceability upstream in the supply chain can also limit the level of detailed technical information available. Correspondingly, the level of re-organisation required to establish multi-functional teams within and between organisations is severely limited, with suppliers reporting contradictions in their relationships with different divisions of their retail customers (such as head office and overseas sourcing offices). Finally, in direct contrast to the example cited by Curwen et al. (2012), the supply chain for clothing is generally global, and consequently long, complex and lacking transparency.
5. Discussion Evaluating design for clothing longevity therefore throws up a number of issues that appear difficult to resolve, but that need to be overcome if extending clothing life is seen as a potential solution to the amount of clothing that finds its way to landfill, consistent with WRAP strategy (2012). In some organisations, the mandate to promote sustainability does not encompass extending clothing lifetimes as this does not fit into existing key performance measures (KPIs) in the same ways as energy efficiency and is indeed hard to measure. As discussed by Caniato et al. (2012) the researchers found that, in terms of shared values, cost or commercial drivers and aesthetics are considered much more important and therefore influence strategic decisions more directly. While fast-fashion items are synonymous with short lifetimes, for high value brands product failure compromises brand values (Brun and
3824
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges
Castelli, 2008) and for everyday items, such as schoolwear, guaranteed product lifetimes are a means to compete in a crowded market (Cooper et al, 2014). Furthermore, emotional attachment is essential to ensure that products stay in active use for longer, as discussed at length by Niinimäki and Armstrong (2013), Niinimäki (2012) and Laitala and Boks (2012). Because of the lack of strategic focus, the business model has not yet been found that can elevate clothing longevity, for those items with potential for extended use, to a matter of commercial importance on any significant scale (ibid). Because of this lack of mandate, other practices considered to be leading edge in design and supply chain management are of limited application in clothing and not specifically applied to the pursuit of longer lasting clothes. These include overcoming the gap in knowledge created by global fragmentation of the supply chain (Aage and Belussi, 2008) and developing trusting relationships with suppliers (Peterson et al, 2005). Exchange of knowledge with consumers is also inhibited or confusing (McLaren et al., 2015) and it is clear that usercentred design that takes into account the way that consumers wear and care for clothing is rarely considered, even though it could help consumers to extend the life of their clothing (WRAP, 2012). The organisation of change initiatives is limited, sometimes to informed or passionate individuals rather than cross-functional teams, and to sustainability generally, rather than product lifetimes specifically. Moreover, researchers have found little evidence of functional inter-organisational teams, certainly not to the extent described by Curwen et al. (2012). Consequently, suppliers are rarely if ever involved in the problem definition stages of new product development as advocated by both design and supply chain schools of thought (Cheng et al, 2008; Khan et al, 2012; Peterson et al., 2005), and the historical problem-solving capability reflected on by some respondents has not been replicated within their global supply chains as restructuring has taken place. The effect of this is exacerbated by both lack of trust (Cheng et al. 2008) and abuse of trust. Furthermore, the supply chain is subject to poor transparency and traceability, consistent with findings of Rauer and Kaufmann (2015), issues which affect all aspects of sustainability. It is important to note that many of these limitations are generic within the clothing supply chain, and considered systemic because of their persistence (Oxborrow, 2015). The lack of a clear mandate and commercial pressure to implement strategies relating to clothing longevity seem unlikely to breakdown such inherent limitations.
6. Conclusions and recommendations The paper concludes that the process stages to develop longer lasting clothing are operational, but that implementation is incomplete and sporadic, with other priorities taking precedence – including more obvious aspects of sustainability. The limited effectiveness of such processes can be attributed to a wide-scale failure to adopt the principles necessary to implement strategies that could support clothing longevity. Because of a failure to justify a robust business case, there is no clear mandate for designers and NPD teams to follow, and no real incentive to overcome the systemic failures within the clothing design and supply chain. While there are signs that policy organisations are encouraging retailers and brands to
3825
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton
rethink their priorities and broaden their definitions of sustainability, progress is slow and small scale, and at present inadequate to keep pace with changes in the market, or to impact globally on the environment. Furthermore, improving a more integrated approach to design for clothing longevity should account for a range of product/garment and brand options regarding lifetime expectations, re-use and recycling. This could include ease of recycling for fast fashion or facilitating longer active use for higher value and core products. The paper is limited to a relatively small scale study, based within the UK. While there is evidence of research from other parts of Europe relating to clothing lifetimes, particularly through emotional longevity, it is not clear that the findings are scalable beyond the UK, particularly to emerging markets. Meanwhile there is an opportunity to learn more about clothing use and emotional longevity from the European studies, and these could be usefully extended into wider markets and cultural contexts. If extending the lifetime of clothing is to be seen as a way to reduce the industry’s environmental impact, further research is required to explore the challenging issue of developing new business models that support clothing longevity in favour of fast changing and low cost fashion, to identify the market and product contexts where these can be most impactful, and ultimately to explore the extent to which such changes actually result in changed patterns of consumption and disposal. The focus for this needs to address some key issues and limitations, such as understanding consumer perspectives; better measures of the impact of clothing lifetime as a contributor to both sustainability KPIs and commercial imperatives; identifying relevant sources of knowledge from within the supply chain, as well as investing in upskilling of current and future workers and understanding mechanisms through which skills and knowledge can be easily and effectively shared. Extended demonstrator projects that include research, environmental and user evaluation and financial modelling, are needed to appraise the combined sustainability, commercial and infrastructural implications of longer lasting clothing, potentially also in different cultural and market contexts. These could be as diverse in approach as supporting niche brands to experiment with new approaches to incorporating services such as leasing and upcycling into their business models, to large brands adopting technological and data management approaches to monitor changes in product performance over time and maintain wide-scale data about materials and product failure that could inform future design decisions. In the meantime, retailers and brands can adopt some generic process improvements, such as early involvement of suppliers and service providers and creating multi-functional teams to define the problem and overcome issues of trust and knowledge sharing. Innovations in product lifetime testing, user-centred design that reflects normal clothing use and care, and communications with consumers need to be incorporated into new business models, including changes to the product-service mix, as these are essential components that themselves also lack an effective mandate.
3826
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges
7. References Aage, T. and Belussi, F., 2008, From Fashion networks to design: creative networks in industrial districts, Industry and Innovation, 15 (5), 475-491. Allwood, J., Laursen, S., Russell, S., & Malvido de Rodriguez, C. (2008). An approach to scenario analysis of the sustainability of an industrial sector applied to clothing and textiles in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1234–1246. Annis, P. (ed.), 2012, Understanding and improving the durability of textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Oxford. Armstrong, C. and LeHew, M., 2011. Sustainable Apparel Product Development: In Search of a New Dominant Social Paradigm for the Field Using Sustainable Approaches. Journal of Fashion Practice, 3 (1) 29–62. Armstrong, C., Niinimäki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E., and Lang, C., 2014, Sustainable product-service systems for clothing: exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014, pp.1-10 available at http://tinyurl.com/zjhzd3l [accessed 7/7/14] Black, S., 2008, Eco-chic: The Fashion Paradox, Black Dog, London. Brun, A. and Castelli, C., 2008, Supply Chain Strategy in the Fashion Industry: Developing a Portfolio Model Depending on Product, Retail and Brand, International Journal of Production Economics, 116, 169-181. Cachon, P. and Swinney, R., 2011, The Value of Fast Fashion: Quick Response, Enhanced Design, and Strategic Consumer Behaviour, Management Science, 97 (4) 778-795. Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L., and Moretto, A., 2012. Environmental sustainability in fashion supply chains: An exploratory case based research, International Journal of Production Economics, 135 (2) 659–670 Cheng, J., Yeh, C., & Tu, C. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13, 283–295. Claxton, S., Cooper, T., Hill, H. and Holbrook, K. (2015). Opportunities and challenges of new product development and testing for longevity in clothing. In Product Lifetimes And The Environment (PLATE) Conference Proceedings, 17-19 June - Nottingham, UK. Edited by T. Cooper, N. Braithwaite, M. Moreno, G. Salvia. Published by Nottingham Trent University: CADBE. Pp. 62-68. ISBN 978-0-9576009-9-7. Cooper, T. (ed.), 2010, Longer Lasting Products: alternatives to the throwaway society, Farnham: Gower. Cooper, T., Claxton, S., Hill, H., Holbrook, K., Hughes, M., Knox, A. and Oxborrow, L. (2014). Clothing Longevity Protocol. A report for WRAP, London. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/hdp4j5q [accessed 1.11.15] Curwen, L. G., Park, J. and Sarkar, A. K., 2012. Challenges and Solutions of Sustainable Apparel Product Development: A Case Study of Eileen Fisher. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31 (1) 32-47. Defra, 2011, Sustainable Clothing Roadmap Progress Report, Available at: http://tinyurl.com/zv8k4n5 [accessed 1.3.16] Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S., Hiller, A. and Goworek, H. (2008), Public Understanding of Sustainable Clothing, Defra, London. Gam, H., Cao, H., Farr, C., and Heine, L., 2008. C2CAD: A sustainable apparel design and production model. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 21 (4) 166-179.
3827
Lynn Oxborrow and Stella Claxton
H M Government, 2013, Prevention is Better than Cure: The role of waste prevention in moving to a more resource efficient economy, London, Defra. Hong, P., Kwon, H.-B., & Roh, J. (2009). Implementation of strategic green orientation in supply chain: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12, 512–532. Huang, H., Liu, Z., Zhang, L., & Sutherland, J. (2009). Materials selection for environmentally conscious design via a proposed life cycle environmental performance index. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 44, 1073–1082. Khan, O., Christopher, M. and Creazza, A., 2012, Aligning Product Design with the Supply Chain: a Case Study, Supply Chain Management, an International Journal, 17 (3), 323-336. Laitala, K., and Boks, C., 2012, Sustainable clothing design: use matters, Journal of Design Research, 10, ( 1-2), pp121-139 Laitala, K., and Klepp, I. G., 2011, Environmental improvement by prolonging clothing use period, Towards sustainability in the Textile and Fashion industry, Copenhagen, 26-27th April. Leonard, A., 2008, The Story of Stuff. Available at http://tinyurl.com/5hbmtz [Accessed 1.11.15] McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002), Remarking the Way We Make Things: Cradle to Cradle, North Point Press, New York, NY. McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P.T. and Zimmerman, J.B. (2003), “Applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design”, Environmental Science & Technology, 37, pp. 435A-41A. McLaren, A., Goworek, H., Cooper, T., Oxborrow, L., Hill, H., 2016, The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference: Future-focused Thinking, Brighton, UK
Mintel Oxygen, 2011, Women’s Fashion Lifestyles, May. Available at http://tinyurl.com/zpeofqj [Accessed 10.11.15] Muton, F., 2012, Masterclass video: Overview of global fashion market trends, Ethical Fashion Forum. Available at http://tinyurl.com/zkdgwdt [Accessed 1.11.15] Niinimäki, K., 2012, Proactive Fashion Design for Sustainable Consumption, The Nordic Textile Journal, 1: pp60-69 Niinimäki, K. and Armstrong, C., 2013, From pleasure in use to preservation of meaningful memories: a closer look at the sustainability of clothing via longevity and attachment, International Journal or Fashion Design, Technoligy and Education, 6 (3), pp.190-199 Oxborrow, L. 2015, Future scenarios in UK apparel supply chains: A Disaggregative Delphi Study, Unpublished DBA Thesis, Nottingham Trent University. Petersen, K., Handfield, R., & Ragatz, G. (2005). Supplier integration into new product development: Coordination product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management, 23, 371–388. Rauer, J. and Kaufmann, L., 2015, Mitigating external barriers to implementing green supply chain management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51 (2) 65-88. Scheffer, M., 2012, Growth Regimes and Innovation in the Current Decade, in Shishoo, R., (Ed.) 2012, The Global Textile and Clothing Industry, Technological Advances and Future Challenges, Cambridge, Woodhead, pp 8-28. Swink, M., Melnyk, S., Cooper, M.B. and Hartley, J., 2010, Managing Operations across the Supply Chain, New York: McGraw Hill.
3828
Extending clothing lifetimes: an exploration of design and supply chain challenges
WRAP, 2012, Valuing our Clothes: the true cost of how we design, use and dispose of clothing in the UK, WRAP: Banbury. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/cuqkyx8 [Accessed 1.11.15] WRAP, 2013a, Clothing Longevity – Measuring Active Use. Available at http://tinyurl.com/jtdfpbt [Accessed 1.11.15] WRAP, 2013b, Evaluating the financial viability and resource implications for new business models in the clothing sector. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/h592dxv [Accessed 10.3.15] WRAP, 2014, Development of an industry protocol on clothing longevity, WRAP, Banbury. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/jnjk3fa [Accessed 1.3.15]
About the Authors: Lynn Oxborrow is a Principal Lecturer at Nottingham Business School and has undertaken expensive research in the apparel supply chain, with specific reference to responsiveness, retail-supplier relationships and sustainability, following an initial career in clothing retail. Stella Claxton is a Senior Lecturer in Fashion Business at Nottingham Trent University, following a fashion industry career in knitwear design and technology. A member of NTU’s Sustainable Consumption Research group, she has participated in funded research projects on clothing longevity.
3829
This page is left intentionally blank
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry Angharad McLarena*, Helen Goworekb, Tim Coopera, Lynn Oxborrowa and Helen Hilla a
Nottingham Trent University University of Leicester * angharad.mclaren@ntu.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.456 b
Abstract: Product longevity is a key aspect of sustainability and encouraging consumers to prolong the lifetime of products therefore has a part to play in minimising environmental sustainability impacts. The production, distribution and disposal phases of the clothing life cycle all create environmental impacts, but extending garments’ active life via design, maintenance and re-use of clothing is the most effective method of reducing the negative effects of the clothing industry on the environment. The study took an exploratory approach using mixed qualitative research methods to investigate consumer perspectives on clothing longevity and explore everyday processes and practices of clothing use, e.g. purchase, wear, care, maintenance, repair, re-use and disposal. The research findings showed that numerous factors affect consumers’ perspectives of clothing longevity during the purchase, usage and disposal stages of the clothing lifecycle. The conclusion addresses how these factors can influence product design practice in the fashion industry. Keywords: clothing longevity; sustainable fashion; consumer behaviour; consumer attitudes
Introduction Product longevity is a key aspect of sustainability and encouraging consumers to prolong the lifetime of products therefore has a part to play in minimising environmental sustainability impacts (Evans & Cooper, 2010). The production, distribution and disposal phases of the clothing life cycle all create environmental impacts, but life cycle assessment (LCA) has found that extending garments’ active life via design, maintenance and re-use of clothing is the most effective method of reducing the impact of the clothing industry on the environment. Extending the average life of clothes by three months’ usage per item would reduce carbon, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
water and waste footprints by 5-10%, thus leading to savings of billions of pounds for producers and consumers (WRAP, 2012; McLaren et al., 2015). Previous research into extending product lifetimes has identified a requirement for more in-depth understanding of consumer perspectives on clothing longevity, as well as behaviour relating to maintenance and disposal of garments (Cooper et al., 2014; Cooper et al., 2013; Langley, Durkacz & Tanase, 2013). However, the fashion business clearly thrives on innovation and the creation of obsolescence, thus appearing to be incompatible with the notion of keeping clothes for an extended period of time. This contradictory situation is explored within our paper, by seeking insights from consumers about their behaviour towards clothing and assessing the ways in which it can impact upon the incorporation of longevity into clothing through design. The paper aims to investigate consumers’ behaviour towards clothing longevity, establishing potential obstacles and finding ways in which they could be overcome through design practice and processes. The research questions that the study seeks to answer are: What are consumers’ views on the longevity of fashion products? Which aspects of fashion design could encourage consumers to prolong the lifetime of clothing? What are the barriers and enablers to designing products for longevity that should be investigated to meet consumer needs? This research project has been conducted by an interdisciplinary team comprising members with experience of knitwear and textile design, fashion management, marketing, product longevity and supply chain management. Funding has been provided by the UK Government’s Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra). At the end of the study, findings will inform the development of a tool-kit to facilitate fashion design that prolongs the life of clothing.
Literature Review: Consumer attitudes towards clothing longevity If the usable life of clothing can be increased, leading to less frequent replacement, fewer garments can be discarded, with a lower number of resources being consumed in clothing manufacture (Cooper et al., 2013). Existing research indicates that certain consumer segments, such as mature consumers and those looking for value, are becoming more willing to buy clothing that lasts for longer. There are various approaches that brands and retailers can take in order to enhance product longevity. For example, knitwear label ‘Keep and Share’ designs garments in styles that do not follow mainstream fashion trends, and which can be offered for hire, with the aim of making them wearable for longer than ordinary garments (Goworek et al., 2012; Keep and Share, 2015). Further examples include children’s schoolwear, which often has a protective Teflon coating, and Flint and Tinder (2015), who offer their customers free repairs to their branded hoodies for 10 years.
3832
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
2.1 Purchase During design and production, longevity can be built into clothing in various ways such as classic styling, strengthening seams or using durable fabric and components (Cooper et al., 2010; Goworek et al., 2012). Although fast fashion has contributed to the trend towards a throwaway approach by consumers (Barnes & Lea Greenwood, 2010; Birtwistle & Moore, 2007), WRAP research has identified more recently that there is a level of demand for clothes that last longer, mainly amongst men, older people, those on low incomes or higher social grades and those who own a large number of garments (Langley et al., 2013). However, durability of clothing can be an elusive concept for consumers; they may be unsure of how to check and assess durability at the point of purchase, or not consider it at all (Langley et al., 2013). Additionally, their expectations of clothing durability may be dependent upon factors such as retail price (Bide, 2012) and it is unclear whether they impact upon consumer behaviour during purchase, or the usage phase.
2.2 The Usage Phase: Wear, Care, Maintenance and Repair A paradox exists regarding clothing care and maintenance, in that laundering can enhance garments whilst simultaneously contributing to their deterioration (Kelley, 2009). Consumers’ understanding and implementation of care instructions has a significant effect on the longevity of clothing. Some of the major issues that can have a destructive effect are the selection of inaccurate wash cycles and abrasive detergents (Ross, 2013), over-use of fabric conditioner (Chiwese & Cox Crews, 2000), and overly frequent washing and tumble drying (Laitala, Boks & Klepp, 2011). The 2013 Langley et al. study for WRAP revealed that men, younger people and those in high income brackets were the main segments that lacked confidence in their ability to care for clothing correctly. The literature on clothing care is relatively sparse and the limited amount of studies available on this topic tend to concentrate on reducing energy, water or chemicals, in the interests of being more environmentally sustainable or economical (e.g. Bain et al., 2009; Dombek-Keith & Loker, 2011). Consequently, there is a literature gap in terms of consumers’ behaviour relating to care, maintenance and understanding of the effects of care on clothing lifetimes. Previous studies have investigated the social and technical aspects of clothing usage and maintenance, relating to mutually interdependent dimensions of wear and laundering, establishing that there are opportunities to influence consumers to alter their behaviour towards more sustainable practices (Shove, 2003). Other research has proposed that a deeper understanding of the social and experiential dimensions of usage and ability to maintain and repair garments effectively is important to keep clothing in use (Fletcher, 2012; Laitala & Boks, 2012; Niinimaki & Armstrong, 2013). Value is identified as a key factor in retaining garments, moving beyond purchase price to functional, aesthetic, emotional, social, and sensory value (Pink, 2005; Fletcher, 2012; Laitala & Boks, 2012; Niinimaki & Armstrong, 2013; McLaren et al., 2015) that could be facilitated by initiatives from the clothing industry, such as the production of clothing made from naturally anti-bacterial fibres to maintain garments’ freshness (Laitala & Boks, 2012).
3833
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
2.3 Re-use and disposal Consumers inevitably display variable behaviour in determining when clothing is ready to be discarded, since they may have different criteria that affect their decisions about the point when garments are no longer usable (Bide, 2012:126). For example, pilling may be acceptable to some, but for others it would result in disposal of a garment (Laitala & Boks, 2012). Clothing may often be disposed of before the end of its useful life because consumers have become tired of it or it is perceived as being out-of-date, making new products appear more desirable (Cooper et al., 2013; Laitala & Boks, 2012; You Gov, 2012). Wearable clothing of this kind can be donated to charities, thus extending its life, but UK consumers buy so much new clothing that the supply of second-hand garments exceeds demand, resulting in it being exported, which can impact negatively on the economies of developing countries by replacing sales from local suppliers (Rodgers, 2015). Consequently, WRAP (2012) proposes a higher rate of re-use in the UK as a preferable method of increasing the life-span of clothing. Despite this, a lack of social acceptability and hygiene considerations can limit sales of used products (Fisher et al., 2008). Nevertheless, consumers are demonstrating an increased willingness to re-use items via a variety of contemporary routes such as buying online via eBay or ‘swishing’ events where participants swap clothing. Clothing can be recycled with the support of local government services, private companies and, more recently certain brands and retailers, such as H&M and Patagonia, have begun to offer recycling initiatives to their customers (Ekström, 2015). Even garments that can no longer be worn can retain some use by being made into carpet underlay, furniture fillings or insulation (WRAP, 2012). However, most consumers may not be aware of these opportunities to recycle clothing, which are therefore frequently disposed of in general refuse (Fisher et al., 2008; Birtwistle & Moore, 2007). It would therefore be beneficial to increase consumers’ awareness that all used textiles are of value, to raise the level of repurposing, whilst reducing the amount of disposal in landfill.
Methodology The study adopted an exploratory approach, using mixed qualitative research methods to investigate consumer perspectives on clothing longevity and explore everyday processes and practices of clothing use (e.g. purchase, wear, care, maintenance, repair, re-use and disposal) for the purpose of establishing barriers and opportunities for design to support the creation of longer lasting clothes.
3.1 Focus Groups Four focus groups were conducted in order to gain a variety of consumer perspectives on clothing longevity, located in cities in the Midlands. This research method was selected since it is suited to research which investigates a topic to be investigated in depth, encouraging interaction between participants, and focus groups were used in a previous study on a connected theme (see Armstrong et al., 2015).
3834
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
The focus groups included discussion facilitated by members of the research project team and additional interactive tasks. The schedule prompted discussions on four main stages of garment lifetimes, e.g. purchase, usage, re-use and disposal. Personal expectations and experiences of different garment lifetimes were described, to explore individual and shared behaviours at each of the stages and determine what limits garment lifetimes. Interactive tasks explored participants’ relationships with clothing through a favourite garment exercise (Figure 1), and perspectives on a range of potential sustainability strategies by presenting products, services and marketing that could support clothing longevity (following Armstrong et al., 2015).
Figure 1 Example of focus group favourite garment exercise
The focus groups took place in November and December 2014, each for a duration of around two hours, involving 29 participants in total. The discussions were transcribed, then analysed using NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis software.
3.2 Clothing Diaries An ethnographic approach was taken towards exploring the details of consumers’ clothing maintenance, since this is an appropriate method when an aspect of culture needs to be studied in-depth (Quinlan, 2011). In addition to the focus groups, clothing diaries (Figure 2) were designed as an empirical tool for qualitative data collection in the specific research environment (participants’ own homes), and to gather insights into everyday garment wear and care practices. An additional sample of six consumers carried out the following:
3835
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
9. Consumer clothing diaries recording wash, wear and care patterns of an individual, everyday garment selected by each participant over an eight-week period. 10. Diary-interviews were compiled following completion, in order to learn more about participants’ attitudes towards clothing longevity and social factors behind their behaviours
Figure 2 Clothing diary packs (image credit: Angharad McLaren)
3.3 Sampling Qualitative research was carried out via focus groups with 29 participants in three consumer segments, identified as priorities for research into clothing longevity in a previous study by Langley et al. (2013): Consumers aged 18-35-years associated with ‘fast fashion’ consumption (Group F) Parents with children of school age (Group P) Consumers aged 30-60-years with a focus on classic clothing (Group S) Each focus group contained one consumer segment, as listed above. The three segments were selected to represent market segments with different approaches to shopping, different demands of clothing and lifestyles that affect their behaviour towards clothing lifetimes. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants in the three consumer segments to ensure that a range of relevant types of participant could be included (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The sample was selected via a combination of demographic and behavioural segmentation. Group F consisted of students from mixed disciplines and young, full-time professionals aged 18-35-years, who shopped frequently in high street fast fashion outlets, such as Topshop, H&M and Zara. In Group P, participants were all parents and the discussion focused on
3836
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
garments purchased for their children. Group S consisted of respondents aged between 3060-years in a range of job roles and one who had taken early retirement. Snowball sampling was used for the clothing diaries to acquire respondents with a variety of backgrounds and lifestyles who were willing to commit to the time involved. The samples for the focus groups and clothing diaries consisted mainly of female consumers, to reflect the fact that almost twice as much women’s wear as men’s wear is sold in the UK (Mintel, 2014) and that women are also typically responsible for purchasing most children’s clothing. As the findings of this study are qualitative, local and limited, the findings are not representative of the UK population, but provide rich descriptive data about consumer behaviours and perspectives on clothing lifetimes about which relatively little is known. This paper will present the findings of this consumer research, followed by a discussion of their implications for the design of longer-lasting clothes. As the study is not quantitative and the sample is not intended to be sufficiently large to be statistically significant, there is intentionally no mention of percentages of responses, as is recommended practice with a qualitative study of this kind (Hennink, 2014; Bryman and Bell, 2015).
Findings This section discusses initial findings from the study, prior to the publication of the report by its funding body. The key aspects covered in the literature review: purchase, usage and disposal, will be considered, to provide insights into the ways in which consumer behaviour can impact upon fashion designers and the organisations in which they work.
4.1 Purchase The results of this research showed willingness among consumers to purchase longer-lasting clothes, supporting the findings of Langley et al. (2013). Generally, value for money was the most important priority for all groups when purchasing clothing. Longevity was considered within this implicitly, as consumers want garments to last a reasonable lifetime in relation to their expectations, which were influenced by where it was bought, how much they paid for it, its care requirements, the type of material, and considerations of its purpose/context, e.g. work wear. Assessment of longevity at point of purchase was based on a combination of experience, touching, and trying on garment, as illustrated by this comment from one of the focus group participants: “I think that’s, it’s sort of experience isn’t it? … you can’t always 100% tell because you could buy something and be surprised by it but you do tend to look at the quality overall, you know, you fold it up. You might look at the seams. You might just look at the general hang of it, how the fabric reacts, what it’s made from, so those sorts of things. It’s not necessarily indicated by the price I don’t think.” (S)
Most of the consumers in each focus group were confident in their ability to assess longevity and identify better quality clothes, although all had experience of garments that had failed in a short time period and not met their expectations. All agreed they were unable to assess
3837
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
whether or not a garment would pill and some were unsure what caused it, how to prevent it or remove it. Participants associated certain brands with cheap, throwaway clothes that are unlikely to last, and avoided by some (e.g. Primark), whereas other brands were valued, associated with quality, style, customer service, good fit and selection (e.g. Nike, Gap, M&S and Next), resulting in a level of trust for their products. One of the respondents explained her views: “I don’t shop in any stores that I think would be short life garments. I think it’s the store I go in rather than looking and checking the garment. I know that it’s going to last. I don’t go into the ones that are doing sort of instant throw-away fashion. So, if I did that, I probably wouldn’t be bothered if the seams were going to go in after five wears because I probably expect it.” (S)
Purchase price was, predictably, of the least importance for the 30-60 year-old focus group (S) and more of a priority for parents (P) and younger fast-fashion consumers (F). It was found that people did not generally bother to return low-priced faulty items. Although expectations of more expensive items were higher, as Bide (2012) also found, consumers felt price did not always positively correlate with quality. In general though, they had a higher level of trust in more expensive brands, and brand value was understood beyond the purchase price, as this statement shows: “I feel like because I've spent more money, I have trust in that brand. If something went wrong with it, I'd be happier to go back and say, "This has happened. Would you mind replacing the garment?" And I feel like that's the kind of quality, whereas if that happened to me in the T-shirt from Primark I would probably throw it away.” (F)
Comfort was also important and consumers said that they would avoid fabrics that had caused negative experiences, such as being scratchy, having no ‘give’, or making them feel sweaty. Comfort had different interpretations: comfortable to wear, a comfortable, relaxed style of casual wear for the younger market, or an outcome of feeling confident in styles that suit a person’s body shape and sense of personal identity. Emotion-driven purchases, although sometimes impulsive, may be preferable to encourage clothing longevity, as the garment is better loved by the owner from the start, leading the owner to value it and take more care of it. Purchase strategies based on whether garments will go with other items in their wardrobe emerged in both the 30-60-year-olds focus group (S) and the student fast fashion group (F). Co-ordination helped to engage active use and, as one of the respondents stated: “I very rarely buy anything that’s sort of standalone. I will buy something which I think, ‘Oh, that will go with that and that in my wardrobe.’ So, you can mix and match…” (S)
Garment context was more important for young workers (F), making a clear distinction between work and leisure clothes. Most of the younger children were described as being happy with whatever is chosen for them to wear, although some favoured comfortable materials (e.g. fleece) and developed extreme attachments to items as a result, refusing to wear anything else and wearing them past the point of outgrowing them. Certain items were bought specifically to last a long time, such as coats, work clothes, suits, children's clothes
3838
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
and jeans, which had fairly high expectations of being long-lasting for some members of the sample, such as this participant: “… jeans shopping is horrific! … I think my favourite pair of jeans I’d had for about five years. And then the seam just split. I was gutted. I’ve never found another pair of jeans like them.” (S)
In relation to longevity, online shopping was considered a risk, as it wasn’t possible to assess the quality of a garment and several in the sample said that they preferred interacting with clothing before buying. This was a typical comment from one of the participants: “I think shopping for clothes online is always going to be a little bit of a gamble as well because it might look all right on the actual image but when you try it on, it could be a different case scenario, so you are taking a gamble with it, rather than going in the shop and physically having that item there.” (F)
Time affected clothing purchases for many in the focus groups, as a lack of time sometimes resulted in quick purchases and bad decisions. Visible indicators of longevity considerations, such as labelling, may be valued in these situations, to allow consumers to take longevity into account despite having to make a quick decision. One of the most direct ways of enhancing clothing longevity would be to purchase secondhand clothing. The respondents’ attitudes to buying and wearing second-hand clothes varied with reasons cited being similar to those mentioned in previous research (Fisher et al., 2008), including hygiene; not being comfortable wearing strangers’ clothes; questions of quality and disliking the shopping experience. The younger fast fashion group were the most likely to shop second-hand, including online, reflecting a rising trend towards vintage clothing and possibly due to this group having the lowest income. The other groups were less likely to buy second-hand, due to lack of time and being able to afford new (professionals in the F group), or having adequate supply of hand-me-downs for children from friends and family (P). Some of the participants in the focus group aged 30-60-years said that they would buy second-hand if items were viewed as particularly valuable or rare, for example designer pieces, but they believed that the quality of clothing in charity shops had decreased. The younger (F) group discussed how they thought older clothes were better quality, made with more craftsmanship and care to last longer. Some of their comments suggested they felt trapped by the current cheap, fast system of short-life garments as it made them feel obliged to buy new clothing frequently.
4.2 Usage: Care, Maintenance and Repair Easy care, convenience and cost of laundry were top priorities for parents and working people, as these two statements from focus group participants show: “I mean with washing, I used to separate darks and lights, now it all just goes in in a mixed wash, everything. Yeah, I haven't got time to be messing with whites, darks, and also it's cheaper, isn't it to put one massive wash than two separate washes.” (P)
3839
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
“That’s the joy with like M&S and Next and even Hobbs now have a suit you can machine wash now, even the jacket. That’s so easy. Because otherwise, it’s just going to live there in a dry-cleaning bag…” (F)
Care labels were rarely followed by the research participants beyond first wash and many found them difficult to understand. Wash and wear frequency was affected by social norms and habits, such as washing after one wear. The clothing diary exercise revealed that detergents were chosen largely due to brand familiarity rather than by suitability for fibre types, and that limited washing machine settings restrict how garments are washed. Price also affected the care relationship: consumers were more likely to hand-wash, separate colours, maintain and repair higher priced items. The value of an item was understood beyond purchase price though: the emotional value, exchange potential, social value, aesthetics and use value were also important. As well as being seen as straightforward cleaning, washing was also seen as a process of refreshing the material or sensory qualities of the fabric, e.g. when leggings go baggy at the knees, or clothes need ‘freshening up’. The cost of care was judged financially, e.g. dry cleaning, but also in terms of energy and water. Additionally, washing was seen as having a material cost to the garment’s fibres that, while prolonging their active life in the short-term, ultimately leads to their deterioration. Pilling was a main area of concern that was experienced in both high- and low-priced garments and across fibre types, e.g. cashmere, acrylic and mixed fibres; a cause of much frustration and disappointment, despite many participants removing pills in attempts to preserve garment life. This is demonstrated by this statement from one of the study’s participants: “I started to buy a batch of this winter's jumpers, although I really only expect them to last a season quite a lot of them have already started to get bobbly bits on them, which, I mean we’re only in November, that’s not kind of not where my expectations would be when I made a purchase six, seven weeks ago.” (F)
One of the participants in the diary exercise said that she did everything she could to maintain clothes and launder in an environmentally friendly manner, e.g. using eco detergent brands and low energy cycles, but would like to know more, to be able to sew and fix everything. She washed trousers after every wear though, despite reporting that clothes were at a low level of dirtiness. Further questioning revealed that, while this respondent stated that sustainability was a priority, in practice, social norms that dictate the importance of cleanliness and avoiding odours overtook her desire to wash garments less frequently. Participants in the study were asked whether they took any special measures to extend the life of their clothing. Examples given by respondents were darning, stitching up hems, using Wundaweb and sewing on buttons: activities which were more prevalent in the groups of parents and professionals, than in the student group . Some of the participants in group S occasionally paid for clothing repair services, although one member stated: There are very few and again, particularly if you work full-time, you haven’t really got much free time available… To be honest, it’s easier to replace it. I would repair more if it was easier and cheaper to do it.
3840
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
4.3 Re-use/Disposal Those who were trend-driven would pass on or sell clothes before they wore out so that they could find replacements and keep up-to-date. All of the focus groups discussed donating items to charity shops. Most had a hierarchy of disposal methods, with expensive items being sold online (via eBay and Facebook selling groups, dress agencies or exchanging sites) or at car boot sales. Good quality items were passed on to friends or family, especially children’s clothes. In Nottingham, there is a council ‘red bag’ textiles collection, and this was seen as a convenient way to dispose of items, especially when they did not feel these were good enough to be worn again: “So my hierarchy goes: nice things for people I know, wearable, but not that nice to charity shop and complete rubbish into the red bag.” (P)
Pilling was considered unacceptable to wear and affected satisfaction of user experience, leading to low active use and disposal. Other examples of reasons for disposal of clothing were T-shirts that had shrunk after three washes; zips and lining going on expensive garments when the rest of the garment was fine and leaching colours onto other items (due to colour transfer or hairy fibres). Failure of garments prior to their expected useful life caused strong emotional responses of frustration, annoyance and disappointment in our participants.
Conclusion The research findings showed that numerous factors affect consumers’ perspectives of clothing longevity during the purchase, usage and disposal stages of the clothing lifecycle, supporting the findings of previous studies (for example, Fisher et al., 2008; Laitala & Boks, 2012; Langley et al., 2013). This conclusion addresses how these factors can influence design practice in the fashion industry, recommendations that could also be applied in other industries. Designers and consumers can influence each other and this iterative process can potentially lead to improved product longevity. This study found that a key way in which fashion products could be designed to encourage consumers to prolong the lifetime of clothing would be to ensure that customers would perceive garments as good value for money (although not necessarily cheap), because valuing clothing and having positive emotions towards it could encourage consumers to use them for longer. Practical considerations for designers such as selecting materials that ensure straightforward laundering, providing clearer care instructions, avoiding fabrics that pill and ensuring designs are comfortable to wear, could also increase users’ perception of a garment’s value, thus improving the care and maintenance of clothing and prolonging active use prior to disposal. Certain participants were willing to repair clothes themselves, with repair services being difficult to access, and therefore designing garments to allow them to be repaired by consumers would be beneficial. For example, spare parts could be included or componentry could be replaced easily. Clothing which is designed to be versatile and adaptable in its styling and purpose could also help to minimise consumers’ need to
3841
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
purchase more garments. There are commercial benefits to clothing brands and retailers as these measures also foster consumer trust, loyalty and brand perception. Various barriers to designing products for longevity should be investigated to meet consumer needs, particularly two key issues. Firstly, due to the influence of fast fashion, there is pressure on the new product development process to design products quickly and cheaply, thus leaving limited time and resources to consider aspects of physical and emotional longevity. Secondly, designers may lack information about consumers’ perspectives on clothing longevity, which does not enable them to be considered during the design process. Management support to facilitate access to market research about consumer perspectives and a toolkit of relevant guidelines for fashion designers could be enabling factors in facilitating design for longevity, to better meet consumer needs. This could be provided in the form of an online presentation via relevant government departments and industry bodies, to promote awareness of the environmental costs of clothing disposal. The toolkit could influence designers to develop products that have longer active use and thus discourage premature disposal by consumers. This could be a series of specific guidelines, used as a collaborative tool by design teams and other departments involved in product development, such as quality control, buying and marketing, blending consumer research and technical knowledge. The implications for clothing companies are that they can provide product longevity guidelines to their design teams and investigate their own customers’ opinions of clothing longevity, either supplying them to designers or involving the design/product development team in the discussion. To facilitate this, additional time and financial resources may need to be allocated by management. Clearly, this would be likely to affect price in certain respects, so price ranges may need to be reviewed in relation to consumers’ perceptions of value. Implications for theory are that new models of the consumer decision-making process and the new product development process could be developed to incorporate steps which address clothing longevity. Limitations of this study are that it was based in one country and one industry. Therefore, the research topic could also be applied in future research in the context of other locations and product sectors. Acknowledgements: The findings presented in this paper are derived from a Defra funded research project EV0553 ‘Strategies to improve design and testing for clothing longevity’.
References Armstrong, C. M., Niinimaki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E. and Lang, C. (2015) Sustainable product-service systems for clothing: exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production. 97, 30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.046 Bain, J., Beton, A., Schultze, A., Mudgal, S., Dowling, M., Holdway, R., Owens, J. (2009) Reducing the Environmental Impact of Clothes Cleaning. Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Defra: London.
3842
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
Barnes, L., and G. Lea-Greenwood (2010) ‘Fast Fashion in the Retail Store Environment’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 38(10), 760-772. doi: 10.1108/09590551011076533 Bide, M. (2012) Testing Textile Durability. In Annis, P. (Ed.) Understanding and Improving the Durability of Textiles. Woodhead: Cambridge. Birtwistle, G. and Moore, C.M. (2007) Fashion clothing – where does it all end up?. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 35 (3), 210 – 216. doi: 10.1108/09590550710735068 Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015) Business Research Methods: 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chiwese, A. and Cox Crews, P. (2000) Influence of Household Fabric Softeners and Laundry Enzymes on Pilling and Breaking Strength. Textile Chemist and Colorist & American Dyestuff Reporter. 32(9), 41-47. Cooper, T., Claxton, S., Hill, H., Holbrook, K., Hughes, M., Knox, A., & Oxborrow, L. (2014) Clothing Longevity Protocol. A report for WRAP: Banbury. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1lrhYKV Cooper, T., Hill, H., Kininmonth, J., Townsend, K. and Hughes, M. (2013) Design for Longevity: Guidance on increasing the active life of clothing. A report for WRAP: Banbury. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1MMvnHJ Cooper, T., Fisher, T., Hiller, A., Goworek, H. and Woodward, S. (2010) Excessive speed/short lives: Attitudes to clothing longevity and disposal. In Ceschin, Vezzoli and Zhang (Eds.), Sustainability in Design: Now! Proceedings of the LeNS Conference, Bangalore, India. Pp. 728-737. Retrieved from: http://bit.ly/1Mx4YtI Dombek-Keith, K. and Loker, S. (2011) Sustainable Clothing Care by Design. In Alison Gwilt and Timo Rissanen (Eds.) Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the Way We Make and Use Clothes. Routledge: London. Pp. 101 - 116. Ekström, K. (2015) Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption: Reflections on Consumer Waste. Abingdon: Earthscan. Evans, S. and Cooper, T. (2010) Consumer Influences on Product Lifespans. In Tim Cooper (Ed.) Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the throwaway society. Gower: Surrey. Pp. 319-350. Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S, Hiller A and Goworek H. (2008) Public Understanding of Sustainable Clothing. A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) by Nottingham Trent University and Sheffield Hallam University. Defra: London. Fletcher, K. (2012) Durability, Fashion, Sustainability: The Processes and Practices of Use. Fashion Practice Journal. 4(2), 221-238. doi: 10.2752/175693812X13403765252389 Flint and Tinder (2015) About Flint and Tinder. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1OceVPW Goworek, H., Cooper, T., Fisher, T., Woodward, S. and Hiller, A. (2012) The Sustainable Clothing Market: An Evaluation of Potential Strategies for UK Fashion Retailers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 40 (12), 935-954. doi: 10.1108/09590551211274937 Hennink, M.M. (2014) Focus Group Discussions: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Keep and Share (2015) About Keep and Share. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1N6Iu8D Kelley, Victoria (2009) The Interpretation of Surface: Boundaries, Systems and Their Transgression in Clothing and Domestic Textiles, c.1880–1939. Textile: The Journal of Cloth and Culture. 7 (2) 216– 235. doi: 10.2752/175183509X460100
3843
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
Laitala, K. and Boks, C. (2012) Sustainable Clothing Design: Use matters. Journal of Design Research. 10 (1/2), 21 – 139. Laitala, K., Boks, C. & Klepp, I. G. (2011) Potential for environmental improvements in laundering. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 35(2), 254–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00968.x Langley, E., Durkacz, S., and Tanase, S. (2013) Clothing longevity and measuring active use. A summary report by Ipsos Mori for WRAP: Banbury. Retrieved from: http://bit.ly/1kZoxUz McLaren, A., Oxborrow, L., Cooper, T., Hill, H. and Goworek, H. (2015) Clothing longevity perspectives: exploring consumer expectations, consumption and use. In Product Lifetimes And The Environment (PLATE) Conference Proceedings, 17-19 June - Nottingham, UK. Edited by T. Cooper, N. Braithwaite, M. Moreno, G. Salvia. Published by Nottingham Trent University: CADBE. Pp. 229-235. ISBN 978-0-9576009-9-7. Mintel (2014, October) Clothing Retailing UK. London: Mintel Group. Niinimaki, K. and Armstrong, C. (2013) From pleasure in use to preservation of meaningful memories: a closer look at the sustainability of clothing via longevity and attachment. International Journal of Fashion Design Technology and Education. 6(3), 190-199. doi: 10.1080/17543266.2013.825737 Pink, S. (2005) Dirty laundry. Everyday practice, sensory engagement and the constitution of identity. Social Anthropology, 13 (3) 275-290. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8676.2005.tb00391.x Quinlan, C. (2011) Business Research Methods. Andover: South-Western Cengage Learning. Rodgers, L. (2015, February 15th) Where do your old clothes go? BBC News. Retrieved from: http://bbc.in/1DIq1Z8 Ross, Alan (ed.). (2013) Caring for Your Clothes (3rd edition). Association of Suppliers to the British Clothing Industry, ASBCI: Halifax. Shove, E. (2003) Converging Conventions of Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. Journal of Consumer Policy. 26 (4), 395–418. 10.1023/A:1026362829781 WRAP (2012) Valuing Our Clothes: The true cost of how we design, use and dispose of our clothing in the UK. WRAP: Banbury. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1HTr5Zv You Gov (2012) Bored with Your Clothes? A report by You Gov for M&S. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1RZ3NXO
3844
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
About the Authors: Angharad McLaren is a Lecturer in Textile Design and former Research Fellow in Design for Clothing Longevity, with research interests in sustainable fashion and textiles, sustainable consumption, consumer behaviour, and clothing longevity. Helen Goworek is Programme Leader of MSc Marketing in the School of Management at the University of Leicester, with research interests in organisational and consumer buying behaviour, product development and sustainability, particularly in relation to the fashion and textiles industry. Professor Tim Cooper is responsible for leading research in the fields of sustainable design and sustainable consumption. He is Head of the Sustainable Consumption research group, Co-Director of the Centre for Industrial Energy, Materials and Products and a member of the Product Design academic team. Dr Lynn Oxborrow is a Principal Lecturer at Nottingham Business School and has undertaken expensive research in the apparel supply chain, with specific reference to responsiveness, retail-supplier relationships and sustainability, following an initial career in clothing retail. Helen Hill is a Senior Lecturer in Fashion Knitwear, following a fashion industry career in garment designer and technology. A member of NTU’s Sustainable Consumption Research Group, she has participated in several funded research projects on clothing longevity.
3845
This page is left intentionally blank
Framing Complexity in Design through theories of Social Practice and Structuration: A comparative case study of urban cycling Tobias Barnes Hofmeister* and Martina Keitsch Norwegian University of Science and Technology * barneshofmeister@gmail.com DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.47
Abstract: Even if cycling is promoted as a new form of urban lifestyle, current carcentric approaches hold this type of mobility under gridlock. This article explores dissonances between visions, planning and execution in urban mobility and proposes a practice-oriented design model based on theories of Shove and Giddens. A model as a combination of mutual influences is developed, reflecting the complexity of urban design problems. The model is applied in a comparative case study on cycling in Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany) and Trondheim (Norway). In Freiburg cycling is of mundane, everyday character, while it carries traits of mere commuting in Trondheim. Applications of the model show strong connections between elements of structure, material, meaning and competence. The model can help planners and designers to grasp urban complexity within systemic relationships, thereby supporting steps towards a practice-oriented design. Keywords: social practice, cycling, urban structure, design model
1. Introduction Urban liveability increasingly ties to cycling. As Mikael Colville-Andersen, Copenhagen's bicycle ambassador, remarks “any liveable city will feature bicycles, great numbers of bicycles, on the urban landscape” (Colville-Andersen, 2010). Architects, are concerned with building “people-friendly cities”, which allow mobility for all (Kielgast, 2015). The Beijingbased research group Smarter then Cars even coined the term bicycle urbanism as paradigm shift away from current car-centric cities. Bicycle urbanism is described here as: “…an urban realm in which bicycles serve as the transformative tool for realigning built form to the human scale” (Lorenz, 2014).
Even if these snapshots hint at the increased relevance of cycling for contemporary urbanism cars dominate cities around the world, structure urban space and embody a decisive factor in the orchestration of human activity. Hence reshaping cities requires a rethinking of boundary conditions and working methodologies.
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
In terms of urban mobility Sennett comments, that today: “…we experience an ease of motion unknown to any prior urban civilization … we take unrestricted motion of the individual to be an absolute right. The private motorcar is the logical instrument for exercising that right, and the effect on public space, especially the space of the urban street, is that the space becomes meaningless or even maddening unless it can be subordinated to free movement (Sennett, 1977, p. 14). ”
This outlines the degree to which transportation networks are determined by the system of auto-mobility self-expanding upon itself globally, in need of cars, car-drivers, roads, petroleum suppliers, novel technologies and signs, orchestrating human mobility. The rise of the car restructured time and space by allowing for intense flexibility resulting in unbundling urban territorialities of home, work, business and leisure, the basis for urban sprawl, which in turn again creates dependence upon the system of auto mobility (Urry, 2004). The car-centric nature of today´s transportation system eroded an urban fabric of mixed-use proximity originating around walking and cycling. From the standpoint of design theory Lucius Burckhardt (2004) claims, that the invisible design component of car-centric urbanism not only destroyed cities, but equally society. Facing global sustainability problems, a paradigm shift is required and it is crucial to draw holistic boundaries around the interconnection of urban fabric and its embedded transport options. Analysing the complex dualistic relationship between human activity and their urban habitat, this article initially discusses the critical importance of context. Insights from a literature review and a case study on cycling in Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany) and Trondheim (Norway) illustrate how social practice theory can frame urban complexity to gain understanding for design interventions. Shove´s practice theory model composed of material, meaning and competence provides the basis for this analysis (Shove, Pantzar, & Watson, 2012). However, structure is introduced as fourth element in order to anchor the practice of cycling within its urban context, as proposed in Gidden´s theory of structuration (1984). Conclusively the model is discussed with respects to the intention of unravelling the multitude of parameters and dimensions involved in shaping cycling practice providing entry points for interventions to urban designers.
2. Methodological approach The article follows a two-tiered approach. In a first step, literature from the fields of social practice theory, design theory and urban studies is deployed in exploring the potential of theories of practice for informing design context. These initial insights culminate in an elaboration of the practice theory model proposed by Shove et al. (2012). A supplement to this model is based on the assumption that context and structure inform practice (Burckhardt, 2004; Giddens, 1984). In a second step the expanded model is applied to urban cycling. By means of interviews, insights on cycling are gathered for Trondheim (Norway) and Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany). Using the previously established framework a predominant configuration of cycling practice is presented for the respective cities. The
3848
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
paper thereby illustrates how practice theory can be framed as tool to capture complex relationships and thereby provide rich design context. Methodologically the interrelation of the four elements of meaning, material, competence and structure allows unravelling individual aspects of cycling practice, opening avenues for design interventions, without neglecting their dynamic interdependence. The interviews are conducted via email in which the respondents answered 16 questions related to the four elements of the model developed: meaning, material, competence and structure (also termed environment). The analysis is based on answers of 17 respondents in the study, from which eleven live in Trondheim and six in Freiburg im Breisgau. In both cities interviewees were students, employees, singles, couples and families with ages ranging from 22 to 34. The ratio of men to women is six to one. Auto-ethnographic observations accent aspects raised by interviewees. Interview results indicate that cycling in Freiburg is of mundane everyday character while its performance in Trondheim has traits of being a specific activity, which is further discussed in the conclusive part of the article.
3. Context and organized complexity As Burckhardt argues (2004), the way of framing a system by setting it apart from its context greatly influences the amount of information it provides for its understanding. For instance, dissecting a street corner, into its houses, roads, sidewalks, cycle tracks and kiosks, allows to solely think in these terms, resulting in the limited design of improving these facilities. This refers to an invisible character of design, the institutional-organizational dimension, upon which the designer constantly decides, which however is concealed due to the common way of classifying the environment in terms of individual objects (Burckhardt, 2004). Thus, design has to grasp the complexity of the invisible entirety of the system composed of objects and its interpersonal relationships. With respect to urbanism Jane Jacobs discusses complexity in her 1960´s book The Death and life of great American cites. She identifies cities as problems of organized complexity. This quality makes them to organisms operating on the basis of unexamined yet perceivably interrelated and understandable relationships (Jacobs, 1961). However, cities are not one single problem of organized complexity, which if understood explains the whole organism. Rather cities can be examined via various frames providing a number of different, but interlinked problem sets of that kind. Despite the multitude of variables they are not chaotic, but merely emerge into an inter-related organic whole (Jacobs, 1961). Dissecting a street corner into its elementary components of streets, sidewalks, houses, etc., as exhibited by 20th century approaches to urban planning, is an attempt to tame such problems. Thereby it eliminates its innate institutional-organizational dimension allowing for micro-optimization, but consequently leading to a decline in systemic efficiency (Burckhardt, 2004). The importance of context is illustrated when comparing the spandex wrapped utility cyclist in Trondheim to the casually dressed citizen getting around via bicycle in Freiburg. While Trondheim offers a discontinuous network of cycling infrastructure
3849
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
Freiburg has cycling at the heart of its urban culture. Highlighting such complex, recurrent ties of spatial and social dimensions within cities, Hillier and Hanson note further: “that a lack of under-standing of the precise nature of the relation between spatial organization and social life is the chief obstacle to better design” (Hillier & Hanson, 1984, p. x).
Such conception encompasses notions of Burckhardt and Jacobs as discussed previously and shines light upon the necessity to integrate social sciences. Therefore this article expands the laid out framework onto theories of structuration as proposed by Giddens (1984) and theories of social practice as suggested by Shove (2012). As Jacobs elucidates life sciences tackle organized complexity by identifying a specific factor or quantity and subsequently investigating its interconnections and relationships with other factors or quantities (Jacobs, 1961). Similarly practice theory identifies individual elements “that are integrated when practices are enacted” (Shove et al., 2012, p. 21) thus placing importance on the linkages. The most important aspects of thought borrowed from the life sciences in order to understand cities are: (1) thinking about processes, (2) working inductively, which means to reason from particulars to the general and (3) seeking for unaverage clues, implying to be alert to very small quantities which reveal the mode in which larger and more average quantities are operating (Jacobs, 1961). This list applies to social practice theory in the form that: (1) practices endure and are altered through performance; (2) practices are generated through composition and integration of their contributing elements and; (3) variations of elements culminate in distinct social structures, which in turn provide boundary conditions for the emergence of social practices (Giddens, 1984; Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, & Savigny, 2001; Shove et al., 2012). In such manner the life sciences as well as social practice theory focus on ‘deconstructing’ given situations without ignoring their context. From a design perspective this allows regressing from a solution to a context level on which legitimacy and relevance of context factors can be discussed, overcoming fixation due to the status quo (Hekkert & van Dijk, 2011). This way social practice theory presents itself as capable approach to capture complexity, yet disentangles situations to gain insight for design interventions. Framing design problems in terms of involved social practices might therefore result in what Burckhardt (2004) calls ‘Socio design’, where solutions arise through attuning objects and roles, or what Shove (2007) refers to as practice-oriented design. She further elaborates: “…that designers have an indirect but potentially decisive hand in the constitution of what people do. If material artefacts configure (rather than simply meet) what consumers and users experience as needs and desires, those who give them shape and form are perhaps uniquely implicated in the transformation and persistence of social practice” (Shove et al., 2007, p. 134).
4. Theories of practice Practice theory emerged during the late 1970´s with the ambition to overcome the prevailing divide between traditional structural ideas, explaining human behaviour in terms
3850
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
of external social and cultural forces, and approaches of interactionism, characterizing all forms of human action on the micro-sociological level of interpersonal interaction (Ortner, 2006). Theories of practice aim to comprehend the relationships between social structure and human action by recognizing them as recursive in which structure and action coconstitute one another (Giddens, 1984). Contrasting other social conceptions, which place the individual as focal point: “theories of practice decentralise the individual, instead placing the practices which constitute individual lives at the centre of analysis” (Watson, 2012, p. 490).
The individual functions as mere carrier or host who participates in the practice, integrating its various elements. Following Reckwitz a practice is: “… a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 249).
In this manner Reckwitz conceives of a practice as: “block whose existence necessarily depends on the existence and specific interconnectedness of these elements” or as “a pattern which can be filled out by a multitude of single and often unique actions reproducing the practice” (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 250).
Illustrating this conception, cycling consists of a variety of different bicycles, related equipment, such as helmets, cycle lanes, roads, forms of bodily competence to ride and manoeuvre in traffic, as well as the meaning to the ones who cycle, but also to other traffic participants and so forth. As such cycling exists as a recognizable conjunction of elements forming an entity, which can be spoken of and which provides a repertoire to be drawn upon when cycling. Simultaneously practice exists as a performance. “It is through performance, through the immediacy of doing, that the ‘pattern’ provided by the practice-as-entity is filled out and reproduced. ” (Shove et al., 2012, p. 7)
For a practice to endure over time its individual elements have to be repeatedly reintegrated sustaining characteristic interdependencies. In such manner cycling endures over time only through repeated enactment by practitioners, each reproducing the practice´s characteristic interdependencies. However, each performance allows the practitioner to alter the practice, incorporating new elements or abandoning present ones, thereby reconfiguring the practice-as-entity over space and time. For example the emergence of bicycle helmets did not only alter the equipment cyclists use, but also its meaning in terms of safety (ColvilleAndersen, 2010). Beyond that for instance, cycling in Trondheim today highly differs from cycling in today´s Beijing or how it was performed in Trondheim in the 1950´s, when cyclists
3851
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
were still riding in the middle of the road with cars slowly following. 1 In this way the conception of practice-as-entity and practice-as-performance form a holistic unit. The article departs in its analysis from Shove´s ideas on the dynamics of social practice. She condensed the multitude of thought in the field of social practice in a representation, configuring each practice in terms of three recursively interrelated elements, material, meaning and competence as illustrated in Figure 1 (Shove et al., 2012). Only through linkage of these three elements a practice emerges. To sustain such practice the links have to be reproduced through repeated enactment. Once reproduction ceases, the links decay and thereby the practice itself. As long as the elements are linked, however, they are subject to recursive interdependence, meaning that change in one element triggers change in the other elements and ultimately in the practice as a whole. For instance the emergence of ebikes alters the image of cycling to be less strenuous and faster, increasing its range and thereby allowing a wider demographic group access to it. Shove describes the three elements as follows: Material refers to objects, infrastructures, tools, hardware and the body itself. In terms of cycling this includes but is not limited to bicycles, helmets, specialized gear, cycle lanes, road networks, locking facilities, bike shops, tools, and the cyclist itself. Meaning encodes the social and symbolic significance of participation in a practice at any point of performance. It draws upon emotions and motivations. With respects to cycling this might include, environmental, economic, health or lifestyle concerns amongst other. Schatzki (2010) furthermore introduces the concept of ‘timespace’ in order to stress that people´s actions have a history and a setting while simultaneously being oriented towards the future making the practice itself the bridging element.
Figure 1 Emergence, maintenance and decay of a practice and the mutual interplay of various practice elements (Shove et al., 2012, p. 25).
1
Interview with Richard Sanders from Syklistenes Landsforening, 24. 04. 2015
3852
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
Competence accounts for know-how, background knowledge and understanding, which are required to perform a certain practice. In regards to cycling for instance, the skill to balance on a bicycle, fitness, awareness of traffic rules, signalling in traffic, repair skills, etc. This arrangement provides useful framing and visual understanding of practices and their dynamics. However, it lacks explicit links to the structure it is embedded in. Giddens explains structure as: “… the essential recursiveness of social life, as constituted in social practices: structure is both medium and outcome of reproduction of practices. Structure enters simultaneously into the constitution of the agent and social practices, and 'exists' in the generating moments of this constitution” (Giddens, 1979, p. 5).
In Giddens conception structure entails social institutionalized structure in the sense of rules and resources, but also the environment in which a practice is performed. “The physical environment conditions, or sets limits to, the modes of conduct formed within societies, but it is the cultural system which most directly regulates them. ” (Giddens, 1984, p. 265) Since “every complex social situation, institution or event is the result of a particular configuration of individuals, their dispositions, situations, beliefs and physical resources and environment” (Giddens, 1984, p. 215)
urban cycling is more holistically understood by expanding Shove´s model with a fourth element, structure, as illustrated in Figure 2. In the scope of this article structure is primarily concerned with properties of the physical and build environment only touching marginally on the dimensions of the cultural system.
Figure 2 The interrelated elements of a practice as proposed by Shove embedded in its context, the structure, as proposed by Giddens
5. Configuration of cycling practice This section draws together the insights gained from studying cycling practice in Trondheim and Freiburg relating to the structural analysis and the findings from the interviews. In a comparative manner similarities and differences are pointed out in respect to individual elements, which once integrated as practice culminate in distinct characteristics. The
3853
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
previously expanded model is used to visually present the configuration of cycling in each city. In further analysis elements are correlated to each other in form of a matrix sown in Table 2 at the end of the chapter, which highlights dominant relationships, allowing insight for design interventions. Throughout the text the individual statements extracted from conducted interviews are numbered (x). These numbers reappear in the matrix, visually decoding how respective elements are linked. However, since practices change over time and space this assessment can only serve as current snapshot of cycling practice in the respective urban areas. The practice of cycling in Freiburg appears to be of mundane everyday character while it carries a distinct notion of commute in Trondheim. While both cities are of comparable size in terms of inhabitants they highly differ with regards to its population density as well as terrain and prevailing weather (Table 1), which appear to contribute as influential environmental factors. As interviewees from Freiburg point out especially short distances and a well functioning, diverse public transport system allow to manage a majority of everyday activities via bicycle. Particularly long distances between home, work or kindergartens emphasized with hilly terrain and bad weather in the sense of snow, ice and rain rank among the most often named environmental hurdles for cycling in Trondheim. Rain however, is also a common complaint amongst interviewees from Freiburg. Yet the flat relief of the city combined with its high quantity of sunshine hours counteract this. Table 1
Structural properties of Trondheim and Freiburg. Property
Unit
Trondheim
Freiburg
Population
[pop]
183,96
220,286
Area
[km2]
321, 81
153, 07
[pop/km2]
570
1439
Average Temperature
[°C]
5.9
11.8
Average Sunshine Hours
[h/y]
1347
1775
Average Rain Days
[d/y]
147
174
Precipitation
[mm]
836
855
Average Snow Days
[d/y]
31
27
Flat centre surrounded by hills
Overall flat
Population Density
Terrain
Commonly in both cities sharing the road with cars is perceived as troublesome, even though it appears to be of more competitive nature in Trondheim where cyclists and cars rival for space (1). This is partly due to a less developed cycle network compared to Freiburg resulting in cyclists commonly needing to share the road or sidewalk. One respondent points out:
3854
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
“I feel that there is not really a place for bicyclists a lot of places. This makes me feel that I am in the way of someone, when either being on the road or the sidewalk.” (Male, 23, Trondheim, 05. 06. 2015) (2)
Following Trondheim´s hilly terrain mountain bikes with front suspension and 18 to 21 gears dominate the picture also featuring few retro and commuter bikes (3). In contrast Freiburg exhibits a wide variety of bicycles, many of them being second hand. From city bikes, over race bikes to Holland-style bikes the spectrum stretches out to unusual bicycles such as tall bikes or recumbent bikes. Inverse is the variety of additional equipment. While a large part of cyclists in Trondheim wears helmets, light reflecting, waterproof clothing and specific cycling apparel including clipless pedals, Freiburg´s cyclists prefer casual everyday clothing and outdoor-jackets with a minority using helmets. This difference in apparel reflects the level to which cycling is integrated in normal day to day activities such as shopping, going to work, meeting friends, picking up children from school or kindergarten or simply getting around town versus being a mere means of commuting combined with exercise (4). Wearing a helmet is yet also an indicator of perceived safety. A well developed infrastructure with special traffic lights and mirrors as well as a multitude of small streets with either low speed limits or even restricted car-access as existent in Freiburg creates such environment (5). Contrary the confusing and segmented infrastructure in Trondheim requires cyclists to often switch between road and sidewalk resulting in higher exposure to fast moving traffic (6) as one interviewee pointed out. Despite these differences in terms of material the meaning of cycling is astonishingly similar. Since both cities are prominent university towns cycling is a main transport mode for students (7). It is considered environmentally friendly, allows for autonomy and independence from public transport as well as provides flexibility of route choice and thereby being less affected by traffic. Beyond that cyclists in both cities are perceived as caring about their physical shape and expenses. In Freiburg cycling, however, also has the connotation of being a normal and safe mode of transport for a wide range of demographics (8), while in Trondheim children and seniors seem to be underrepresented. One interviewee in Trondheim points out that the repeatedly mentioned overrepresentation of middle-aged men might be primarily induced by their more visible choice of apparel. „Gender wise I don’t have the impression the differences are significant. This said middle-aged men might not even be over represented, just easier to see in their yellow jackets.“ (Male, 31, Trondheim, 12.06.2015)
Regardless of origin, this perceived imbalance and the fact that elderly and children are underrepresented is another indicator for a lack of perceived safety amongst cyclists in Trondheim (9). In terms of competence Freiburg and Trondheim show further similarities in the need of knowing traffic rules, being able to communicate with other traffic participants, exercising caution around cars and being acquainted with short cuts. However, environmental aspects like tram tracks in Freiburg or the bicycle lift in Trondheim require specific skills (10). Furthermore, Trondheim´s hills and winter conditions demand fitness and will power to
3855
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
cycle uphill as well as good balance for icy downhill rides (11). Resulting from much shared road use in Trondheim are also skills in making oneself visible as well as taking a place in the lane which is neither too passive nor too aggressive (12). This competence finds manifestation in forms of yellow apparel, covers for backpacks or helmets in signal colour or bright lights (13). Freiburg presents itself as eco-city, which provides the framework for having cycling at the heart of public attention. This seems to have particularly implications in terms of lacking risk awareness, since cyclists assume that cars have them in mind. In contrast Trondheim´s cyclists show widely defensive behaviourism when in traffic (14). Further, the existing transport systems were mentioned as important factor for choosing to cycle. Since Freiburg is embedded within a well developed, diverse network of transport systems respondents had no need for cars if wanting to go somewhere else. However, in Trondheim it was mentioned by one interviewee that in order to manage a larger part of everyday life by bike: „...the bus connections to the mountains would need to be better and the cost for having a carpool would need to be lower. Beyond that I would need to have some way to transport goods, for example using a car pool.“ (male, 25, Trondheim, 21.05.2015) (15)
Regardless of city image or state of the public transport system in both cities cycling was mentioned among students due to economic reasons, often coinciding with cheap or second hand bikes, while commuters primarily exhibit a lifestyle, resulting in more sophisticated bicycles and additional equipment (16). Beyond that having a family appears to reduce the likelihood for everyday cycling in both cities (17). This comparison shows how differences in the structure of the environmental structure configure a practice differently in terms of material and thereby in its competences and meanings. Equally meanings like awareness of exposure to car traffic or health alter the materials cyclists use, such as helmets, apparel in signal colours, powerful lights or watches to monitor heart rate (18). A visual representation of cycling practice in terms of the expanded model for each city is shown in Figure 3. Such illustration allows for capturing practice characteristics. Table 2 on the other hand represents the relationships of various elements in the respective cities. The statements from the text are coded with circles when referring to Freiburg and respectively with squares for Trondheim. In case a statement applies to both cities a circle encompassed by a square is used. Columns featuring the respective cities frame the four practice dimensions in the middle. The information reads from column to row. For instance, statement 18 illustrates how meaning impacts material in Trondheim, while statement 7 shows a connection of structure to meaning present in both cities.
3856
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
Figure 3 Visual representations of the elements and their interrelation configuring cycling practice in Trondheim and Freiburg in their characteristic manner as found through interviews. Aspects in black writing are place specific, while grey writing indicates its existence in both cities.
3857
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
Table 2 Matrix representation of how various practice elements relate to each other. Circles indicate relationships in Freiburg, squares stand for Trondheim and squares encompassing a circle denote relationships present in both cities.
Meaning appears to be the central element, exhibiting most connections, encoding the very nature of locally performed cycling practice. Particularly strong are ties between structure and meaning, which seem to dominate in both city cases. This suggests that avenues to changing cycling practice are most prominent in altering the structure cycling is embedded in, such as urban design, transport planning, governance etc. Cycling practice in Trondheim seems highly influenced by structural components across material, meaning and competence, more pronounced than in Freiburg, which due to better weather conditions and flat terrain seems naturally more conducive to cycling. Urban structure and geographical conditions as temporarily static constraints leave material as next most influential element shaping meaning. Particularly in this domain design practice can contribute significantly.
6. CONCLUSION As this study illustrates cycling practice is embedded within a complex web of relationships. Yet, framing it in the context of social practice theory allows gaining insight into its various contributing elements and their recurrent ties. It seems particularly relevant to incorporate structure as fourth element, since mobility is the human response to its environmental conditions. The representation of the practice configurations in form of a matrix illustrates that. The research further illuminates that cycling in Freiburg appears of mundane, everyday character while it carries distinct traits of commute in Trondheim. From a design perspective this research presents how exploring problems framed via practice theory disentangles the individual elements in a ‘deconstructing’ fashion opening for contextual understanding. Simultaneously being aware of other elements can lead to designs with practice in mind. This relates to enabling design practice to grasp the complexity of the invisible integral system composed of objects and its interpersonal relationships, as Burckhardt initially pointed out. Ultimately the model builds upon Shove´s ideas in developing approaches for practice-oriented design. It has to be noticed though that the practice of cycling, itself is part of systems of practice, in terms of mobility most notably the practice of driving (Watson, 2012). Therefore designing
3858
The effect of consumer attitudes on design for product longevity: The case of the fashion industry
mobility solutions in terms of bicycle urbanism might require expanding the boundary condition beyond cycling practice itself. Future research could for instance consider methods such as giga-mapping or rich design spaces (Sevaldson, 2008, 2011) to cover complex structures and corresponding interactions relating to material, meaning and competence.
7. References Burckhardt, L. (2004) Wer plant die Planung? Architektur, Politik und Mensch. (J. Fezer & M. Schmitz, Eds.). Berlin: Martin Schmitz Verlag. Colville-Andersen, M. (2010) Why we shouldn´t bike with a helmet. Denmark. Retrieved from http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxCopenhagen-Mikael-Colville Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. University of California Press. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hekkert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2011) Vision in Design: A Guidebook for Innovators. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House. Kielgast, L. (2015) THE CITIES OF THE FUTURE ARE PEOPLE-FRIENDLY CITIES. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/bicycle-culture/the-cities-of-the-future-are-peoplefriendly-cities/ Lorenz, F. (2014) Bicycle Urbanism. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/florian-lorenz/223671/welcome-bicycle-urbanism Ortner, S. B. (2006) Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject (Vol. 2006). Duke Universtiy Press. Reckwitz, A. (2002) Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. doi:10.1177/13684310222225432 Schatzki, T. R. (2010) The Timespace of Human Activity: On Performance, Society, and History as Indeterminate Teleological Events. Plymouth: Lexington Books. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. von. (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge. Sennett, R. (1977) The Fall of Public Man. London and Boston, MA: Faber and Faber. Sevaldson, B. (2008) Rich Design Research Space. Form Akademisk, 1(1), 28–44. Sevaldson, B. (2011) Giga-mapping: Visualisation for complexity and systems thinking in design. Nordes ’11: The 4th Nordic Design Research Conference, 137–156. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. London: SAGE Publication Ltd. Shove, E., Wattson, M., Hand, M., & Ingram, J. (2007) The design of everyday life. Oxford: Berg. Urry, J. (2004) The “System” of Automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21, 25–39. doi:10.1177/0263276404046059 Watson, M. (2012) How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 488–496. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.002
3859
Angharad McLaren, Helen Goworek, Tim Cooper, Lynn Oxborrow and Helen Hill
About the Authors: Tobias Barnes Hofmeister is Research Assistant in the Department of Product Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. He is currently working with sustainable practices and the relationship of urban planning and transportation framed through the lens of complexity. Dr. Martina Maria Keitsch is Associate Professor in Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. She has worked for over eighteen years in the sustainable development field, mainly with eco design, and -architecture, urban planning and stakeholder inclusion.
3860
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education Andrea Quam Iowa State University aquam@iastate.edu DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.380
Abstract: A base definition of sustainability is balancing environmental, economic and societal concerns with future generations in mind. At its core, sustainability is future-focused, as the education of future design professionals must be. Design is understood to be a discipline seeking to improve the condition of current and future populations. Why then, is sustainability not universally integrated into design education programs and their curricula? This paper will look at a logical framework for instructors to introduce sustainability into design curriculum in a manner that shifts from looking at sustainability competencies, to a more profession-specific vision for sustainable literacy. An argument for the need, approach and opportunity for sustainability literacy, as well as a case study in which this framework was applied to a graphic design studio class will be shared. Keywords: sustainability literacy, design education, problem solving, design pedagogy
Introduction Sustainability is a broad and complex topic. It’s an urgent topic that has found its way to the boardrooms of corporations and agendas of world leaders. It is easy to understand how such an intimidating topic might seem overwhelming to introduce into the design classroom. However the need to do so is inarguable, as it becomes a worldwide concern. Preparing designers, who will create structures and design pieces for mass production, to understand and implement sustainability is of vital importance to the health and well being of future populations. This paper proposes using a framework to shift from looking at sustainability competencies to a more profession-specific vision for sustainable literacy. A first step to establishing literacy for sustainability is to define and communicate what sustainability is. As well as address considerations associated with it, and integrate this understanding as a part of students’ problem solving process. In order to accomplish this goal, educators are key to This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Andrea Quam
creating an environment for sustainability to be addressed. There must be a more vital and direct role for sustainability to be integrated into the classroom and within educational programs. Attending to populations such as education, which has the potential for the most catalytic effect is essential to the goals of sustainability. Teachers, their roles in schools, and society at large can work toward significant change for the better. (Warren et al., 2014) A wide-ranging impact could be achieved through design educators and design programs introducing sustainability to students who will become professionals in industry. Design Education in particular has the potential to play a powerful role in addressing sustainability. The visual nature of design—with its ability to communicate across cultures and languages—has great potential to communicate and support sustainability worldwide. Design encompasses a board range of distinct disciplines each endeavouring to prepare their students for professional practice using visual methodologies. Specifically, graphic design has the ability to communicate a shared visual language of iconography. Iconography provides a holistic understanding of imagery as a message, which even has the ability to communicate with illiterate populations worldwide. Design educators play an integral role by teaching visual concepts that could contribute to sustainability literacy. The visual dialog provided by design has the potential to create behavioural change and ultimately reach a broader audience of the world population. In this paper the Sustainability Education Framework of Teachers (SEFT) will be introduced and demonstrated as a pedagogical context for introducing sustainability literacy to graphic design curriculum. While the following case study will demonstrate SEFT within a graphic design studio classroom, it should be understood the power of this structure is its ability to adapt for the application to any curriculum with the focus of a professional degree. The shift of this system’s concentration from measuring sustainable competencies, to a focal point on sustainable literacy is adaptable and scalable. This makes SEFT an entry point for instructors who are not experts in sustainability. SEFT focuses on a collection of skills that grow with, and moves the focus of measurable competencies to a future date. This is particularly astute and appropriate to the design education process because time and distance are required for the design knowledge, abilities and behaviours students have learned to become quantifiable. Sustainability should be an integral part of any designer’s education, as all design disciplines are focused on becoming future makers and creators with great potential impact on environment, economy and society.
Sustainability, the United Nations and the Call for Design The history of sustainability is closely linked with environmentalism and the realization of human impact and detriment to the environment. In the United States, environmental concerns came to the forefront in the 1960s. Since then, many national and international programs have combined environmental responsibility with social concerns, economic growth and business development to look holistically at sustainability.
3862
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
In 2015 the United Nations formally adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are intended to give international communication action items to address and solve some of the world’s biggest problems by 2030. It is a long list featuring seventeen main goals written in dense language. To truly mobilize people around these goals it will mean communicating this plan succinctly and clearly. It will mean crossing cultural divides and language barriers, and millions of people worldwide who cannot read or write. This is where design, specifically graphic design, can play an important role. The design firm Trollback + Company was hired to brand the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. In branding these goals across culture and to populations who cannot read, the firm’s charge was in essence to give world literacy to sustainability. Though he thinks all the goals are important, Jakob Trollback, owner of Trollback + Company, notes: “In a way, everything starts with ‘Goal 4: Quality Education.’ A civilized and human society can only be built with education. It creates insight and empathy to stand in the way of intolerance and abuse. Just look at the systematic way that the Taliban and ISIS are trying to eradicate education, and you understand what’s in the balance.” Which might be why the U.N. has been so ambitious with one of the targets Goal 4 needs to hit: “By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy.” (Wudel 2015)
The concept of literacy in relation to sustainability is a key and approachable link for design education programs to infuse into their curriculum. While the SDG’s Goal 4 refers specifically to reading, writing and numeracy, the idea of literacy is at the core of every curriculum. Design programs already universally translate the idea of literacy into visual literacy, ensuring their students are able to accurately write about, discuss and interpret the visuals they see and create. All design programs promote they are moving with the rest of the world toward a future of better understanding of our use of materials, and the impact of our work on the environment and society. This makes it clear that sustainability literacy should be an important part of our design programs and curriculum.
Sustainability and Education David Orr makes a clear connection between sustainability and education in his book, Earth In Mind. He calls for a rethinking of education to focus on issues of human survival in the 21 st century: The crisis we face is first and foremost one of mind, perception, and values: hence, it is a challenge to those institutions presuming to shape, minds, perceptions and values. It is an educational challenge. More of the same kind of education can only make things worse. This is not an argument against education but rather an argument for the kind of education that prepares people for lives and livelihoods suited to a planet with a biosphere that operates by the laws of ecology and thermodynamics (Orr 2004)
In Ecological Literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world, David Orr (1992) distinguishes between technological sustainability and ecological sustainability. The former
3863
Andrea Quam
is premised on the belief that every problem encountered by humans can be solved through technology and market solutions. However, ecological sustainability relies on the overall moral improvement of society to bring human existence into balance with the rest of nature. One of the challenges of integrating sustainability into education lies in reaching consensus on a precise meaning for the term. It is complicated by the wide use of sustainability and sustainable presently enjoyed in the popular media as a marketing tool. Often these uses align with Orr’s technological sustainability. Although not necessarily incompatible with the larger ideas associated with sustainability, narrower uses of the term sustainable to refer exclusively to environmental impacts, which under represent the broader perspective sustainability entails. (Nolet 2009) We see this confusion mirrored in the understanding of the students in our college classrooms. Their understanding of sustainability links directly to the narrower use of sustainable and environmental impacts, as well as a strong belief in technological sustainability. The computer and the vast technology of software which accompanies it has not only changed the way design and industry produces and practices, it has had a large role in shaping the individuals that now fill the seats of classrooms. The design students of today are from the ‘Net’ generation (those born between 1977–1999) who have only known a life embedded with technology. The ‘Net’ generation has had access to super-realistic video games, the Internet, e-mail, instant messaging, online communities, videos, and music that can be downloaded at will. This level of interactive technology is shaping the ‘Net’ generation’s culture, values, and world outlook. (Quam 2013) It is a world-view that typically embraces technology as a solution. These factors create a challenge for educators when introducing sustainability into the classroom and their programs of study. In their 2014 article “Sustainability Education Framework of Teachers [SEFT]: Developing Sustainability literacy through futures, values, systems and strategic thinking” professors Annie Warren, Leanna M. Archambault, and Rider W. Foley move the typical conversation of sustainable competencies—a wide set of skills, abilities, and behaviours that in theory should be measurable and observable—to focus on sustainability literacy. They argue [sustainability] literacy suggests a collection of skills that, once achieved and formed, can manifest a particular level of competence that can be measured in the future. They use the term literacy as a collection of skills that allow for effective participation and influence in diverse areas of social life. (Warren et al., 2014) This realistic perspective becomes a feasible and approachable way to introduce this large and complex topic to ‘Net’ generation students. In the Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (SEFT) four ways of thinking are posed: systems, values, futures and strategy. This provides a conceptual framework for analysing and considering sustainability problems and solutions through a networked approach. It is through the use of this system that they propose establishing sustainability literacy in the classroom. SEFT provides the opportunity for self-reflection and independent enquiry by considering and learning through real-life issues. The four lenses may be used in a variety of ways. They require considering critical inquiries related to societal values, equity,
3864
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
and visions of the future––unpacking the status quo and exploring and articulating pathways towards a sustainable tomorrow. (Warren et al., 2014) The SEFT framework methodology gives educators a clear understanding of how to evaluate and take action—as citizens and educators—on the following: Observed symptoms are the result of cascading effects linked to interconnected systems (Meadows, 2008; Warren et al., 2014) Values connected to over-consumption and inequitable distribution of resources is creating conflict (Ostrom, 1990; Warren et al., 2014) Human-caused environmental damage to the biosphere and local ecosystems is threatening the viability of future human generations (Rockstrom et al. 2009; Warren et al., 2014); and Solutions to sustainability challenges must consider trade-offs and be constructed strategically to maximize benefits and ameliorate negative unintended consequences (Costanza, 2011; Gibson, 2006; Warren et al., 2014).
SEFT Case Study in a Graphic Design Studio Classroom In considering the Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (SEFT) in relation to design and design education, immediate connections become evident for the adaptation of it to design programs and curriculum. For sustainability to become effective it is essential for an overall shift in values and perception to occur. Today, we face challenges that literally are planetary in magnitude and complexity, and it is becoming increasingly clear that our thinking is the problem. If we want to change the kind of thinking we are doing, we need to change the educational systems we are using to create that thinking (Orr, 2004; Nolet 2009) This generation entering the workforce has already ushered in unprecedented changes. They are ideal candidates to instigate the change that must occur to establish a long-term, forward-looking perspective with future generations in mind for all that we do and create. While some design disciplines, such as architecture, efficiently and quickly embraced sustainability and have been able to establish measureable competencies for it within their profession, other design disciplines have struggled to integrate it. When there is a blatant connection in materials use and environmental impact related to a specific profession, an entry point to sustainability becomes evident. In the profession of graphic design this has been the case. Curriculum revolving around green design, espousing the use of recycled paper and soy inks and selecting digital mediums over print—which is not always the most environmental solution—has been integrated into many graphic design programs. The environmental consideration of resources and materials—while extremely important—is only one aspect of sustainability, which calls for a more holistic understanding. This is where many design disciplines are challenged and seem to falter when addressing and integrating it into their curriculum and program focus. With the SEFT framework’s perspective moving from evaluating competencies to focus on profession-specific sustainability literacy, a scalable and feasible entry point is created. The
3865
Andrea Quam
following case study introduces the SEFT framework applied to a graphic design studio class’s projects. This is an example of using SEFT to integrate sustainability into a graphic design curriculum with its emphasis on the development of sustainability literacy through futures, values, systems and critical thinking. Authors of the framework stress that while their parameters are presented in a specific order––they should be considered in parallel and are conceptualized as being bi-directional and interconnected. The logical entry point in the framework presented is dependent upon the problem and/or solution being observed. (Warren et al., 2014) The graphic design profession is currently in an accelerated rate of evolution due to technological development—as are many other professions. The profession as a whole has shifted from a predominantly print-based practice to one whose future is digitally focused with graphic designers functioning in a team-based environment more than ever before. Situated as a visual problem solving profession in the areas of communication; branding; advertising; and information dispersal, graphic designers have long been trained in the forward-looking, systematic and strategic ways of thinking the SEFT framework mentions. The design profession, like many others, inherently has imbedded in its curriculum the conceptual framework for analysing and considering problems and solutions through a networked approach. However, the SEFT framework provides a new approach to problem solving, and furthermore specifically introduces the idea of values thinking into the classroom. This becomes an important part of a student’s education. It allows them to develop their individual voice and contribute to society not only on a professional level but as individual citizens as well. When integrating the SEFT framework into the following classroom projects for this case study, the initial consideration was the subject matter and content for the projects. Carefully considering these foundational aspects for the projects allowed connections of sustainability and a more holistic examination of final solutions. The first project was environmental in subject matter, allowing for a stereotypical understanding of sustainability to be an entry point, while the second project was more open-ended in subject matter to encourage students to broaden and explore their initial understanding of sustainability. The SEFT framework was used as a series of methods—ranging from discussion, to role playing and mapping—to help frame the students’ process and solution development. The SEFT framework infused broader reaching considerations and a more holistic perspective when students were developing problem solutions. In the first project junior and senior level graphic design students were challenged to develop a visual campaign that brought awareness to endangered prairie habitat. Prairie was once native and dominated the agriculture-based landscape that today surrounds their university. This class project was titled “The Prairie Project” and will be referred to as such throughout this paper. In the second project the same students were asked to develop communication pieces to address a place, concept or culture they felt was in danger of disappearing within their own and/or future generations. This project was entitled “What’s Worth Sustaining?” and will be referred to as such in the ensuing discussion.
3866
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
Both projects immediately engaged students in values thinking. By using values thinking, graphic design students were able to more accurately address the design problem within a comprehensive context and consider how their solution might communicate more extensively beyond their initially targeted audience. To use values thinking involves concepts of justice, equity, social-ecological integrity, and ethics. It also means understanding how these concepts vary across and within cultures, and how integrating these concepts contributes to solving sustainability problems… Another essential element for values thinking is to consider how our current problems and possible solutions impact a variety of different people. Solutions must be fair to concerned stakeholders and should be transparent in order to be equitable. Just as the development of sustainable solutions should involve everyone affected, solutions should not just benefit a single person or group. (Warren et al., 2014)
With the use of values thinking students were able to articulate, consider and work through preconceived notions. For “The Prairie Project” students had to consider two disparate stakeholders: farmers whose agriculture-based livelihoods not only supported the state’s main industry but were also responsible for the reduction of the state’s prairie habitat, versus those seeking to preserve and restore prairie habitat. Creating a solution that focused or promoted one over the other was understood to not be a thorough and strong solution through the lens of values thinking. This became more evident to students through roleplaying in which students took turns playing the roles of agricultural stakeholders and prairie stakeholders. One student whose initial focus was to develop a campaign ‘shaming’ farmers and the role they had played in the devastation of prairies, evolved into one of educating both sides to move forward with more measured consideration for the future. In the “What’s Worth Sustaining?” project students were also encouraged to consider multiple viewpoints, apply a range of values and consider equity and justice in their solutions. For this project several students elected to focus on lifestyles they felt were detrimental to society as a whole. Again, through role-play students were able to look at the possibilities of injecting metaphor and humour into their project to speak to a broader audience and do so in a nonjudgemental manner allowing their message to span societal boundaries. In both projects opportunities created through class discussion where students had the opportunity to ask questions, clarify and analyse their values and explore others values in a safe place of small group discussions were key in shaping the students approaches and concepts. Using roleplaying, students were able to ask clarifying questions of one another and explore how values operated in a range of contexts. This allowed them to develop a more empathetic approach to a broader range of audiences. In both projects students were encouraged to consider futures thinking as outlined by the SEFT framework. Futures thinking was involved through the ability to think systematically about the future and future generations. They were told that in the seeking of sustainable solutions: Stakeholders, policy makers, innovators, and citizens need consider how past decisions led us to the crisis we face today. We need to anticipate and imagine how today’s
3867
Andrea Quam
solutions could introduce negative cascading effects and become tomorrow’s problems. Likewise we need to work through plausible scenarios of the future that can lead to safer, happier, and healthier futures, and work to achieve these futures today. (Warren et al., 2014)
In the “The Prairie Project,” students considered how the single-minded pursuit of growth and industry in their state had caused the destruction of prairies. However, through a balanced, futures thinking approach, they were also able to understand that a single-minded reversal towards conservation and preservation was also not the answer, nor was a ‘noaction’ scenario acceptable. In the “What’s Worth Sustaining?” project students were able to examine a self-selected issue to develop their voice and a better understanding of the culture they operate in as designers. With futures thinking, students began to consider more expansive solutions identifying future trends and taking advantage of or redirecting from them. In several instances futures thinking allowed students to realize their power through design communication to create a future instead of merely accepting how things are. A specific example of futures thinking at work with the “What’s Worth Sustaining” project was the selection of one student to focus on her peers as an audience. She built a campaign around the development of two design student personas. One persona was a design student who endeavoured to learn about materials and environmental choices and the other was one whom did not. She used narrative development of these two characters to show a better world when future designers endeavoured to acquire environmental knowledge, and conversely the negative and broad-spread impact of negligence in this area. Graphic design consistently embraces an understanding of systems thinking in its approach to branding and communications, which spans across time and a range of mediums and avenues to ensure a thorough and cohesive message. The SEFT framework broadens and extends the idea of systems thinking to: The ability to collectively analyse complex systems across different domains (society, environment, and economy) and across different scales (local to global), thereby considering cascading effects, inertia, feedback loops, and other systemic features related to sustainability issues and sustainability problem-solving frameworks.(Wiek et al; 2011) Systems thinking does not claim complete knowledge. Rather, systems thinking is about assessing the degree of system complexity and analysing dynamics to make informed decisions that reduce the risk of negative outcomes. (Warren et al., 2014)
In both instances of these projects, systems thinking was one of the more challenging ways of thinking as introduced by the SEFT framework. With the “The Prairie Project” students were able to more easily see levels of connected systems. The relations between human and natural systems were examined as they strove to develop an understanding of their subject matter. Through examining the interconnected nature of the elements, they began to see how a design solution reacting specifically to one aspect of the problem may have unintended consequences. Therefore a majority of their solutions developed into a focus on educating their audience rather than attempting to persuade them. In addressing systems thinking within the “What’s Worth Sustaining?” project, frustration reached high levels as
3868
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
students were not able to collectively map out and recognize patterns. Due to the individual nature of selected topics, they had to construct this understanding independently, which they found to be much more challenging. However, when reminded that systems thinking does not claim complete knowledge, but is rather about assessing and analysing systems dynamics to make informed decisions that reduce the risk of negative outcome, progress was made. (Warren et al., 2014) Upon reflection, this aspect of the “What’s Worth Sustaining?” project might have been aided by asking students to seek out news stories that might identify hidden connections to their topics. This could help them look at possible associations and parallels beyond what they were specifically studying to see unexpected connections potentially leading to unforeseen solutions. The final way of thinking introduced by the SEFT framework is strategic thinking. Ideas addressing strategic thinking have become essential in graphic design due to the expanded mediums across which communication might take place. Strategic thinking in design means being able to develop a strategy or a plan to achieve a particular vision or goal. This is also the case with sustainability. Strategic thinking involves using analogies and qualitative similarities to create new ideas in addition to developing a course of action dependent on new learning (Lawrence, 1999; Warren, Archambault, Foley, 2014). This means finding creative ways to solve the critical problems of our time and understanding and working to reduce inequalities… One stumbling block to strategic thinking is the status quo. The current state tends to exert a lot of influence over future states and can result in path dependency where our current state sets a path for the future. (Warren et al., 2014)
Both projects were effective in building sustainability literacy focused around strategic thinking because both were addressing real-world problems. With projects originating in real-world issues, students were able to engage as productive citizens who have ideas that could be implemented meaningfully and build the necessary knowledge to create meaningful change. In both instances it became relevant and essential for students to identify and question the status quo. This helped shape their discovery and understanding of their projects—specifically in the “What’s Worth Sustaining?” project. One area in which design curriculum often falls short in relation to strategic thinking is within testing, evaluating, adaptation and ensuing action plans. Future iterations of SEFT into these design classroom projects should additionally consider these measures in relation to developing strategic thinking. With the Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (SEFT) instructors who are not experts in sustainability, but are experts in their profession have a means in which to address and incorporate sustainability thinking into their curriculum and programs. This provides a new framework for problem solving that is more rigorous. A more robust and rigorous problem-solving framework creates professionals who are more agile and ready to face larger, future challenges. The end result is a population of graduates who have the framework and vocabulary of sustainability operating at a professional level in an overall manner that has impact. While this may prove challenging to measure, it is unarguable that
3869
Andrea Quam
this is an improvement over omitting sustainability in design curriculum, or presenting a narrowed viewpoint of environmental impact. The four lenses require considerable critical thinking related to societal values, equity, and visions of the future; unpacking the status quo; and exploring and articulating pathways toward a sustainable tomorrow. (Warren et al., 2014)
Future Directions and Limitations Future pursuit of this research should look at integrating sustainability literacy at the beginning of design students’ careers, versus the middle or end, as was done with the juniors and seniors in this case study. Introducing sustainability literacy at the freshman and sophomore levels of a design program allows time for the literacy to become a deep-seated tool in students problem solving. Once this has been accomplished there might be more opportunity to look at measureable competencies in sustainability. Also, additional future directions for this research should rectify initial limitations of the case study projects. In the “Prairie Project”—which had two key stakeholders, it would have been invaluable for the students engage in discussion with each. While they did engage in roleplaying for these stakeholders, participation of the actual stakeholders would provide a more realistic aspect and perspective. Another potential limitation to this case study is the fact that in both projects, the final solutions were heavily focused on technology and a final artefact. Could more of a focus on the process of problem solving instead of a final artefact be more beneficial to the educational process? This could allow students to focus more on developing sustainability literacy, and could potentially help focus students on a sounder understanding of what David Orr describes as ecological sustainability— rather than technological sustainability. Orr defined technological sustainability as the belief that every problem encountered by humans can be solved through technology and market solutions. While Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (SEFT) provides an opportunity for the integration of sustainability into curriculum, it does not consider how to measure its success once integrated. In both of the projects for this case study daily classroom documentation and written student reflections at the end of the project would have provided a greater gauge of the impact of the SEFT Framework, as well as entrance and exit surveys specifically addressing sustainability literacy could be conducted. To further address the value of instilling sustainability literacy into curriculum and its future measurable potential, programs that have integrated SEFT could also survey alumni previous and post integration of the system to measure professional impact.
Conclusion While this case study features graphic design for the introduction of SEFT’s futures, values systems and strategic thinking into curriculum, one can see how it could be adapted to a range of design disciplines to introduce vital issues to the next generation of decision-
3870
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
makers. The strength of the framework is that it requires students to consider other people, places, times and spaces beyond themselves—at a time in their lives where there is a strong focus on self. This is especially important to address with college students studying to become professionals whose decisions will affect the creation of plans, places, spaces and products that shape the lives and experiences of many. Introducing sustainability is not only a responsible action on the behalf of design programs, but an urgent and essential one. Designers make daily decisions with regard to the use of resources, and to the lifestyle and use of products, places and communications. In order to achieve the needs of businesses, the desires of the consumer and improvement of the world, the designer in making decisions must embrace dimensions of social responsibility. However, there is now a need to shift from focusing on a single issue to making a more holistic approach. (Bhamra, Lofthouse 2007) The roles and demands upon designers will also continue to evolve. Graduates with a foundation in sustainability literacy will be equipped to respond to the dynamics of change and the complex and connected global world in which they will operate. The SEFT framework provides the means for instructors from of a range of disciplines and varied levels of experience to incorporate sustainability literacy into their curriculum.
References Bhamra, T., Lofthouse L. (2007) Design for Sustainability. Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Limited. Costanza, R. (2011) Needed: The solutions generation. Solutions, 2(5). Gibson, R.B. (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24. Lawrence, E. (1999) Strategic thinking: A discussion paper. Ottowa Personnel Development and Resourcing Group, Public Service Commission of Canada. Retrieved from www.hrbartender.com/images/thinking.pdf Meadows, D. (2008) Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Nolet, V. (2009) Preparing sustainability-literate teachers. Teacher’s College Record, 111. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, MA: Cambbridge University Press. Orr, D. (1992) Ecological Literacy: Education andd the transition to a postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press. Orr, D. (2004) Earth in mind: On education, environment and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Earth Island Press. Quam, A. (2013) The ’Nature’ of Design Education: teaching design fundamentals in an outdoor classroom. Re / Materialising Design Education Futures, 11. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, FS. III, & et. al., (2009) Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14. United Nations Statistics Division (2006) The millennium development goals report 2006. New York.
3871
Andrea Quam
Warren, A. Archambault, L. Foley, R., (2014) Sustainability Framework for Teachers: Developing sustainability literacy through futures, values, systems and strategic thinking. Journal of Sustainability Education, 6. Wiek, A., Withycombe,L., Redman, C.L. (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6. World Energy Council (2008) Living In One World. http://tinyurl.com/p8z7peo (accessed 2008) Wudel, E. (2015) How This Great Design is Bringing World Change to the Masses. http://tinyurl.com/o9rh5lz (accessed September 2015)
About the Author: Andrea Quam is an assistant professor of graphic design at Iowa State University’s College of Design. She received a BFA in Graphic Design from Iowa State, and after a decade of professional practice she returned to graduate school to receive her MFA in Visual Communication from Virginia Commonwealth University. She has practiced as a multimedia and print designer. She teaches at all levels of Iowa State’s graphic design program. Her work has been published and exhibited regionally, nationally and internationally. She has presented papers and published journal articles with organizations such as: the Design Research Society (DRS), International Design Principles and Practice, International Digital Media and Arts Association (iDMAa), and the University and College Designers Association (UCDA).
3872
Design of resilient consumer products Anders Haug University of Southern Denmark adg@sam.sdu.dk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.265
Abstract: Consumer product sustainability is a topic that has been of increasing interest to practice and academia in recent decades. In this context, a widely discussed means of achieving sustainability is to design more durable products, thereby reducing the need for the production of new products. In particular, the emotional perspective on product durability has received attention in recent design literature, since consumer products are often replaced long before they become physically non-functioning. However, the literature does not provide a full account of the causes of product replacement or of the means for making products more durable. This paper addresses these issues by defining the concept of ‘resilient product design’, providing a detailed classification of causes of product replacement, and organising means to extend product longevity. Hereby, the paper provides a more structured basis for designers to design resilient consumer products and for researchers to engage in further studies. Keywords: product resilience; emotional durability; sustainability; consumer product design
1. Introduction Given the increasing awareness of the environmental problems we face, sustainability has become a much-debated topic in both practice and academia. One of the means of sustainability that is often mentioned is making products more durable, thereby minimising the need for new products. Since consumer products are often replaced long before they become physically non-functioning, the emotional durability aspect in particular has received increased attention in recent design literature (Cooper, 2004; van Nes and Cramer, 2005; Mugge et al. 2005; Chapman, 2009; Fletcher, 2012). The literature includes several explanations of why well-functioning consumer products are replaced as well as a range of design strategies to increase product longevity. There are, however, still no exhaustive answers to these questions (van Nes and Cramer, 2005; Chapman, 2009). In relation to the discussion above, this paper argues that there is a need for more complete descriptions of the causes of product replacement and the means of increasing product longevity. This is reflected in existing classifications, which, although they provide good understandings of what the phenomenon concerns, may not have sufficient structure and
Andrea Quam
detail if designers are to grasp the full range of potential issues when they attempt to design more durable consumer products — and from a research perspective, there is a need for a clear understanding of the problem at hand in order to be able to address it efficiently. This paper does not claim to provide the final answer to these issues, but by employing a somewhat different approach to the topic, as compared to the existing literature, the paper sheds new light on the issue. More specifically, the paper addresses two overall questions: 11. What are the causes for consumer product replacement? 12. What are the design strategies for increasing consumer product longevity? The two questions are addressed through discussions of the existing literature, on which basis the paper defines the concept of ‘resilient product design’, clarifies its dimensions, and organises strategies for designing resilient consumer products. The paper focuses on durable ‘consumer products’, i.e., tangible products sold for nonbusiness purposes, excluding convenience goods. This focus was chosen to limit the extent of the topic. However, the paper’s contributions may also be relevant for many types of business products, in particular the ones most likely to be replaced while still being physically functioning.
2. Literature review To understand consumer product durability, a basic distinction may be employed between absolute and relative obsolescence (Granberg as cited in Cooper, 2004). Discussing absolute obsolescence, Granberg (as cited in Cooper, 2004) describes intrinsic durability as referring to 1) the ability to withstand ‘wear and tear’ and material degradation; 2) process quality (i.e., product consistency in manufacturing); and 3) factors relating to maintenance (i.e., ease of repair, availability of parts). This kind of durability is therefore, to a large extent, a topic related to engineering research. On the other hand, from an industrial and fashion design perspective, relative product obsolescence (i.e., factors other than physical functioning) is often particularly interesting. The literature contains several classifications of causes of product replacement within these two dimensions. A selection of these is shown in Table 1, where it should be noted that all the identified causes do not apply to all kinds of products.
3874
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
Table 1 Identified classifications for causes of product replacement. Source
Dimensions
Bayus (1991, p. 43)
1) Style; 2) Features and technological advantages; 3) Price and sales promotions; 4) Changed family circumstances; 5) Improved financial situation
Mowen (1995)
1) Technical condition; 2) Style; 3) Price and sales promotions; 4) Previous decision; 5) Changed circumstances and aspirations; 6) Changes in financial situation; 7) Aging; 8) Physical or psychological changes
Heiskanen (1996)
1) Failure; 2) Dissatisfaction; 3) Change in consumer needs
Creusen (1998)
1) Practical function; 2) Ergonomic function; 3) Hedonic function; 4) Symbolic function.
Van Nes et al. (1999)
1) Technical obsolescence; 2) Economic obsolescence; 3) Ecological obsolescence; 4) Aesthetic obsolescence; 5) Feature obsolescence; 6) Psychological obsolescence
Cooper (2004)
1) Absolute obsolescence; 2) Relative obsolescence: 2a) Psychological obsolescence; 2b) Economic obsolescence; 2c) Technological obsolescence
Van Nes and Cramer (2005)
1) Wear and tear; 2) Improved utility; 3) Improved expression; 4) New desires
Mugge et al., 2005
1) Performance decrease (function and appearance); 2) Technological obsolescence; 3) Legislation change; 4) New features/technology; 5) Fashion; 6) Family/financial circumstances
Burns (2010, p. 45)
1) Aesthetic; 2) Social; 3) Technological; 4) Economic
It should be noted that it is not always desirable for products to have as long a lifetime as possible. To underline this point, some literature uses the term ‘lifetime optimisation’ instead of terms such as ‘lifetime extension’ (Charter and Tischner, 2001). More specifically, there are situations in which extended lifetime does not imply an environmental improvement — for example, if a new product is significantly more energy-efficient than an existing one. It should also be noted that some would argue that longer product lifespans could have a negative impact on economic development (van Nes and Cramer, 2005). For most products, however, lifetime extension is desirable from an environmental point of view (van Nes and Cramer, 2005), which is the focus of this paper. Several streams of literature related to strategies for increasing product longevity exist. Such literature is, however, scattered across different areas of research (i.e., engineering design, industrial design, fashion design, and marketing). The literature review conducted for this paper identified five streams of research involving strategies for enabling increased product longevity (others may exist): 13. Adaptation focus 14. Timelessness focus 15. Exclusivity focus 16. Emotional focus
3875
Andrea Quam
17. Design process focus The adaptation approach concerns providing consumers with possibilities for maintaining, altering, and repairing products to extend product lifetime. In this vein, van Nes et al. (1999) defined five approaches related to the physical adaptability of products: reparability; element replacement for economic benefits; element replacement for ecological benefits; element replacement for aesthetic benefits; and adding new features through modules. In a similar manner, van Nes and Cramer (2005) identified five design strategies for improving product longevity, of which four have a product adaptability focus: design for reliability and robustness; design for repair and maintenance; design for upgradability; design for product attachment (personalisation); and design for variability (reconfiguration). Focusing on electronic products, Walker (2011) defined five means of promoting longer product lifetime, four of which have an adaptation focus: continuous product evolvement; accommodation of component change; local maintenance, repair, and upgrade; and internalising impacts through new enterprise models (e.g., by including repair and upgrade services). Another type of focus in relation to the adaptation approach is offering complementary products to ensure a constant level of functionality for the core product (e.g., razor blades) (Claussen et al., 2015). More specifically, in the case of a razor, as compared to disposable razors, the handle of a removable-blade razor is to be reused with new blades, as opposed to being disposed when the blade stops being useful. This approach is often used as a means of making a profit by demanding relatively high prices for complementary products of which the producer is the only supplier (Claussen et al., 2015). However, offering complementary products for products where certain parts are subjected to more stress than others can also be used as a means of extending product longevity to achieve environmental benefits. The timelessness approach is about making designs that are resistant to changes in consumer taste and preferences. In this context, the studies by Mugge et al. (2006) suggest that an emotional bond to a product does not necessarily result in a long-lasting relationship with the product, which they explain as being related to fashion trends that may be short or long-lived and thus cause consumers to be attached to products for shorter or longer periods of time. Another type of explanation for certain products being more timeless was provided by Aaker (1999) and Govers and Schoormans (2005) who, with a basis in the theory of self-congruity, found that consumers prefer products and brands with personality characteristics that are congruent to their own, since these products can help to maintain and express their identity. Because people strive to maintain a positive view of the self, an old-fashioned product is typically less valuable for maintaining a person’s self, and therefore, the product attachment will decrease. One of the approaches towards more timeless designs involves diverting attention away from the moment of product realisation or purchase, but instead trace the usage of products with references to ‘product careers’ and wider cultural consumption trends (van Hinte, 2004; Cooper, 2005). Another timelessness approach is to focus more on biological factors that produce an aesthetic experience (e.g., Hekkert, 2006; Norman, 2004). It could be hypothesised that drawing on inherent
3876
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
tendencies to find objects beautiful would make products more resistant to changing fashions, as compared to products whose perceived beauty is a more cultural phenomenon. The exclusivity approach is about making products appear as scarce resources and thereby making consumers treasure them more (Brown 2001). One way of doing this is through limited editions, which many brands are currently introducing as part of their product lines (e.g., pianos, cars, and fashion goods) (Balachander and Stock, 2009). The scarcity of such products also implies that getting a similar object could be extremely difficult, for which reason the owners take better care of the products and hold on to them for longer. Another exclusivity approach is to design luxury products. Such products typically have a higher quality and higher prices than non-luxury products of the same type. Also, luxury products are generally more closely associated with style than with fads, and many of them never go completely out of fashion (e.g., watches, jewellery, furniture, bags, certain cars, etc.) (Wolny and Hansen, 2011). Thus, luxury products are often kept for longer, and when replaced, they are often sold to other consumers rather than being discarded. Therefore, affecting consumer behaviour towards purchasing fewer products but ones that are more expensive and of higher quality could have a positive environmental effect. The emotional approach is about designing products that produce an emotional attachment. Emotional attachment implies that the owner is more likely to handle the product with care, to repair it when it breaks down, and to postpone its replacement (Belk 1991). In the context of emotionally durable design, Chapman’s (2005) ideas have received much attention. Based on a survey of product relationships of over 2,000 users of domestic electronic products, Chapman (2009, p. 33) distilled a six-point experiential framework to provide product designers with a pathway for designing more emotionally durable products. The six points are narrative, detachment, surface, attachment, fiction, and consciousness. The design process approach involves having a strong user focus in the design processes. This may involve giving extensive attention to user needs, wants, and limitations at each stage of the design process in order to design products that fit users better and, thus, are more likely to create emotional attachment — i.e., ‘user-centred design’ (or ‘human-centred design’) (Sanders, 1998). Another possibility is to involve users in the design process, which, besides implying more personalised products, may also promote attachment to the product, because the user has been involved of the design process. Terms used to describe such approaches include ‘participatory design’, ‘co-creation’, and ‘co-design’ (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). It should be noted that outside a product design perspective, the issue of product lifetime extension has also been addressed from a government perspective in the form of demands or incentives aimed at product manufacturers. In this context, the UK government’s environment department, Defra (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs), commissioned ERM (Environmental Resources Management) to conduct a major study of product lifetimes (ERM, 2011). The report from this study mentions 13 possible initiatives in the form of business-led voluntary measures and government-led voluntary and mandatory initiatives.
3877
Andrea Quam
As mentioned in the Introduction, the identified classifications of causes of product replacement may have some limitations if they are to be applied as analytical tools for designers to increase product longevity, or if they are to provide a clear basis for future research. First, the identified classifications include factors related to appearance, function, and/or communication dimensions. The lack of clarity about which of these dimensions the factors refer to may cause confusion. For example, in some of the identified classifications, ‘aesthetics’ is seemingly used to refer exclusively to the product’s appearance, although use processes and marketing messages may also carry important aesthetic qualities. Second, the classifications may be too general to be applied as analytical tools for designers. In other words, using a more detailed list of dimensions as a basis for analysis could make the task easier, more efficient and help to avoid neglecting important aspects. As discussed above, since the possible means of increasing product longevity focus on different aspects, there is a need for further organisation in order to provide a more complete picture. These issues are therefore the focus of the remainder of this paper.
3. A framework of product design resilience The term ‘resilience’ refers to the quality of “being able to recover quickly or easily from, or resist being affected by, a misfortune, shock, illness, etc.; robustness; adaptability” (OED, 2015). Thus, as compared to the term ‘durability’, ‘resilience’ has stronger connotations to a capacity for ‘recovering’ or ‘adapting’, as opposed to being mainly associated with ‘robustness’. In relation to product longevity, this double meaning is particularly relevant. For example, when a piece of furniture develops appreciated patina because its environment affects it, this is a quality of ‘adaptability’ rather than an ability to withstand use and decay. Another example is an old T-shirt for sale in an exclusive second-hand store. In many cases, the T-shirt will have been out of fashion for years, but it now re-emerges as another type of product, i.e., ‘a fashionable second-hand T-shirt’. Another example is vinyl records, which for many years were a rare encounter, but which have received renewed interest in recent years (Stanley, 2015). In relation to furniture and graphic design, today, more than ever, the mid-century modern look (roughly 1933 to 1965) has re-emerged (Fenton, 2015). Most of the furniture designs from the mid-century had gone out of fashion by the late 1960s, but in the 1980s, interest in the period began to return, and by the mid1990s, a niche collectors’ market had already driven up prices of the original mid-century designs (Fenton, 2015). In this manner, product designs can go out of fashion and later reemerge with new cultural meanings. Thus, when focusing on product designs with a long lifetime, the key consideration is not just how long the product can last before becoming physically dysfunctional or losing its emotional appeal but also its ability to adapt its physical characteristics and social meaning. Based on these arguments, the term ‘resilience’ is applied in this paper. The resilience of a product may be defined as involving two overall dimensions: 18. Intrinsic resilience: resilience against product-devaluing product changes (certain decay, defects, etc.)
3878
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
19. Extrinsic resilience: resilience against product-devaluing environmental changes (fashion trends, new technologies, etc.) As mentioned earlier, in the identified classifications in the literature, the causes of product replacement refer to three product dimensions: appearance, function, and communication (e.g., marketing messages). By combining these three dimensions with the distinction between intrinsic end extrinsic resilience, the model in Figure 1 is constructed as a frame of reference for the subsequent discussions. In the figure, it should be noted that symbolic meanings could emerge from all three design dimensions: appearance, functionality, and communication.
Figure 1 Product design resilience
3.1 Intrinsic product resilience As mentioned previously, intrinsic product resilience refers to how well a product holds up physically to use and other sources of decay. In relation to intrinsic product resilience, a set of states and processes can be described, as done in Figure 2. The premise of Figure 2 is that once a product is put into use there is an initial period during which the product seems ‘as good as new’. How long this phase lasts, obviously, depends on the product type and how it is treated. After this initial phase, there is a decay phase, during which a decrease in quality occurs, as compared to the original level. However, as shown in the top-left model in Figure 2, in some cases the decay phase actually produces an increased level of perceived quality for a period of time. For example, a leather sofa may develop appreciated patina, and a pair of jeans may become more comfortable with use. The top-right model in Figure 2 illustrates how product maintenance may both increase the duration of the ‘non-decay phase’ and decrease the intensity of decay in the ‘decay phase’. For example, maintaining a coffee machine or a car properly may postpone the onset of decay. The middle-left model in Figure 2 illustrates how the ability to replace product elements may restore product quality. For example, replacing a battery in a laptop or replacing a chair seat cover can restore the level of quality. The middle-right model in Figure 2 illustrates how a product upgrade may raise quality beyond the original level. This includes, for example, a laptop that has additional
3879
Andrea Quam
memory inserted or a rack system that has additional modules added. The bottom-left model in Figure 2 illustrates how repairs can restore the quality of a defective or damaged product. For example, if the recharge function of a smartphone stops working it may be repaired, and a tabletop that has become too scratched, in the owner’s opinion, can be repainted. The bottom-right model in Figure 2 illustrates how reconfiguring a product can restore its quality. For example, a children’s chair may be height-adjustable, and a laptop may allow for the adjustment of various settings.
Figure 2 Intrinsic product resilience
To summarise the discussion above, the sum of the durations of three phases determines the total duration of a product’s lifetime with a satisfactory quality: Non-decay phase: i.e., time until the onset of noticeable decay Negative decay phase: i.e., from the onset of decay to an unacceptable level of decay Positive decay phase: i.e., period of positive decay (if any) Five types of lifetime extension measures may extend these three phases: Maintenance
3880
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
Replacement Upgrade Repair Reconfiguration
In relation to the five types of lifetime-increasing actions, they obviously need to be sufficiently attractive for consumers to employ in order to be relevant. This includes providing adequate information about these options, making them convenient enough, and making sure they are not too pricy. As argued earlier, the factors associated with intrinsic product longevity are relevant in relation to all three design aspects: appearance, function, and communication. Table 2 provides a set of examples to support this point. Table 2 Examples of intrinsic product resilience Appearance
Function
Communication
Decay resilience
A car with scratchresistant surfaces.
A vinyl record player that maintains its sound quality.
A brand that launches a commercial that sticks in the mind.
Positive decay features
A leather sofa that develops appreciated patina.
A chair that adapts to the user’s body over time.
A brand that launches a commercial that acquires nostalgic qualities over time.
Maintenance quality
Easily understandable instructions for how to maintain a woollen sofa.
A coffee machine that is easy to clean.
A brand that continuously promotes itself in a consistent way.
Replace quality
A chair with an easily replaceable seat cover.
A laptop with an affordable and easily replaceable battery.
A brand that repositions a product when it is criticised.
Upgrade quality
New attractive covers for a smartphone.
A laptop that allows the addition of extra memory modules.
A brand that improves its image over time.
Repair quality
Shoes with an affordable sole repair service.
A smartphone with a warranty that covers malfunctions.
A brand that rebuilds its image when faced with criticism.
A laptop where the settings can be individualised.
A brand that positions a product in different ways to address different target groups.
A sofa with modules Reconfiguration that can be quality reorganised.
3.2 Extrinsic product design resilience Extrinsic product design resilience refers to how well a product can maintain an adequate appeal to avoid being discarded while it is still physically functional or while it is possible to ‘revitalise’ the product by replacing elements or upgrading, repairing or reconfiguring the
3881
Andrea Quam
product. As shown, the literature contains several classifications of factors that cause products to be discarded although they are still physically functioning or could be repaired. However, existing classifications seem far from exhaustive. In order to broaden the understanding of such causes, Porter’s ‘five forces model’ (Porter, 1980) can be brought into play. Porter’s five forces include: 1) bargaining power of customers (buyers); 2) bargaining power of suppliers; 3) threat of substitute products or services; 4) threat of new entrants; and 5) intensity of competitive rivalry. The five forces model is a standard tool used by both academics and practitioners in connection with strategic management studies (Rugman and Verbeke, 2000; Bose, 2008). According to Grundy (2008), the unique quality of this model is that it distilled “the complex micro-economic literature into five explanatory or causal variables to explain superior and inferior performance”. Given that the focus of this paper is not rivalry between companies but product resilience, some adaptations of the five forces are needed. More specifically, the five actor/object types are used, but given a product design resilience focus. Furthermore, to make the focus clearer, the category ‘substitute products or services’ is changed to (new) ‘technology’, which is in fact a part of what ‘substitute products or services’ refers to. The five derived dimensions of extrinsic product resilience are shown in Figure 3, in which each dimension is subdivided into two subtypes to explain their scope. This scope is further clarified in Table 3, in which the derived five types of extrinsic product design resilience are combined with the three aforementioned design dimensions, i.e., appearance, function, and communication. This produces thirty distinct extrinsic design resilience dimensions, which are all relevant when designing resilient products, although they are rarely all relevant for the same product.
Figure 3 Dimensions of extrinsic product design resilience
3882
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
Table 3 Examples of needs for extrinsic product design resilience
Competition resilience
New product resilience
Technology resilience
Supplier resilience
Consumer resilience
Resilience
Appearance
Function
Communication
Changing tastes
A product’s appearance becoming unfashionable.
A product’s operating principle becoming unfashionable.
A product’s brand messages becoming unfashionable.
Changing needs
Desires for appearances that better match new lifestyles.
Needs for new functions or better performance.
Desires for branding that better match new lifestyles.
Service limitations
Poor possibilities for getting a product surface repaired.
Poor possibilities for getting product functions repaired.
Poor possibilities for getting information about repair.
Component limitations
Complementary visual parts being/becoming unavailable.
Complementary functional parts being/ becoming unavailable.
Complementary product information being/ becoming unavailable.
Construction -enabling technology
New technology allowing slimmer constructions and novel shapes.
New technology allowing lighter and handier constructions.
Product branding focusing on advanced production techniques becoming outdated.
Product embedded technology
New technology allowing new ways for a product to display information.
New technology allowing new functions and better performance
Branding highlighting a product as high-tech becoming outdated
Products with similar qualities
Products with a similar appearance making a product less exclusive.
Products with a similar functionality making a product less exclusive.
Products with similar branding making a product less exclusive.
Products with other qualities
Products with other appearance qualities.
Products with other (non-technologyrelated) functional qualities.
Products with other branding qualities.
Overexposur e
Frequent exposure making a product’s appearance less exclusive or interesting.
Frequent exposure making a product’s functionality less exclusive or interesting.
Frequent exposure making a product’s marketing messages less exclusive or interesting.
Bad publicity
Attention being drawn to negative aspects of a product’s appearance.
Attention being drawn to negative aspects of a product’s functions, e.g. energy consumption.
Attention being drawn to negative aspects of a product’s marketing.
3883
Andrea Quam
3.3 Ensuring product design resilience As mentioned earlier, the literature review identified five streams of research that may be relevant in relation to increasing consumer product longevity. As described, these streams include a multitude of different approaches that can improve a product’s resilience. Besides the five streams, four approaches outside these streams were identified: sharing products, consumer communities, product advice, and making social connections (Fuad-Luke, 2010, p. 147; ERM, 2011). In different ways, these four approaches focus on ways to affect use processes positively through product-related services. Thus, they are grouped into a sixth category labelled ‘use service’. On this basis, twenty distinct design aspects can be distilled and organised into six themes, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Product resilience-building means Theme
Adaptation
Timelessness
Exclusivity
Emotional durability
Design process
Use service
Design consideration
Examples
Repair
Offering a repair service period for an coffee maker
Maintenance
Offering leather care products/instructions for a sofa
Element replacement
Offering replacement cartridges for a printer
Element upgrade
Offering memory units for upgrading a laptop
Reconfiguration
A height-adjustable children’s chair
Long-lasting fashions/styles
Designing furniture in fashion neutral colours
Inherent aesthetic focus
Designing furniture using gestalt principles
Limited editions
Offering limited editions of a wrist watch
Luxury
Using exclusive materials and manufacturing for a handbag
Aging well
Using wood that develops appreciated patina for a table
Having ‘personality’
Designing a smartphone’s user interaction to stand out
Stimulating curiosity
Designing a table lamp that produces fictional associations
Increasing sensorial variety
Designing a toaster to highlight look, feel, and sound (rather than merely focus on visual appearance)
User-centred design
Using extensive user studies for designing an injection pen
User involvement in the design process
Letting users provide content for a website
Pre-purchase personalisation
Allowing for the personal configuration of car elements
Sharing products
Offering car sharing services
Consumer communities
Creating a web forum for discussions about wristwatches
Product advice
Providing bicycle buyers with maintenance information
Making social connections
Connecting a running tracker with social media
3.4 A process model for designing resilient consumer products Having identified potential causes of product replacement (Table 3) and a set of potential means for avoiding such replacements (Table 4), a process for designing resilient products may be defined, as done in Figure 4. The idea of the process is first to consider the potential
3884
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
needs for resilience for the particular design problem. For example, if the product is a dress, the three types of ‘product-embedded technology’ in Table 3 would not be relevant (unless it is ‘intelligent clothing’), while the appearance and communication dimension of ‘changing tastes’ typically would be. In this manner, the thirty ‘potential resilience needs types’ listed in Table 3 can serve as a basis for defining a list of relevant resilience needs associated with the given design problem. Next, relevant means for addressing the design problem at hand are considered. For example, if the product is a smartphone ‘for the mass market’, the ‘limited edition’ dimension would not be relevant, while, on the other hand, ‘upgrade options/instructions’, could be. In this manner, the twenty ‘product resilience-building means’ listed in Table 4 may serve as a basis for defining a set of relevant means for the given design problem and developing a design proposal. Such a set could, for example, consist of ‘element upgrade’, ‘aging well’, and ‘user involvement in the design process’, which would thus form three main focuses of the design process. The resulting proposal is then compared to the derived list of resilience needs, and if the design adequately addresses these concerns, a satisfactory solution has been achieved. If the proposal fails to address the resilience concerns in a satisfactory manner, the proposal needs to be revised or redone, based on the derived list of relevant means. This iterative process may continue until a satisfactory solution has been obtained.
Figure 4 A process for designing resilient products
4. Conclusions This paper argued that the existing classifications of factors leading to the replacement of physically functioning consumer products in some respects lack structure and detail. This could imply that designers would find it difficult to utilise such classifications for making more durable products. Also, from an academic perspective, a clearer understanding of the problem at hand may be a necessary condition for addressing it. The same types of problems
3885
Andrea Quam
exist in relation to the identified classifications of means of increasing product longevity. On this basis, the paper formulated two questions: ‘What are the causes of consumer product replacement?’ and ‘What are the design strategies for increasing consumer product longevity?’ First, the paper argued for the usefulness of the concept of ‘product resilience’, as opposed to ‘durability’, in order to emphasise that product longevity is a matter of being able to both ‘withstand’ and ‘adapt to’ external physical, psychological, and social forces. On this basis, the first question was addressed by adapting Porter’s (1980) ‘five forces model’ for use in product resilience analysis. Each of the derived five ‘resilience needs’ was divided into two subtypes and combined with the three design dimensions: appearance, function, and communication, resulting in thirty distinct causes of product replacement. Compared to the classifications in the existing literature, this classification represents a far more detailed description of such causes. The second question was addressed by distilling twenty product resilience-building means from the classifications found in the literature. This classification also represents a more detailed perspective, compared to the ones identified in the literature. Using the thirty types of potential resilience needs and the twenty means of addressing such issues, a process model for designing resilient products was constructed. For design practitioners, the extensiveness and the level of detail of the classifications in this paper provide a more structured and nuanced basis for the design of resilient consumer products. For future research purposes, the classifications presented in this paper may indicate new areas of product resilience to be explored and also provide a stronger basis for studying the effects of different types of product resilience means.
References Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self- expression in persuasion, Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), pp. 45-57. Balachander, S., and Stock, A. (2009). Limited edition products: When and when not to offer them, Marketing Science, 28(2), pp. 336-355. Bayus B. (1991). The consumer durable replacement buyer, Journal of Marketing, 55(1), pp. 42–51. Belk, R. W. (1991). The ineluctable mysteries of possessions, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), pp. 17-55. Bose, R. (2008). Competitive intelligence process and tools for intelligence analysis, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4), pp. 510-528. Brown, S. (2001). Torment your customers (they will love it), Harvard Business Review, 79(9), pp. 82– 88. Burns, B. (2010). Re-evaluating obsolescence and planning for it, in T. Cooper (ed.), Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the Throwaway Society, Gower Publishing, Farnham, pp. 39–60. Chapman, J. (2005). Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, Earthscan, London. Chapman, J. (2009). Design for (emotional) durability, Design Issues, 24(4), pp. 29–35. Charter, M., and Tischner, U. (eds.) (2001). Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future, Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK.
3886
Integrating Sustainability Literacy into Design Education
Claussen, J., Essling, C., and Kretschmer, T. (2015). When less can be more: Setting technology levels in complementary goods markets, Research Policy Volume, 44(2), pp. 328–339. Cooper, T. (2004). Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obsolescence, Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(4), pp. 421-449. Cooper, T. (2005). Slower consumption: Reflections on product life spans and the “throwaway society”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1-2), pp. 51-67. Creusen, M. (1998). Product Appearance and Consumer Choice (PhD thesis), Delft University of Technology, Netherlands. Environmental Resources Management (ERM) (2011). Longer Product Lifetimes: Final Report, http://randd.defra.gov.uk (Accessed 1 March, 2016). Fenton, L. (2015, April 8). Why the world is obsessed with midcentury modern design, Curbed, 2015, http://curbed.com/archives/2015/04/08/why-everyone-is-obsessed-with-midcentury-moderndesign.php (Accessed, 3 November, 2015). Fletcher, K. (2012, February 17). Consumerist fashion: Innovation repressor, Kate Fletcher: Sustainability Design Fashion, 2015, http://katefletcher.com/consumerist-fashioninnovationrepressor/ (Accessed 2 Novemver, 2015). Fuad-Luke, A. (2010). Adjusting our metabolism: Slowness and nourishing rituals of delay in anticipation of a post-consumer age, in T. Cooper (ed.), Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the Throwaway Society, Gower Publishing, Farnham, pp. 133–156. Govers, P., and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). Product personality and its influence on consumer preference, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), pp. 189-197. Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s five forces model, Strategic Change, 15(5), pp. 213–229. Heiskanen, E. (1996). Conditions for Product Life Extension (Working Paper 23), National Consumer Research Centre, Helsinki. Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design, Psychology Science, 48(2), pp. 157-172. Mowen, J. C. (1995). Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L., and Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2005). Design strategies to postpone consumers’ product replacement: The value of a strong person-product relationship, The Design Journal, 8(2), pp. 38-48. Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N. J., and, Schoormans, J. P. L. (2006). Product attachment and product lifetime: the role of personality congruity and fashion, European Advances in Consumer Research, 7(2), pp. 460-467. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York, NY. OED (2015). Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com (Accessed 3 November, 2015). Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy – Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, The Free Press, New York, NY. Rugman, A. M., and, Verbeke, A. (2000). Six cases of corporate strategic responses to environmental regulation, European Management Journal, 18(4), pp. 377–385. 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. (1992). Converging perspectives: Product development research for the 1990s, Design Management Journal, 3(4), pp. 49–54.
3887
Andrea Quam
Stanley, B. (2015, April 14). Vinyl revival: Is it back for good?, The Guardian, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/14/vinyl-revival-music-here-to-stay (Accessed 21 October, 2015) Walker, S. (2011). The Spirit of Design: Objects, Environment and Meaning, Routledge, Abingdon, OX. van Hinte, E. (ed.) (2004). Time in Design, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam. van Nes, N., and Cramer, J. (2005). Influencing product lifetime through product design, Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(5), pp. 286–299. van Nes, N., Cramer, J., and Stevels, A. (1999). A practical approach to the ecological lifetime optimization of electronic products, in H. Yoshikawa, R. Yamamoto, F. Kimura, T. Suga, and Y. Umeda (eds.), EcoDesign '99: First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 108-111. Wolny, J., and Hansen, R. (2011). Responsible luxury: Refashioning luxury goods through co-creation, paper presented at Wesford Geneva International Conference on Luxury and Counterfeiting, http://openarchive.cbs.dk/handle/10398/8525 (Accessed 2 November, 2015).
About the Authors: 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.
3888
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design Luisa Sze-man Mok*, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen Aalto University * luisa.mok@aalto.fi DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.154
Abstract: Designers can do much for a more sustainable future. Sustainability transitions research and empirical assessment of its course in a specific context can be used to identify a relevant space-time for different design initiatives. We explore this reasoning in advancing solar photovoltaics in the existing housing stock, where a loss of aesthetic qualities and the heritage value of buildings may curb where solar arrays can be sited. By using the Value Sensitive Design framework we illustrate how a working compromise among the seemingly conflicting values involved can be found. The value mix used and the resulting concept informs solar proponents in siting solar in culturally sensitive ways and shows the heritage constituency that solar technology does not categorically mean a misfit with cultural heritage. Keywords: Strategic design; Sustainable transition; Design visualization; Value Sensitive Design
1. Introduction Through its capacity to envision future goods and services, design has the potential to change production and consumption patterns for the better (Papanek, 1971). The increasing complexity of global problems requires new and better solutions from designers and, by implication, sustainability needs a creative force (Papanek, 1971). Many approaches have been developed for the task, ranging from Fuller’s anticipatory design realized through his design science revolution (Fuller, 1963; 1964; 1982) to Manzini’s (2003) and Meroni’s (2006) strategic design for sustainability by generating long-lasting outcomes for future improvement. Yet sustainable design initiatives easily fall short of their desired outcomes. Hoogma et al. (2002) illustrate the problem well through reminding us of the hundreds of elegant, critical, futuristic, plausible as and production-ready electric concept cars that have been designed and displayed in fairs for decades yet there has only been a very meagre change in the road transit system. Just producing a better design appears to not be enough. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
A prime reason behind the frequent curbing of the effects of sustainable design lies in sociotechnical interdependencies. As Elizabeth Shove (2012) formulates it, our everyday work and consumption practices are comprised of interdependent elements, and attempts to change any one isolated element typically results in the changed element snapping back to the original constellation like an atom in a force field (Hughes, 1983). The issue of interdependencies is further aggregated in large sociotechnical systems, such as the road transit or energy system, where technology interlinkages, standards, massive sunk costs, legislation and user habits have created strong interlinked path dependencies (Geels & Schot, 2007; Hoogma et al., 2002). Electric cars or renewable energy technologies can only prosper with associated changes in the other elements that comprise their sociotechnical environment. The import of systemic interdependencies in practice and system levels appears difficult for many designers to come to terms with – if change is so brutally difficult to achieve what room is there for creative efforts? In this article we argue that designers can do much for a more sustainable future within large sociotechnical systems, yet this requires that sustainable design needs to pay attention to how it is positioned strategically and the principles for working this strategy have to be adequate to the task at hand. We describe how sustainability transitions research and empirical assessment of its course in a specific context can be used to identify a relevant space-time for different design initiatives and moments when even relatively modest efforts can make an addition to an ongoing sustainability transition. The empirical setting we discuss is the furthering of solar energy in Finland. The Finnish energy system currently has low levels of intermittent renewables compared to its Scandinavian neighbours, despite its commitments to a reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Due to its arctic location the carbon footprint per capita in the Finnish energy system is 11.5 metric tons per capita in 2010 (The World Bank, 2011), among the highest globally. Despite commonly endorsed targets to increase the share of wind energy (1.7%) and solar energy (0.02%), the uptake of these technologies has been slow, and below we move to a brief analysis of the current state and the time-space it holds for design intervention to further it.
2. Sustainable energy transition and forms of strategic design The solar photovoltaic (PV) module price has come down during the last few years and also reached “grid parity” (the economic viability of investment in comparison to electricity’s price in an average module lifetime) for own use in both residential and industrial settings in Finland. Yet the proliferation of solar technology has been slow, hampered by a lack of net metering or feed-in tariff, the import taxation level and the bureaucracy involved in setting up solar installations (FinSolar, 2015; Pasonen et al., 2012; Šúri et al., 2007). The low market penetration further means relative inefficiency in ordering solar modules and installation
3890
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
services, resulting in the “soft costs” of solar being over double those in Germany and accounting for over half of the price of a functional solar installation (FinSolar, 2015). Transitions literature posits that systems change will require that alternatives (from emerging niches) that agglomerate to a position that can challenge or reconfigure the sociotechnical field (Geels & Schot, 2008; Ornetzeder & Rochracher, 2013) (Figure 1). System change proceeds through gradually overcoming barriers that prohibit the new system from proliferating in the sociotechnical terrain built for previous technologies (Hughes, 1983). Hughes isolated the issue of “reverse salients” being particularly important: the identification and eradication of such features of a sociotechnical environment that hold back the advancing of a new sociotechnical system. Similar ideas feature in transition governance (Verbong & Loorbach, 2012). To barrier removal initiatives ongoing in Finland includes establishing a record of installation costs to combat uncertainty and incredulity towards falling prices, a campaign to raise the size of import tax excepted systems, developing the services for calculating: solar yield, installation costs and services, the ease and the standardization of permitting across municipalities and so on. In this view, the chicken-and-egg situation (of market size; and the price and ease of acquiring solar in the Finnish market) will not be eradicated by any one measure, even if the steady annual solar module’s price drop greatly facilitates it – after all, most of the costs come from the installation and services.
Figure 1. A multi-level perspective on renewable energy transition, adapted from Geels & Schot (2007, p. 401).
3891
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
These measures illustrate the nature of strategic action in sustainability transitions: advancing the system change will not take place through any one isolated regulatory action or design project but rather it will proceed through concerted efforts to change the array of system conditions that need to be changed in order for the new sustainable solutions to proceed. Such strategy is determined not by an abstract sustainable cause, nor by the selfinterests of any one company (as is the usual case with strategic design). The system transition analysis sets the strategic direction and vision, and tactical engagement points become the common interest of actors seeking to foster the transition, rather than their particular commercial or public interests. This framing of action has its corollary in the timing and spacing of interventions. Due to its complex and contingent interfacing points with previous systems and power holders, the interventions needed for systems change cannot be reliably preplanned for the entire course of system transition but rather preplanned for the foreseeable future projections, typically at multiple timeframes. This frame of reference then opens up some new vistas for strategic design. To be strategically important, sustainable design need not be limited to long-range visions or other strategic scenario actions that are typically either detached from present-day concerns or require daunting resourcing to succeed. The case we discuss in this paper is an anticipatory conceptual design to target the foreseeable reverse salients in system transition – a strategically focused effort, yet with a relatively modest scope. The case in point relates to permitting and promoting roof mounted solar installations in the existing housing stock. Finland has already experienced severe curbing of wind power installations due to resistance to the landscape effects (Korjonen-Kuusipuro & Janhunen, 2015). It is foreseeable that some city planners, conservation architects and citizen groups will begin to question the visual suitability of solar installations on housing stock. It is equally foreseeable that the (predominantly small) installation companies are only likely to pay attention to the visual qualities of solar installations once they face resistance and, in their after-the-fact response, fuel calls to curb the aesthetic brutalization of the housing stock. If the course of events is allowed to run unaided it is likely to set a reverse salient to solar installations in urban areas. Henceforth the foreseeable reverse salients suggest that sustainable design efforts target exploring how solar installations could fit the existing housing stock and provide paragons of how such installations could be pursued without unduly disturbing the architectural qualities of existing buildings. The lessons gained could be of equal importance for overcoming categorical resistance to solar installations as well as for installers gaining insight regarding the ways one can consider the aesthetic and cultural heritage value of solar installations. The currently existing guidelines for siting solar on heritage buildings presume one should simply refrain from doing so and, if anything, hide them out of view (e.g. City of Ballarat, 2014). Whilst a good precautionary principle, there are already examples of how solar can be installed successfully without damage to the historic milieu, the Vatican being a prime example. Moreover, the siting guidelines and the visual understanding for what adequate solar siting may mean are in a rather different order of detail as we demonstrate below.
3892
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
The setting where we chose to engage with the issue resulted from a contingent opportunity, whereas the design methodology chosen for the task was deliberate. The setting for exploring alternative ways to deploy solar technology in the existing housing stock was an architecturally significant building, “Dipoli”, designed by Reima and Raili Pietilä in the 1960s on the campus of Aalto University. The building is currently undergoing extensive renovation and a change in purpose, as well as being tied to Aalto University’s campus reform, aiming to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 2030. The Dipoli building is clearly not amenable for the bulk installation of solar arrays and hence is well suited for exploring the possibilities and limitations of siting solar in the existing housing stock.
3. Value Sensitive Design as an approach for strategic visualization In a case like this, design can provide a proactive concept design and visualization of the alternatives in the presence of the multiple competing values that need to be taken into consideration. To do so, we turned to the Value Sensitive Design (VSD) framework of Friedman, Kahn and Borning (2013). VSD is a framework for considering values with ethical import in design work, that is to say, values beyond instrumental good or economic value (Friedman et al., 2013), including values such as environmental sustainability. VSD consists of three types of investigations: conceptual, empirical and technical, and is characterized by its iterative and integrative manner throughout its tripartite course (Friedman et al., 2013) (Figure 2). Conceptual investigations initiate value consideration including explicitly supported values and inherent stakeholder values. The investigations help reveal the value tensions and trade-offs of the stakeholders in addition to their interests. Empirical investigations concern contextual exploration, observing and measuring activities in which stakeholders interact with the technology and formulation of the prior investigated values into criteria guiding technology design. Technical investigations examine and analyse properties of the technology and statistics in order to inform alternative concepts. As a result, the final technology design could be used to support the values identified and elaborate further for stakeholders the long-term consequences of alternative technical choices (Borning et al., 2005). Adopting a flexible investigation arrangement (Borning & Muller, 2012; Dantec, Poole & Wyche, 2009), we integrated value considerations iteratively with empirical investigations, followed by using technical investigations to realize the design. Methods applied included interviews, ethnographic observations, a literature search and document analysis on the history and heritage value of the site, a technical search and the calculation of different yield options, as well as stakeholder mapping; and value deliberation and prioritization (Friedman et al., 2013).
3893
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
Figure 2. The VSD framework and process used in the present study.
4. The VSD process applied to Dipoli’s renovation 4.1 Conceptual Investigations In investigating the potential to site solar technology on Dipoli as part of its renovation, several key values became evident. The first clear key value was cultural heritage preservation, as the building was a 1960s landmark by a renowned Finnish architect. The second, campus prestige and image, was an evident and strong value in the renovation of Dipoli as it was decided that the University Presidency, the Faculty Club and various visitor events would move to the building. The third, ecological modernization (Mol & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Murphy & Gouldson, 2000), was on the agenda of campus development, backed by the campus vision of “energy self-sufficiency by 2030”, which indicated that ground source heat and solar would be the prime sources to be used but that the total campus roof area with a sufficiently high yield would not be nearly enough to cover the power and heat needed by solar. Many of the rooftops were those of protected buildings, highlighting the need to consider if these too could be used (Internal Report: Campus vision 2030). Finally, an equally important key issue was the economic costs and space viability regarding the renovation, including whatever renewable energy it would include.
3894
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
The conceptual inquiries revealed that these key values could potentially conflict with one another irresolvably, an issue VSD is particularly sensitized to (Friedman et al., 2013). Interpreting cultural heritage preservation as restorative practice would effectively preclude any modernization of the building and its uses and outlaw any solar technology addition. Campus prestige might require new uses and access for the roof areas, outlawing solar installation and potentially harming cultural values. Economic viability might, in turn, suggest only a token adoption of solar on the premises. Finally, maximizing the amount and yield of solar panels in the name of ecological modernization would result in a loss of aesthetic and cultural heritage values – “ecological brutalization” as we came to call it. These potential conflicts were further aggravated through being all primarily promoted by different interest groups. By adopting quadrant stakeholder mapping as an analytical tool, we projected the concerned stakeholders on the map according to their power and the extent of their interest. They include direct and indirect stakeholders and their key and corresponding values (Friedman et al., 2013). Analysing value comparison and prioritization between groups, the map visualises the conceptions of different stakeholders when siting solar technology on Dipoli. Finally, we identified the key stakeholders as: Aalto University Presidency, Aalto University Properties, the solar technology providers, the architect constituency (which includes some architects in the renovation project and the National Board of Antiquities). The interested but less powerful actors were primarily students and alumni of Aalto University. In VSD, the value prioritization process is an intermediate step in further distilling investigated values, in this case suggesting that a value mix and working compromise would be needed for an acceptable solution regarding inherent stakeholder values (cf. Friedman et al., 2013). Here, greatest priority was given to the preservation, renovation and modernization of heritage. Subsequently the aesthetic quality was a desired concern, and functionality, the cost- and energy-efficiency of the building were of pragmatic importance. Last but not least, the establishment of the identity of the university being environmentally conscious and prestigious in educational institution. The power of the VSD framework resides, however, in connecting the a priori value with empirical investigations into how the particular values have been and could be realized in the design. Let us hence turn now to the empirical investigations.
4.2 Empirical Investigations: A Historical Enquiry into Heritage Value The concepts of preservation, modernization and aesthetics required deeper investigation into the architectural heritage. To assess their significance, we focused on the evolutionary changes of Dipoli by conducting architectural review and expert interviews with architects and a heritage researcher. Dipoli, designed by the Finnish architects Reima and Raili Pietilä (1923–1993, 1926– respectively), was the design with the highest vote from students in a competition (Johansson, Paatero & Tuomi, 2009). The building was inaugurated in 1965 and was later
3895
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
converted from a locality of students to commercial congress centre due to financial difficulties in the 1980s (Quantrill, 1985; Aalto University, 2014). The table below (Table 1) outlines the chronicles of the architectural conversions during the past fifty years (also see Figure 3). Table 1. A history of Dipoli referring to its conversions in function and design alterations. Year
Functional conversions
Design alterations
1961
Architectural competition
/
1962
Wins the highest vote of students from joint first place result
/
1961–1965
Construction
/
1966–1981
Built with students’ funds and owned by the Student Union of the Helsinki University of Technology; symbolic of the “Second Poly” for student activities and conferences for financials
Minor alterations due to maintenance; students’ ideas lead some functional changes
1981
Becomes an international conference centre; no student activities are located in Dipoli.
1986
/
Rooftop renovation for maintenance
1993
Turns into a congress and training centre due to a reduced number of international conferences in the 1990s’ depression
Commerce-related changes continue
2010
The ownership shifts from the Student Union to Aalto University when three universities merge
Commerce-related changes continue
2014
Bought by Aalto University Properties. Renovation Plan 2015–16
2015
Renovation Plan 2015–16 for the National Board of Antiquities
The main commerce-related changes included changes to the wall colour, flooring materials, Student ownership remains but student staircase and window blockages; some spaces are retrained from union office moves out student use
Sources: Johansson, Paatero & Tuomi, 2009; Arkkitehtitoimisto ALA & Vesikansa (Building History Report of Dipoli), 2015.
3896
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
Figure 3. A plan view shows the modifications to Dipoli that have been carried out since 1966 (Arkkitehtitoimisto ALA & Vesikansa, 2015).
Considering the architectural value, Dipoli was envisioned as a many-sided architectural experiment. Amongst the most important aspects of Dipoli was it being an environmental experiment in exploring the interaction between the building and the environment (Hansen, 1967; Kultermann, 1967; Norberg-Schultz, 1967; Pietilä & Paatelainen, 1967). The experiment engaged a natural extension of the landscape (A+U, 1974) with Dipoli deliberately hidden in the pine forest (Johansson et al., 2009) (Figure 4).
3897
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
Figure 4. An aerial view of Dipoli.Pphoto by Martti I Jaartinen, 1966/1967 (from the archives of the Museum of Finnish Architecture, the MFA, 1967).
The contradictory exterior contested geometry and freeform features that highlighted Dipoli’s dual-character at the same time made it notorious for being imbalanced. Pietilä explained his rational intention of providing both functional and expressive aspects (A+U, 1974; Johansson et al., 2009). Despite the roofscape being criticized for losing control, the critically acclaimed architect reasoned that his concept mimicked the underlying contour of rock and a dinosaur’s silhouette (Quantrill, 1985) (Figure 5). Pietilä’s design expresses both Finnish localness and international modernism (Johansson et al., 2009). As stated in a review, “to Pietilä, being ‘modern appropriately’ is important” (Quantrill, 1985).
3898
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
Figure 5. The dinosaur’s silhouette by Pietilä (Quantrill, 1985).
This architectural history is a key to understand the nature of Dipoli’s heritage value, and an important backdrop for the perceptions that the heritage constituency holds about the building. In our interviews, a key legacy holder of Pietilä architecture stressed the importance of the roof, whilst recognizing that modernization could take place if done properly: The roof of the Dipoli is a very important element of the building … of course there are areas of the roof on which you could not place a [solar panel] installation without them ruining the silhouette … It is all right as long it does not ruin the valuable building’s architectural appearance – the very reason that building is a heritage building (Interview with a key Pietilä-architecture legacy holder, 16 November 2014)
However, a professor of architecture developing the campus dismissed the idea from the outset: “I'm afraid that the thought of installing solar panels on Dipoli is a dead-end thought because of the architectural value of the building … Otaniemi is full of anonymous, mediocre brick buildings. There would be no harm in covering them with solar panels … This sounds fun and dangerous simultaneously. Hopefully she really has a permit to enter the fragile copper roof and insurance!” (Email correspondence with a professor of architecture, 15 November 2014)
Similarly, the architect commissioned for making a heritage preservation study preferred that the building would not only be restored to its original state but to the envisioned state of full copper roofing to which the professor in the above quote points. These views articulate one legitimate operationalization of the architectural value of Dipoli but not the only possible one. In fact, they essentialize the drawn character of Dipoli, contrasting it with the myriad changes that took place owing to construction techniques and alterations done at the time of building and since. It was envisioned to stand on a natural rock form but, as this did not work out, cut rocks from the building site were piled on its sides. As a designedin feature, the copper stripes on the building sides have weathered and changed the image of the building, as has the gradual diminishing of the pine forest around the building. It has been replaced by birches, bushes, an extended car park and some twenty tall flagpoles with
3899
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
colourful university flags erected outside the building. Similarly, the roof never was too fragile to walk on. From the outset only part of the roof was covered by copper folio and then, in the late 1980s when bitumen felt technology evolved, the entire roof area was covered with this more reliable roofing material, granting unmitigated access to the roof. Table 2 shows a chronicle of Dipoli’s rooftop. Table 2. A history of Dipoli’s rooftop referring to its preservation values. Condition & reasons of alteration 1965: All flat surfaces in bitumen felt are topped with gravel for waterproofness and costeffectiveness. Note: Agreed with by Pietilä.
Figure 6. Martti I. Jaatinen, 1967 (archives of the Museum of Finnish Architecture, the MFA, 1967).
All non-flat surfaces (the slope band, skylight boxes and small ventilation boxes) are covered in copper folio due to the technological limitation that bitumen felt cannot cover slopes (at this time). 1986: Renovation for maintenance.
All surfaces are replaced by new bitumen felt, including slopes (due to a technological advance). 2015 (another 20 year gap):
The Dipoli Renovation Plan is to be carried out, starting summer 2015.
Figure 7. Dipoli’s whole rooftop was covered with bitumen felt on 13 November 2014. Source: Arkkitehtitoimisto ALA & Vesikansa, 2015.
3900
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
Clearly the preservation constituency is correct in thinking that an efficiency-maximizing straight-line array of solar PV would do nothing but ruin the architectural value of the building and should be categorically ruled out. Yet there may be solutions that would fit the evolving nature of Dipoli as a contextual experiment – after all, architecturally successful solar additions have been achieved on buildings such as the White House and on the rooftops of the Vatican, and indeed, Dipoli was planned from the onset for evolution over time with its surrounding environment.
4.3 Empirical Investigations: Field Observations and Interviews on Solar Energy Siting Field experiments for real-life evaluations is one cornerstone of VSD. We started with field observations and next trialed real PV panels, placing them on the rooftop to test alternative scenarios on-site. Different visualization investigations for future projections are under study for transition management or decision making in urban planning (Myers & Kitsue, 2000; Schot & Geels, 2008; van Dijk, 2011). In our case, we carried out design visualization by putting real PV panels on Dipoli’s rooftop and conducting on-site interviews to elicit views about them. Fifteen visitors were interviewed at the entrance and five inside the cafeteria on the second floor (where the two ends of the rooftop are still visible). Most of the interviewees were engineering and architectural students (Figure 8). The respondents expressed a general consensus on the environmental importance of including PV with the building. The interviewees regarded that the prototyped PV visibility did not disturb the heritage but could be used as an eco-conscious university identity. Some also described Dipoli as a modern building, highlighting how people perceive modern: it is not limited to an architecturally modern style but in fact expects modern buildings to retain contemporaneity. Although renewable energy technology was held in favour, around onethird of the interviewees expressed an aesthetic concern that the installation would need to be done properly and with care.
Figure 8. The prototyping experiment view of "subtle visibility�.
3901
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
Further, the stakeholders’ conceptions could be formulated as criteria to guide the technology design: (1) preservation yet modernization, with consideration of the impact of aesthetics, taking the notion from stakeholders’ articulation of visibility and modernity, (2) the identity of Aalto University is establishing through the practices of being eco-conscious, offering prestigious education institution for students and finally (3) environmental importance of producing renewable energy without greenwashing and ecological brutalization. VSD was thus helpful in iteratively moving through the steps of the a priori values committed to heritage preservation, the empirical findings of historical evolution and opinions established by professionals, and the further articulation of stakeholder values from on-site observations. Let us move on to the technical investigations for the design.
4.4 Technical Investigations Guided by the formulated criteria, design concepts were generated after studying the properties and technical data of solar technology. To summarize, from the internal Report of Energy Self-Sufficient Otaniemi (Aalto University Properties, 2014), the total of Otaniemi Campus’s solar energy production (16.4 GWh/year) is set as a target for Dipoli’s energy production; the solar irradiance map of the campus indicated 1,000–1,200 kWh/m2/year as the optimum solar radiation area (Figure 9) and the total rooftop area of 5,554 m2. The Photovoltaic Geographic Information System (European Commission Institute for Energy and Transport, n.d.) recommended 35–45 degrees as the optimum panel-tilt angle for the best possible capacity in Helsinki and provided simulated energy figures. Also, the breakdown energy consumption of Dipoli during 2009–2014 from Aalto University Properties indicates that a mix of solar PV and solar heat collectors would be preferred. The PV costs per watt, the infrastructure set-up and maintenance costs from the Finnish solar panel producer established the long-term economic viability.
3902
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
Figure 9. A solar irradiance map of Otaniemi Campus, Aalto University (Report 2014, p. 22).
In the last round, taking the minimum energy yield, conversion loss from DC to AC and the respective combination of solar panel and collector, we provided the optimum solar design choice concerning the amount, position, direction, angle and arrangement of panels. In the end, a total of 277 pieces of PV panel installation were suggested for the total energy production of 160,326 kWh/year, covering 557m2 out of the 5,554m2 rooftop area. To break this down, 216 solar panels covering 432m2 and yielding 64,800 kWh, and 61 solar collectors covering 122m2 and yielding 95,526 kWh for heating. Due to the price fall of solar panel units a 15-degree angle could viably be used (instead of the optimal 45-degree angle) as this would diminish yield by only 10–15% due to the possibility to closer position the PV racks. This flatter assembly clearly offered a more suitable alternative that suited the aesthetics of the Dipoli roof areas.
5. Results and the resulting design concept The outcomes of the conceptual, empirical and technical investigations suggested either a fully invisible installation or an installation that would only be modestly discernible (excepting viewing it by airplane) from a few locations (i.e. being practically invisible yet detectable). This concept of subtle visibility was found the most promising in supporting well
3903
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
the specific values. The design concept suggests an equilibrium preserving the valuable roofscape yet yielding meaningful energy production without greenwashing. The modernization through introducing sustainable renewable energy maintains the long-term use of the heritage that attaches preservation significance. The initiative also corresponds to the university’s eco-conscious identity. The evolutionary modernization implicitly practises Pietilä’s principle of a contextual relationship with social and cultural development. The diagram below concludes the integrative and iterative process of the VSD tripartite course under study (Figure 10).
Figure 10. The VSD technical design supports the investigated values.
Building on the on-site prototyping, a further visualization, gained through architectural rendering, was generated (Figures 11–15) for Aalto University Properties as role model documentation for further expansion of the project or other solar energy siting on the campus. The study did not aim at a final design solution but the images projecting the VSD brings the visions to the forefront of the renewable energy transition process. The study is now filed in the City of Espoo as project guideline for scaling up to other similar sustainable renewable energy investigations in Finland.
3904
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
Figure 11. A realistic architectural rendering for visualization and documentation as demonstration projects.
Figure 12. The solar array on the rooftop.
3905
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
Figure 13. The solar array visible from the rooftop, viewed from another angle.
Figure 14. A bird’s-eye view of Dipoli with the solar array.
3906
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
Figure 15. The view from 100 m away, the only distance from which the solar array is visible at ground level.
6. Conclusions In the course of writing this article, we have elaborated a design project to further renewable energy in Finland. We have sought to illustrate how, on the one hand, sustainability transition may require different criteria and orientation for strategic design than have been previously used (strategic design used to orient companies beyond their current markets, production and delivery processes or used to orient industry consortia in their fields) (Keinonen & Jääskö, 2004; Keinonen & Takala, 2010). While the traditional kinds of strategic design have their place within sustainable design, sustainability transitions also surface the potential for new types of strategic design where the net benefactor, and hence the entity defining the strategic aims and making strategic decisions, is not any one selfinterested entity but rather the common environmental and social good. In such contexts the role of strategic design and strategic visualizations are easily limited to portrayals of high-level visions or anticipatory design concepts. In this paper we have illustrated how strategic visualization can also be pursued through very concrete and operational concept design visualization. Such visualization is not strategic because it is abstracted to a “strategic level” or a mid range to long-range projected timeframe – in other words, removed from the operational concerns of the present day – but is strategic because it targets the reverse salients (Hughes, 1983) that will foreseeably form in the near future – in this case the need to install solar technology across the existing building stock, which can lead to detrimental side effects and the ensuing resistance from different stakeholder groups if handled poorly. In such anticipatory governance of advancing systems transition (Verbong & Loorbach, 2012), design approaches (such as VSD) can help clarify the concerns and offer alternative
3907
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
solutions for deliberation among stakeholders (who may from the outset have diametrically opposed interests). The illustrations pursued here regarding Dipoli were taken to a level of concreteness that allows anchored discussion of the pros and cons of the solution and hopefully its further elaboration by different stakeholders. The project documentation provides help for clarifying the rationales and considerations behind the solutions, and if it leads to further development and implementation it offers a possibility to have a demonstration site with documented guidance as to why and how the solutions ended up the way they did amidst the legitimate value concerns pertaining to the project. In sum, then, we are not suggesting that we have aimed at or produced the optimal way to site solar on a heritage building, let alone suggesting that VSD should be pursued whenever the ecological modernization of a heritage building is pursued (this would halt any and all installations by adding a insurmountable cost layer). What we do suggest is that: a) sustainable design initiatives would, in general, do wise to consider how they link to broader sustainability transitions and choose their modes of engagement accordingly, in order to improve their relevance and potential for change; b) the visualizations and documentation of successful demonstration projects are be included to provide concreteness to guidelines and statutes – in this case to guidelines pertaining to the siting of solar on heritage buildings (these are currently written from a categorical “solar is always an aesthetic violation of heritage value” perspective, which does not hold true); c) frameworks such as VSD can be a useful addition to the toolbox of sustainability transitions. What these suggestions amount to are steps towards an alternative perspective for a new design approach to sustainability transitions. Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge funding from Academy of Finland strategic research council consortium 293405 “Smart Energy Transition - Realizing its potential fos sustainable growth for Finland's second century”. The authors would like to thank Aalto University Properties, Naps system, ALA Architects, interviewees, and Namkyu Chun for their contributions to the project.
5. References A+U. (1974) Pietilä, Reima: An Introspective Interview. A+U Magazine. 74 (9). pp. 98. Aalto University. (2014) “History of Dipoli”, in Dipoli, available from, http://dipoli.aalto.fi/en/about/history/ (accessed 10 November 2014). Aalto University Properties. (2014). Energiaomavarainen Otaniemi. Internal Report. 27th May. The MFA. (1967) Dipoli. Helsinki: The Archives of the Museum of Finnish Architecture. Arkkitehtitoimisto ALA & Vesikansa, K. (2015) Dipoli. Rakennushistoriaselvitys ja inventointi. 20th March. Unpublished. Borning, A. Friedman, B. Davis, J. & Lin, P. (2005) Informing Public Deliberation: Value Sensitive Design of Indicators for a Large-Scale Urban Simulation. In: Gellersen, H., Schmidtm, K.,
3908
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
Beaudouin-Lafon, M. & Mackay, W. (eds). Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW 2005). Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 462–482. Borning, A. & Muller, M. (2012) Next Steps for Value Sensitive Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012). New York: ACM Press, pp. 1125– 1134. City of Ballarat. (n.d.) Checklist 11 – Solar Panels in a Heritage Area. In Ballarat: City of Ballarat, available from, http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/216867/checklist_11__solar_panels_in_a_heritage_area.pdf (accessed 1 December 2014). Dantec, C. A. Le, Poole, E. S. & Wyche, S. P. (2009) Values as Lived Experience: Evolving Value Sensitive Design in Support of Value Discovery. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2009). New York: ACM Press, pp. 1141–1150. Institute for Energy and Transport. (n.d.) PVGIS. Performance of Grid-connected PV. Available from, http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php (accessed 7 December 2014). FinSolar. (2015) FinSolar. Available from, www.finsolar.net (accessed 10 October 2015). Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. & Howe, D. C. (2000) Trust online. Communications of the ACM. 43 (12), pp. 34–40. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. & Borning, A. (2013) Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. Early engagement and new technologies. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (eds.). Opening up the Laboratory. Dordrecht: Springer. Fuller, B. R. & McHale, J. (1963) World Design Science Decade 1965–1975. Phase 1, Document 1: Inventory of World Resources Human Trends and Needs. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Fuller, B. R. (1964) World Design Science Decade 1965–1975. Phase 1, Document 2: The Design Initiative. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Fuller, B. R. (1982) Self-disciplines of Buckminster Fuller. In: Fuller, B. R. Critical Path. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Geels, F. W., & Schot., J. (2007) Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways. Research Policy. 36 (3), pp. 399–417. Hansen, O. (1967) Arvioinnit Dipolista [Criticism of Dipoli]. ARK. Arkkitehti Arkitekten. Finnish Architectural Review. 67 (9), pp. 21. Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J. & Truffer, B. (2002) Experimenting for Sustainable Transport. The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. London: Spon Press. Hughes, T. (1983) Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Johansson, E., Paatero, K. & Tuomi, T. (2009) Raili and Reima Pietilä: Challenging Modern Architecture. Helsinki: the Museum of Finnish Architecture. Keinonen, T. & Jääskö, V. (2004) Tuotekonseptointi. Helsinki: Teknologiateollisuus. Keinonen, T. & Takala, R. (2010) Product Concept Design: A Review of the Conceptual Design of Products in Industry. Amsterdam: Springer Science & Business Media. Korjonen-Kuusipuro, K. & Janhunen, S. (2015) Tyyntä ja myrskyä: Tunteet osana tuulivoiman sosiaalista hyväksyttävyyttä. Alue ja Ympäristö. 44 (2), pp. 15–29. Kultermann, U. (1967) Arvioinnit Dipolista [Criticism of Dipoli]. ARK. Arkkitehti Arkitekten. Finnish Architectural Review. 67 (9), pp. 21. Manzini, E. & Vessoli, C. (2003) A strategic design approach to develop sustainable product service systems: examples taken from the ‘environmentally friendly innovation’ Italian prize. Journal of Cleaner Production. 11 (8), pp. 851–857.
3909
Luisa Sze-man Mok, Sampsa Hyysalo and Jenni Väänänen
Meroni, A. (2006) Food de-intermediation. Strategic design for the creation of transparent food networks. In: Salmi, E. & Anusionwu, L. (eds.) Cumulus Working Papers. Nantes. Helsinki: University of Art and Design, pp. 50–58. Mol, P. J. & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2000) Ecological Modernization around the World: An Introduction. Environmental Politics. 9 (1), pp. 3–16. Murphy, J. & Gouldson, A. (2000) Environmental policy and industrial innovation: integrating environment and economy through ecological modernization. Geoforum. 31 (1), pp. 33-44. Myers, D. & Kitsue, A. (2000) Construction the Future in Planning: A survey of theories and tools. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 19 (3), pp. 221-231. Norberg-Schultz, C. (1967) Arvioinnit Dipolista [Criticism of Dipoli]. ARK. Arkkitehti Arkitekten. Finnish Architectural Review. 67 (9), pp. 20. Ornetzeder, M. & Rohracher, H. (2013) Of Solar Collectors, Wind Power, and Car Sharing: Comparing and Understanding Successful Cases of Grassroots Innovations. Global Environmental Change. 23 (5), pp. 856–867. Papanek, V. (1971) Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. New York: Pantheon Books. Pasonen, R., Mäkinen, K., Alanen, R. & Sipilä, K. (2012) Arctic solar energy solutions. Espoo: VTT Technology. Pietilä, R. & Paatelainen, R. (1967) Dipoli, Teknillisen Korkeakoulun Ylioppilaskunnan rakennus [Dipoli: The Institute of Technology students' union building]. ARK. Arkkitehti Arkitekten. Finnish Architectural Review. 67 (9), pp. 14–19. Quantrill, M. (1985) Reima Pietilä: Architecture, Context and Modernism. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Otava. Schot, J. & Geels, F. W. (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 20 (5), pp. 537–554. Shove, E., Pantzar, M. & Watson, M. (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage. Shove, E. (2014) The Design of Everyday Life. Tecnoscienza, Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies. 5 (2), pp. 33–42. Šúri, M., Huld, T. A., Dunlop, E. D. & Ossenbrink, H. A. (2007) Potential of solar electricity generation in the European Union member states and candidate countries. Solar Energy. 81 (10), pp. 1295– 1305. The World Bank. (2011) World Development Indicators: Energy dependency, efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions. Available from, http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.8 (accessed 30 May 2015). van Dijk, T. (2011) Imagining future places: How designs co-constitute what is, and thus influence what will be. Planning Theory. 10 (2), pp. 124–143. Verbong, G. & Loorbach, D. (eds.) (2012) Governing the Energy Transition: Reality, Illusion or Necessity? Routledge Studies in Sustainability Transitions, Volume 4. New York: Routledge.
3910
Designing for Sustainable Transition through Value Sensitive Design
About the Authors: Luisa Sze-man Mok is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Design at Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture in Helsinki, Finland. Her doctoral research focuses on design and sustainability, her background is in industrial design and anthropology. Sampsa Hyysalo is Associate Professor (PhD, Dos) in Co-Design at Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture in Helsinki, Finland. He researches the design and use of new technology and how to bridge the two in different contexts. Jenni Väänänen is currently writing her MA thesis in the Department of Design at Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture. She works at the intersection of design, sustainability and futures studies.
3911
This page is left intentionally blank
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools Miriam Lahusena, Susanne Ritzmannb, Florian Sametingera*, Gesche Joosta and Lars-Arvid Brischkec a
Berlin University of the Arts University of Applied Sciences Berlin c Institute for Energy and Environmental Research * sametinger@udk-berlin.de DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.313 b
Abstract: Sustainability and its subsequent transformations are a global challenge. In this paper, the focus lies on demonstrating a way to break down these global issues into its micro-elements which can be dealt with in the individual’s private sphere. Everyday life has always been where practices and its inherent conflicts between ‹rational and irrational› can be rooted. Design can provide the tools to make the familiar visible and the intuitive communicable through questioning the ‹normal› and offering alternative scenarios. We add to this, that a mixture of participatory and qualitative methods can guide an investigation, producing an array of multi-faceted information. Our aim in this examination is to provide an understanding of the potentials for a possible transformation towards a sufficient way of life and the restrictions stemming from subjective, situational criteria of the individual. Keywords: Design Methods; Sufficiency; Practice; Design Research
1. Introduction The great challenges of sustainability we are facing on a global scale, have shifted the focus in Germany on the «great transformation into a more climate-friendly society» (German Advisory Council on Global Change, 2011: 67). This investigation is part of the three-year interdisciplinary research project «Energy Sufficiency - Strategies and instruments for a technical, systemic and cultural transformation towards sustainable restriction of energy demand in the field of Construction and Everyday Life». It is lead by a multifaceted research consortium including sociologists, environmental engineers, design researchers, philosophers of law and gender studies researchers. The main questions the research project
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke
attempts to answer is which paths will lead to a reduction of energy demands and consumption while simultaneously generating an additional social and cultural benefit. The main indicator of consumption that guides the project, is energy consumption of private households which is reflected by the sum of electric appliances and their daily use. In Germany energy consumption of private households has not considerably fallen between 2005 and 2013 (Federal Environment Office [UBA], 2015: 33), although appliances and devices have become more efficient (Radermacher, 2006: 1). Slight decreases are attributed to the change of costs for energy, whereas the increase of individual living space as well as private goods and appliances is seen as contrary influence in the development of energy consumption (UBA, 2015: 12-28). Within the project, a working definition of energy sufficiency has been carved out. Energy sufficiency is regarded as the «adaption of benefits to actual needs rather than abstinence and asceticism» while facilitating everyday life instead of stressing consumers with additional loads (Brischke & Thomas, 2014). It follows Zahrnt and Schneidewinds (2014) claim of the «4 lessens», which express the idea that we need to lessen our speed, our distance, the encumbrance of our acquired possessions and the role of commerce and the market in our lives. Although their argumentation might come across overly pessimistic, their key argument is valid in the face of the global environmental crisis. The «Energy Sufficiency» project wants to point out that those «4 lessens» have to be accompanied by the overarching idea of lessening dependencies, which Brischke (2014) describes as «emancipation in the form of strengthening self-determination and reducing alienation from oneself and one's surroundings». The project frame establishes two points of reference for a sustainable transformation of energy demands in private households: The usage of an appliance or device can be motivated from the technological point of view, meaning the provided benefit by the technical system, or usage can be motivated from the individually determined point of view according to inner beliefs and values (Brischke & Thomas, 2014). An example helps clarify this point: The individual need for hygiene or individual practices of keeping order can require a spotless, dust-free floor. This requirement is met by using a standard 2000 watt vacuum cleaner. Here, the concept of energy sufficiency questions both the required and the provided benefit and seeks to develop alternative approaches. To stay with the example, firstly the floor could be cleaned with a less powerful vacuum cleaner, a shared device or by a professional service, or secondly one could also increase the time span of floor cleanliness by keeping shoes outside of the home or refrain from energy consumption by sweeping. The causal aim of individually measured cleanliness would not have to be restricted, but could be met in a more resource-conserving manner. To thoroughly understand the layout of practices and its motivations behind daily energy use, and where potentials for strategies of sufficiency lie, qualitative interviews were
3914
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools
conducted with twelve selected participants. The aim was to investigate what people consume and how they are motivated to do so, instead of comparing how they reappropriate, misuse or overuse a certain technology to an allegedly ‹right way› of using it. Similar approaches of linking design research with social practice theory under the epistemic frame of sustainability are gaining traction amongst design researchers, especially when it comes to investigating unsustainable behavior in the everyday life (e.g. DeJong, 2010; Kuijer, 2014; Lopes & Gill, 2015) and its redirection through designerly tools (e.g. Kuijer et al., 2013).
2. The Everyday Life 2.1 Social Practice Theory There is a vast body of work on research into everyday life which goes back as far as the 1920s (Wirth, 1927), but reached a peak in the field of social-scientific theory in the 1970s (Barthes, 1957; Bourdieu, 1979; Douglas, 1973; Elias, 1978). A «practice turn» as Schatzki (2001) put it, has been emergent over the last decade in social scientific research. It attempts to move practices towards the centre of social scientific inquiry. Many sub-fields of the social sciences (e.g. science and technology studies (STS) as well as cultural studies) have developed and furthered this idea. Shove (2012) describes theories of practice as having «untapped potential to understanding change» in societies, because they contribute to the understanding of social practices and their origins and transformations over time. Reckwitz (2002) builds up an account of theories of practice in relation to other cultural theories and to major movements in social sciences. Next to practice theory he identifies three other types of cultural theories, namely textualism, intersubjectivism and mentalism. In terms of practice, Schatzki (1996: 89) proposes to see it as a temporally unfolding and spatially dispersed nexus of doings and sayings. A ‹practice› [Praktik] in this context is a «routinised type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‹things› and their use, a background knowledge in form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge» (Reckwitz, 2002: 249). Suitable examples are e.g. cooking practices, washing practices, industrial practices, recreational practices, and correctional practices.
2.2 Actors and actions in everyday life While in everyday life individual actors certainly play a big role as carriers of "bodily and mental agents" (Reckwitz, 2002), the focus in research does not lie on those individual actors but rather on the investigation and interpretation of their actions in concrete situations. This ‹practice-as-entity› as Schatzki coined it, is nevertheless not to be seen isolated from its performance over time. Consequently, in order for practices to be maintained, they need to be performed by an actor or, how Reckwitz (2002) put it, a carrier. In this understanding the
3915
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke
practice is only in existence, when it is actually carried out, since the «doings and sayings» need to be actualized and adapted regularly. The notion of a practice or practices performed by a carrier as «bodily and mental agent», is further elaborated on by Reckwitz (2002), who notes that each carrier holds certain reservations, pre-existing knowledge about how to do and say things and of course also bodily restrictions or limitations, which can alter the way a practice is carried out. A practice thus involves the single individual with his bodily and mental ageny.
3. Research Methods 3.1 Decrypting actions through design research tools To investigate everyday life on the level of practices and the subsequent value to sufficiencyapproaches, we lay our focus on theories of social practice as an fundamental base, while attempting to show touch points to design research. The methods and tools developed within design research and those adopted by it from neighboring disciplines bear the power to decrypt the everyday life. During the research process it became clear that simply asking participants about their daily routines and practices, like e.g. how often they washed their clothes, does not necessarily reflect the actual daily life with all its interconnections, situational limitations and configurations of the artifacts involved. We sought to overcome this barrier by employing a mixed-method approach, including the use of cultural probes, participatory workshops and qualitative interviews, which - in combination - allowed us to shed light on how practices are contextualized and situated within daily routines. In order to get results that reflect reality to a greater extent, during development of the questionnaire we searched for tangible translations which provoke more spontaneous and authentic reactions. The interview setting consisted of cards, scattered around the table, a camera and a voice recorder. Non-verbal supporting material such as method cards or sorting grids were used to help visualizing participants' personal coping strategies. The established set of methods used during the interview is framed by accompanying tools and steps before and after the actual interview (see figure 1). Preparations included workshop sessions and Cultural Probes (Gaver et al., 1999; Vesa & Mattelmäki, 2003; Matthews & Horst, 2008; McDougall & Fels, 2010) about everyday life and household duties. During the preparation participants with different backgrounds were asked to self-observe their everyday life through the use of Cultural Probes. In workshops and seminars their topics were brought up to grope for relevant issues, strains and concerns. As a result the interview is designed based on a participatory, user-centered mindset, incorporating methods that allow for the user to reflect on their surroundings and their everyday life, while not being confronted at all times with a researcher who might falsify or influence the results. One of the strengths of visually oriented methods like Cultural Probes, collaborative sketching or card-sorting might be to extract a subjective perspective, while it is quite clear that they need to be complemented with additional methods which allow a more objective viewpoint. Participatory as well as interactive aspects of inquiry came into
3916
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools
play, in order to shed light on the unnoticed of everyday practices. Collaboratively designed artifacts facilitated the translation of indirect and unconscious practices, motivations and wishes for our research.
Figure 1 Overview of methods used during the research project either as part of preliminary workshops, subsequent interviews and the wrap-up phase.
3.2 Practices of energy consumption in the private sector This investigation focused specifically on practices which could be approached with sufficiency strategies, meaning the change of required and provided benefit. Close attention was paid to the area of domestic work, which includes both the maintenance of a household and their members. Technological advances have lead to a huge relief for dwellers who take care of the maintenance of a household. Strategies of lowering energy consumption at the expense - time or effort - of the latter are not in line with our understanding of sufficiency in which house keeping practices lose their dogmatic character. One of the key energy consuming practices in private households is «doing laundry» (UBA, 2015: 34). In contrast to the practice of «supplying food» it provides a relevant measure regarding consumption of resources which is almost universal, meaning it is only marginally subject to individual or cultural deviation and can be clearly distinguished from leisurely activities. Nevertheless, to evaluate if and how strategies for energy sufficiency vary, once the duty of running the household does not apply, the interview was supplemented by the area of «TV/DVD/Web consumption» as a relevant figure within the field of leisurely activities.
3917
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke
4. The Interview An inquiry into everyday practices in private households has to be open enough to allow crucial anecdotes, but at the same time structured enough to keep an acceptable time frame. The semi-structured questionnaire provides an appropriate framework to talk about private and personal practices. The interviews were conducted in the participants' homes. Since they were about authentic private and partly intimate everyday experiences, we did not want to build up a distance to the reality of everyday life. It was therefor helpful to work in situ rather than in a research lab. Firstly, participants were asked to give a tour of their home, presenting it to the researchers. The interviewees found themselves in a safe situation while the interviewers assumed their roles as guests. When instructing the interviewees about the process, heavily discussed themes like sustainability, energy sufficiency, or energy consumption were not broached, to help them keep an open mind and not lean towards a - socially desirable direction. The interplay between tasks and talks during the interview include the adaption of the following designerly tools:
4.1 Cognitive Maps: Draw your floorplan This introductory exercise asks participants to draw their floor plan onto a whiteboard including the most important electrical appliances. This shed light on their current living situation, included the social environment within the household and informed about the use of electrical appliances. The floor plan helped structuring the narrative and was also used as a reminder on the positioning of devices within the home.
4.2 Object Sorting: Make your household tasks tangible Subsequently participants were given the task to distribute colored wooden beads, which each correspond to a certain household task, amongst glasses which represented cohabitants (see figure 2). An additional glass took all those activities in, which were outsourced from the household - ranging from mother-in-law to cafeteria. This way, it became clear how the tasks are distributed within the household and how this is perceived by the interviewee.
3918
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools
Figure 2 Color coded beads served to visualize the employed distribution of errands within the household. In this case the interviewee [«ICH»] is able to illustrate an «overload of duties» through the beads.
4.3 Card Sorting: Get rid of the chaos The interviewee is then confronted with the fictitious situation, their extended family has visited them over the weekend and layed waste to their home. Now several chores have to be done, which are all represented by small cards. The interviewees arranged the most urgent chores which are regarded necessary to get rid of the chaos on a time frame visualized by a color scale. Sorted into a linear sequence, the cards are moved vertically according to certain criteria (see figure 3): duration of chore, its popularity and finally whether they could imagine outsourcing it. This created a clear image of participants' relationships with certain tasks. Sorting the cards provided room to describe the decisions, adding individual experiences and relevant anecdotes to the information given.
Figure 3 Card sorting on a color grid visually translates different aspects like duration and ‹popularity› of chores in the household.
3919
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke
4.4. Card Sorting: Arrange your leisure time The household card game is used once more, helping to avoid having free leisure time compete with the non-paid household work. Thus the employed scenario describes that all the chores and tasks are done and the household is put back in order. Selected from a set of leisure time cards, the most relevant activities are sorted along a timeline (see figure 4). During the sorting sequence, a conversation is prompted, concerning questions like, which activities take place at home and which can be outsourced. Then, the interviewee is asked if the arranged activities of those two days (household and leisure) could be combined in any way. This helps pinpoint a central theme: for some, certain household tasks provide leisurely aspects or at least do not interfere with leisure time. In contrast, it became clear which tasks could be ameliorated by combining them with leisurely activities and which meaning could be inscribed in them, possibly leading to a redirected practice. By using the fictitious scenario of a power blackout, the interviewee’s relationship as well as alternatives to energy consumption were touched upon.
Figure 4 The card sorting method was used a second time to pinpoint the substantive differences of the character of these two sets of practice.
4.5. Letter to the Extraterrestrial: Visit from outer space Similar to the informal design method ÂŤletter to grandmaÂť (see Schadt, 2011), interviewees are presented with a scenario which is disconnected from their everyday life: An alien landed in their homes and is now trying to understand what humans are doing day in, day out. It especially worries about the underlying algorithm apparently controlling the
3920
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools
movement of textile artifacts within the home: at times worn on the body, sometimes lying on the floor or in baskets, sometimes dry, sometimes wet, here crumpled, there folded up nicely. Interviewees are tasked to draw the path clothes take, from undressing in the evening to getting dressed in the morning with all the intermediate steps on their floor plan from the beginning. Where do clothes go when they are not worn, when are they thrown on the ground or in a basket, when are they washed and when are they sorted in the closet. The alien, who now wants to participate as well, is in a position of asking unabashedly how it is supposed to know when to put an item of clothing on the floor or on a chair, when the washing machine is supposed to be emptied, what the criteria for sorting laundry is and when a machine is full. Without directly asking «What is dirt?», those practices which decide on what has to be washed and what does not are investigated by a detachment from one's own reality. This allows participants to question routines which are usually taken for granted.
4.6. Morphological Analysis: Configure your washing machine This method provides a ‹wish list› for a new washing machine. A tangible, fluffy felt model (see figure 5) of a washing machine was placed on the table. Interviewees were asked to imagine the functionalities their new washing machine needed to have. Those functions (in the form of stitched appliqués) were attached to it. The user-configured machine was photographed, before the interviewees were put through a kind of counseling interview where other functions were advertised. Amongst them were also imagined functions which imply certain sufficiency strategies, e.g. feedback-functions regarding the load weight. This method helped visualize a discrepancy between requested benefit and provided benefit. Furthermore, acceptances and animosities towards potential sufficiency strategies could be investigated.
3921
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke
Figure 5 The felt model of a washing machine exemplified in a first round the interviewees' ad hoc, basic requirements. In a second round participants were engaged in sales talk which triggered the integration of more sufficient and less sufficient features.
5. Evaluation We conducted twelve interviews in total and our practice focused approach to everyday life and sufficiency has led to several substantial observations regarding the potentials and limitations for possible transformations towards a sufficient way of life.
5.1 Tasks put strain on household members until they are completed. Less sufficient practices are favored over more sufficient ones, when the task is completed faster or remains unobstructed and clear. Some interviewees use a tumble dryer against their initial convictions, to some extent even with a guilty conscience. In this case its advantage is not the lightening of the workload (e.g. not having to put washed clothes on the laundry rack), but the good feeling of bringing the ‹practice› of doing laundry to a clear close. Same observation stands for starting half-filled washing machines or dishwashers. Especially elderly or latently overstrained household members (e.g. working single mothers or fathers) express a strong need of controlling the chores and see them concluded. A full laundry basket, the half-full dishwasher or clothes remaining on the laundry rack put a strain on some even if there is no direct need for action. This may explain, why users utilize technological artifacts in a certain manner that could be described as «wrong» and «irrational»instead of using technical devices in the appropriate and expected manner.
3922
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools
Considering the surveyed objectives in the development of technical services and applications could bring together maximum utilization with individual constraints.
5.2 Sufficiency practices of sharing work well once they respond to fears or dogmas. Under certain conditions outsourcing a task can be the more sufficient alternative, when e.g. bundling of tasks on a larger scale is more efficient (professional laundry instead of private washing machine, going to the cinema instead of using your television-set, going to a canteen instead of using your own kitchen to prepare food, etc.) and when it provides the necessary relief in coping with household tasks. However, after outsourcing certain tasks, additional constraints arose such as fear of damage, hygienic drawbacks or fraud. Feeling ashamed of showing one's own dirt, delegating dirty work or the humiliating feeling of not being able to cope with it oneself, can be major obstructions. Apparently irrational dogmas can be decisive factors and should be taken into account for future services.
5.3 Well-adapted structures facilitate sufficiency practices. To a certain extent, all interviewees use sufficiency practices and establish corresponding supporting structures. One participant, for example, cooks only every second day since her husband passed away, and reheats the leftovers the next day. For storing and reheating she bought «aesthetically pleasing» and convenient glass containers. Another interviewee, a single mother, does not need a tumble dryer despite her small apartment, since she purchased a high-quality laundry rack that is pleasing to her eyes and provides «joy with every use». Alternative approaches tending to please user affections may induce sufficient behaviour along the way.
5.4 A bad conscience more likely leads to counterproductive behavior and resignation Some practices are conducted in a less sufficient way due to a lack of capacity or conscious choice. The single father always uses the tumble dryer for bed linen and towels, even though he has ample space in his house and garden and he enjoys the task of putting them on laundry racks. He loves the «fluffy sensation» of tumble-dried laundry and enjoys providing it for his children as well. This does not prevent him from choosing other more sufficient alternatives in other cases. When performing less sufficient tasks leads to a bad conscience, resignation might follow. The mother of a large family believes that she acts «bad» anyways, so for her it does not make sense to consider sufficient practices. Instead of triggering a bad conscience by defining «right» and «wrong» behavior, less sufficient activities should be consciously experienced as ‹luxury› and situational limitations should be acknowledged.
5.5. Sufficiency practices do not correlate with financial leeway. In some cases sufficiency practices compensate a financial deficit (wearing clothes for a long time, treating them with care or washing them with cold water). In other cases financial
3923
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke
deficits create a frustration which suppresses possible sufficiency strategies and puts even more strain on the financial situation (more consumption, cheap products, disposable products). At the same time there are households where financial leeway helps favor sufficiency practices (long-lasting, high-end and eco-efficient acquisitions), or counteract it by celebrating less sufficient practices (e.g. «nostalgic power-consumer»).
5.6. Sufficiency practices always count. The twelve interviews showed clearly that there are big differences regarding the small details. All interviewees do their laundry when enough dirty laundry accumulates. But which item really is ‹dirty› or still ‹clean›; how much laundry is ‹enough› for one load; which temperature and which machine presets are appropriate, is decided in very different manners. That said, they all might consider their actions ‹normal›. We hypothesize that potentials for sufficiency strategies especially lie in these details. If you look at households with one ore more (small) children, it becomes clear how the configuration of each laundry cycle (e.g. 30 or 60 degrees; fully loaded) matters, since this ‹setting› is employed more frequently because of the big amount of kids laundry.
5.7. Sufficiency practices are very common. What is within the limit of acceptance and what is outside of it, relies not only on individual decisions which were determined by upbringing, experiences, background information or such, but also on societal norms that can change over time. Underpants are washed daily without any scrutiny, pullovers only once a year and shirts are put through olfactory testing. This is a common process for several interviewees, although it has not always been and does not necessarily have to remain this way. What exactly societal norms tag as «normal» is in constant flux and key for transformation processes. Technical questions could take presumptions of normality into account (e.g. by incorporating alternative approaches addressing subjective rationales).
5.8. It is more difficult to conduct sufficiency practices during individual leisure time. Within their households many interviewees believe to cope with their everyday life in a «normal» or «right» way. Meanwhile during leisure time, they put more emphasis on conducting activities the way they want, without inhibitions. It is seen as an attack on their personal freedom, when they are confronted with norms which restrict the use of (energyconsuming) technology regarding entertainment and leisure time. Furthermore, the amount and size of devices that cater to leisure time, is not to be questioned. While household tasks seem to trigger a bad conscience (e.g. when situational restrictions demand higher energy use), increased usages during leisure time are considered «well-deserved rewards» or «personal rights». This may reflect as well the intrinsic - and questionable - selfunderstanding of technical innovations in these fields. Technical appliances for the household address and communicate the facile, thrifty and equitable usage of products as
3924
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools
the best benefit, while equipments for amusement announce stoutly, luscious and unlimited usage to achieve maximal satisfaction.
6. Conclusion The interviews were conducted with only twelve carefully selected, entirely diverse participants. Consequently the design of the questionnaire was not done with a specific target group in mind and required a heterogeneous language. So the questions asked were open, in order to allow for adaption depending on the context, the participant's home. In fact, the questionnaire consisted partly of prompts targeted at the core issues which emerged from the workshops conducted beforehand and the cultural probes handed out. Approaching the interview like this allowed each participant, regardless of the disparity of the group, to engage with the questions on several levels. By leaving the questions partly open, experiences, fears and persistent myths of sufficiency were revealed. Playful tasks during the interview allowed all participants to talk about very intimate details of their everyday life. It was remarkable how «normal» practices of supply and maintenance can be over-charged with emotions. There are very specific notions of how everyday practices are to be conducted and what can be classified as «wrong behavior», even though individually these norms vary greatly. In order to verify some of the hypotheses generated by the interviews, a quantitative survey was conducted by a large research agency. We were able to confirm that a majority of users utilize their tumble dryers for reasons other than accelerated drying. For instance, 60 % of respondents appreciate the simplicity of the process, 56% think it is important to get their laundry dry during bad weather and for 51% it is crucial that laundry is fluffy and soft afterwards. Only 15 % lack the space to dry their clothes on a laundry rack. The example underlines the complexity of needs, hidden behind daily energy use and how multifaceted decisions are motivated depending on periods of life, broader circumstances or cultural experiences. We argue that a qualitative, low-threshold and multi-layered research method can enrich conventional approaches to understand unidentified «misuse» or «overuse» of certain technologies. Integrated into early steps of innovation development, the technological configuration of appliances could also address multilayered demands to provoke more sufficient practices. In conclusion, there is a lot of work to be done regarding sparking change towards a more sufficiency-centered way of life. With our methods we were able to shed light on some of the subjective, individual wishes and requirements which could, as a next step, lead to suggestions on how to approach the topic of sufficiency practices in the everyday life.
7. References Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Éditions de Seuil. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
3925
Miriam Lahusen, Susanne Ritzmann, Florian Sametinger, Gesche Joost and Lars-Arvid Brischke
Brischke, L.-A. & Thomas, S. (2014). Energiesuffizienz im Kontext Nachhaltigkeit - Definition und Theorie. Arbeitspapier im Rahmen des Projektes Energiesuffizienz. ifeu, Wuppertal Institut. Heidelberg, Berlin, Wuppertal. Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis: Sams Publishing. De Jong, A., & Mazé, R. (2010, October). Cultures of sustainability. In Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation: 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production (ERSCP) conference and the 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010. Delft University of Technology; The Hague University of Applied Sciences; TNO. Douglas, J. D. (Ed.) (1973). Understanding Everyday Life. Toward the reconstruction of sociological knowledge. London: Routledge & Keagen Paul. Elias, N. (1978). Zum Begriff des Alltags. In K. Hammerich, & M. Klein (Eds.), Soziologie des Alltags. Supplement 20 of Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (pp. 22-29). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Federal Environment Office (UBA) (Ed.) (2015). Daten zur Umwelt. Umwelt, Haushalte und Konsum. Volume 15 . Retrieved from bit.ly/1U0HPZ5 [accessed 07.03.2015] Gaver, W., Dunne, T. & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural Probes. Interactions, 6 (1), 21-29. Kuijer, L., Jong, A. D., & Eijk, D. V. (2013). Practices as a unit of design: An exploration of theoretical guidelines in a study on bathing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(4), 21. Kuijer, S. C. (2014). Implications of social practice theory for sustainable design. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. Lopes, A. M., & Gill, A. (2015). Reorienting sustainable design: practice theory and aspirational conceptions of use. Journal of Design Research, 13(3), 248-264. Matthews, B., & Horst, W. (2008). What can we learn from the probes? The role of interpretation in contributions to knowledge. Working Papers in Art and Design, 5. Mazé, R., Gregory, J., & Redström, J. (2011). Social Sustainability: A design research approach to sustainable development. McDougall, Z., & Fels, S. (2010). Cultural probes in the design of communication. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 57-64). ACM. Pruitt, J. & Grudin, J. (2003). Personas: Practice and Theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences. Radermacher, W. (2006). How private households use the environment – Higher energy consumption despite increases in efficiency. Joint Press Conference of the Federal Statistical Office and the Federal Environment Agency, Berlin. Retrieved from bit.ly/1RZi7R1 [accessed 07.03.2016] Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices : A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2), 243-263. Schadt, P. (2011). Moving Types Lettern in Bewegung. Schwäbisch Gmund: Hochschule für Gestaltung. Retrieved from bit.ly/1RZi6MP [accessed 15.10.2015]. Schatzki, T.R. (1996). Social Practices: A Wittgenstein Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. Schatzki, T.R., Knorr Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E. (Eds.) (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London and New York: Routledge.
3926
Mixing up everyday life - uncovering sufficiency practices through designerly tools
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. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: everyday life and how it changes. Sage Publications. Vesa, J. & Mattelmäki, T. (2003). Observing and Probing. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces - DPPI ’03: 126–131. Wirth, L. (1927). The Ghetto. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 57-71. German Advisory Council on Global Change, 2011. World in Transition - A Social Contract for Sustainability, WBGU Berlin. Schneidewind, U., & Zahrnt, A. (2014). The politics of sufficiency: making it easier to live the good life.
About the Authors: Miriam Lahusen studied textile and surface design at the Weissensee Academy of Art in Berlin, in Havana and Casablanca. Her research at the Design Research Lab focuses on the collision of sustainability strategies and daily life. Susanne Ritzmann is design researcher and assistant professor at HMKW University of Applied Sciences in Berlin. Her main research interest lies in design education and sustainability. She is also a PhD candidate at the Berlin University of the Arts. Florian Sametinger is design researcher, lecturer & interaction designer at the Design Research Lab of the Berlin University of the Arts. He is currently focusing on his PhD on the topic of designerly tools for sustainable awareness. Gesche Joost is professor for design research at the Berlin University of the Arts and heads the Design Research Lab. Her research focuses on gender & diversity aspects in technological development as well as user-centered design and participation. Lars-Arvid Brischke is senior researcher, lecturer and project manager at the IFEU institute for climate and energy research. His main research focus lies on energy sufficiency, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
3927
This page is left intentionally blank
Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices Mia Hesselgren* and Hanna Hasselqvist Royal Institute of Technology * miahes@kth.se DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.190
Abstract: For sustainable practices to emerge, they have to be tried out. In the design intervention A Car-free Year, we studied the particularities of three families’ changed practices. With a collaborative mind-set, the practices’ constituting elements were analysed, and their intertwined links followed, forming possible design concepts. When designing these seeds for changed practices, we have found, through the knowledge gained from the participants’ different perspectives, possibilities to design initiatives that could enable more people to live car-free. We believe that designing enabling ecosystems, where all types of elements encourage sustainable practices, can be an important role of sustainable design. Furthermore, design research can challenge existing societal norms, as clearly revealed in this project, and consequently inspire more people to make sustainable lifestyle choices. Keywords: sustainable design; practice-oriented design; service design; collaborative design.
1. Introduction Sustainable design embraces many different aspects, from design activities forming concrete physical products, to shaping intangible abstract values. Central to design is the creation of futures and how things ought to be (Simon, 1996), whereby the notion of change is inherent. With this immanent power of design, there are great potentials for designers to support the necessary transformations of human behaviour. As we have entered the Anthropocene (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000), the era in Earth’s history when humans’ effect on the planet has created a new geological epoch and humanity in itself has become a global force changing the planetary systems, there is an urgent need to accomplish change at many different levels, enabling life on this planet to remain within the planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015). Sustainable design has to acknowledge the tight interconnections between economical structures, social situations as well as the ecological status of the planet.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist
Humans, and humans’ actions, are woven into the ecosystems of the planet, hence peoples’ behaviours and practices are necessary to address. Within sustainable design research, there are many examples addressing human behaviours and social practices. A lot has been done relating design opportunities to understandings of sustainable behaviours (Strömberg, Selvefors, & Renström, 2015) and research has also been carried out taking a practice-oriented design approach (Kuijer, 2014; Scott, Bakker, & Quist, 2012). The practice turn in, for example, social sciences, philosophy and humanities, as a focus on what people do (Stern, 2003), suggests that design could pay closer attention to activities. Furthermore, it is not enough to focus on persuasions of the individual (Brynjarsdottir et al., 2012) and their activities. The complexities of broader sociocultural practices also need to be taken into account in order to understand possibilities for sustainable practices. We applied this broad perspective of wanting to understand the intertwined practices in peoples’ everyday lives to the case of transportation in families with children. With the aim of identifying possibilities for design to contribute to changing transportation practices, we carried out a one-year design intervention: A Car-free Year. In this research project, three families with children substituted their cars for light electric vehicles for a trial-period of one year (see Figure 1). The project was set in Stockholm in Sweden, with challenges such as different weather conditions depending on the seasons and winter months including darkness and snow. With this project, we aim at bringing the situated knowledge from the participants into design possibilities of what future sustainable lifestyles could be like if more families made the same choices. The project was set in a large city, rather than on the countryside, for two main reasons. First, living car-free can be a possibility for many residents in cities where public transport is readily available and well functioning. Second, it is in big cities, where congestions negatively affect CO2-emissions, that the benefits are greatest. With compact light electric vehicles, the footprints, both in terms of emissions and physical space, are drastically reduced. This paper presents the project set-up, applied methods, results from the participants’ changed practices and how these were used as a basis for analysis and design activities. Together this contributes to increased understanding of how design can be part of transforming peoples’ everyday practices. More specifically, we identify design seeds for trying out and growing sustainable transportation practices, relevant for designers and city planners, as well as researchers of several different disciplines. Additionally, by taking advantage of the role of design research to question existing societal norms, some of the car norms the car-free families faced were revealed and examples of how design can challenge such norms are discussed. Hopefully this can provoke and inspire others to further investigate changes needed to encourage more to make sustainable choices.
3930
Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices
Figure 1 Examples of the participating families’ light electric vehicles. Top left is the scooter, top right is the four-wheeled motorcycle, bottom left is one of the box bikes and bottom right is the bike.
2. Method A combination of research method approaches inspired by participatory action research and practice-oriented design has been used in the project. This interventionist approach, described as “into the wild� (Brown, Reeves, & Sherwood, 2011), including both us as researchers and the participants, has aimed at investigating and understanding car-free transportation practices. We have also focused on collaboration, since that can be a way to create the social innovations needed for a future sustainable society (Manzini, 2015).
3931
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist
By using practices in everyday life and their constituting elements as the basis for the analysis, possibilities for sustainable design can arise (Kuijer, 2014; Shove, Pantzar, & Watson, 2012). Practises are routinized activities carried out in everyday life where several elements are connected to each other (Reckwitz, 2002). A practice has sets of actions and is linked to rules and structures (Schatzki, 1996). These fundamentals of practices are drawn on by Shove, Pantzar & Watson (2012) and defined as constitutions of elements, integral to the enactment of practices. The types of elements suggested are divided into material, meaning and competence. Material refers to tangible objects and technologies related to a practice, meaning refers to shared symbolic meanings, and competence refers to individual skills and knowledge used in a practice.
2.1 One year of car-free living: project set-up The project “A car-free year” had three phases: a preparation phase before the trial year, a one-year period during which three families lived car-free and finally a design phase where the knowledge gained from the families’ experiences was developed into design concepts. The project was set up with three car-owning families with children in Stockholm, Sweden. The families were recruited on the project’s Facebook page and in Facebook flows targeting people with sustainability interests. After 11 interviews, out of 74 applicants, the three participating families were selected not only through the requirements of owning a car, having children living at home and living in the urban region of Stockholm, but also in order to cover a mix of challenges that could be faced when living without a car. We selected families to cover apartment households as well as those living in detached houses, single parents and two-parent families, families living in the centre and suburbs, and families with children of different ages. Furthermore, there was also a range of previous car use: from everyday work commuting, to regular evening and weekend activities, and to the occasional weekend and evening activities including holiday journeys (see Table 1). Table 1 The three participating families, their living situations and vehicle usages. Families
Housing and area
Family members Electric vehicles (monthly fee)
Previous car use
Family 1
Detached house in suburb
Mother, father, three children (aged 8 – 15)
1 four-wheeled motorcycle (€240), 1 scooter (€80), 1 bike (€50)
Daily for work (mother). Regularly for family activities. Occasionally for renovations.
Family 2
Apartment in suburb
Mother, three children (aged 11 – 13)
1 three-wheeled box bike (€70), 1 bike (owned by the family)
Regularly for evening and weekend activities. Visit summer house during holidays.
Family 3
Apartment in centre
Mother, father, three children (aged 2 – 9)
1 three-wheeled box bike (€70), 1 two-wheeled box bike (€70)
Occasionally for evening and weekend activities. Visit summer house during weekends and holidays.
3932
Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices
For the three families, the car-free year started in October 2014. Each family rented, through the project, a mix of light electric vehicles suitable for their own needs. The vehicles included scooters, four-wheel motorcycles, box-bikes and bikes (see Figure 1). The families paid a monthly fee, which included vehicle maintenance and expert advice on appropriate equipment for the vehicles and themselves. During the year, the families were allowed a maximum of 24 car trips, at their own expense, with taxi or rented or borrowed cars.
Figure 2 Trigger material used in the interviews: a trip diary (left), the 24-car-trips card (top right) and a visualisation of trips colour coded by transportation mode (bottom right).
Once a month, throughout the year, we interviewed the families in their homes. Two researchers attended each interview, where one was in charge of the interview and the other took detailed notes. Audio was recorded to support the notes. Prior to each interview, the families had a “log week” when they took notes of all the trips made and described their trip-related experiences and reflections of car-free living (see Figure 2). In addition, the parents used the smartphone app Moves1, which automatically tracked their trips including the different transportation modes. This data was visualised on a map with the connected app Move-o-scope2 (see Figure 2). Both the trip visualisations and the diary notes were used as probes to trigger discussions in the interviews. Other probes were a “24-car-trips card” where the families logged and counted the car trips they made (see Figure 2) and photos the families had posted on the project’s Facebook page. The contextual interviews were also 1 2
https://www.moves-app.com https://app.moveoscope.com
3933
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist
useful for observing practical arrangements in the home related to the new vehicles and other physical manifestations of new practices.
2.2 Tools for analysing and packages of insights for design inspiration We analysed the data gathered throughout the year with a practice theory lens. In the first step, the families’ positive and negative experiences of car-free living were identified and divided into practical or emotional. As a second step, to gain a broad understanding of the elements of car-free living, we used a modified version of the Contextual Wheel of Practice, COWOP (Mose Entwistle, Kruse Rasmussen, Verdezoto, Brewer, & Schaarup Andersen, 2015). The COWOP builds on Shove et al.’s (2012) division of elements into the materials, competences and meanings with an addition of two dimensions: physical to abstract and individual to shared. In our modified version of COWOP, we used the following four types of elements of practices as grounds for possible design interventions: personal materiality, individual knowledge, distributed infrastructure, and shared values (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 The four different types of elements of practices and their relations to the dimensions: concrete to abstract, and individual to collective.
This two-step analysis was condensed into a workbook where key insights were brought together with relevant images to create a well-informed and creative design brief. The workbook was presented to a design agency that was brought into the project as design practitioners complementing the design researchers and as a collaborative partner. Other collaborations included workshop sessions involving the design researchers, the design practitioners, the participating family members and various mobility experts. The workbook
3934
Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices
material was digested, distilled and further developed into a number of design concepts suggesting possibilities for car-free living in Stockholm.
3. Changing practices The three families had previously used their cars mainly for three kinds of purposes with different frequencies: daily transportation to work, regular transportation to various evening and weekend activities and occasional transportation (including going to summer houses) during weekends and holidays. Various practices in all these situations changed during the car-free year and the participants clearly adopted new practices, including new elements of practices, in order to still get to work, manage various evening and weekend activities and enjoy time in their summer houses. In this section, a selection of the results of these three categories of changed situations are presented and commented upon in terms of practical and emotional challenges and benefits that occurred. Furthermore, these examples of new practices are related to four different types of elements: personal materiality, individual knowledge, distributed infrastructure and shared values (see Figure 3). The selected examples are also summarised in Table 2. Table 2 Examples of new practices replacing the previous three car situations of different frequency, related to the four different types of elements. Previous car practices
Personal (near) materiality (personal items)
Individual Distributed knowledge infrastructure (competences/skills) (shared objects)
Shared values (meanings/images)
Daily commuting travels to work
- Mastering new electric vehicles. - Winter equipping bikes & people. - Getting services and maintenance.
- Acquiring winter biking knowledge. - Finding suitable routes.
- Utilising dedicated bike lanes. - Benefiting streets with less traffic. - Exploiting wellmaintained roads.
- Dealing with feeling different.
Regular evening trips for activities
- Having a valid ticket. - Ridesharing through online tool.
- Finding the way. - Utilising time while travelling. - Identifying whom to ask for a ride.
- Using working public transport. - Using failed public transport.
- Tackling inability to help. - Being concerned of bad parenting.
Occasional journeys during weekends & holidays
- Online shopping at summer house. - Acquiring a shopping trolley. - Online shopping for renovation.
- Finding & keeping track of timetables. - Learning how to pack (also bulky). - Planning where and how to go.
- Sharing transport distribution for home delivery.
- Coping with owing someone.
Since the car-free life affected many practices, the results presented in this paper do not give a complete picture of the families’ new practices. Instead, we give a few examples of everyday practices and highlight the close relationships existing between the different
3935
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist
elements included in these practices. Furthermore, the results pointed out are those where changes occurred because the participants tried out new things and where new practices were settled during the year.
3.1 Daily commuter cycling to work For one of the adult participants the car-free year meant new practices of daily work commuting by bike instead of car. Three of the adult participants started new commuting practices including the use of electric box-bikes instead of public transport, cars and regular bikes. In order to adopt new commuter cycling practices, both by regular bikes and electric boxbikes, a number of elements had to be in place. As examples of personal materiality elements, the new vehicles had to be mastered both in traffic and when parking. The boxbikes are rather large and tricky to handle, and some time was required before the positive experiences exceeded the negative. Since some family members biked all year around, including in the cold and dark winter months, they also had to learn the necessary elements of winter biking practice. Consequently, the participants had to both acquire new individual knowledge, including learning about suitable winter gear for the bikes (winter tyres and strong bike lights) and themselves (protective clothing), as well as get hold of the materials and services needed to fit them, i.e. other personal materiality elements. This combination of skills and stuff, including services such as maintenance, proved essential to adopt winter biking practices. The participants felt somewhat uncomfortable at the beginning of the winter months, but the provided support made them try winter biking and eventually they felt more and more comfortable with the new practices. However, in one of the families, after a bike accident, winter biking was given up for some time. A comfortable cycling practice also meant that the participants had to obtain individual knowledge related to finding suitable routes. This included knowledge about where to find dedicated bicycle lanes, streets with less traffic and well-maintained bike roads (also during snowy winters). These elements of distributed infrastructure needed to be in place in order for the cycling practice to feel secure and pleasant. When being a bike rider, as opposed to a car driver, there were many examples of how the participants felt out of place in situations where the car is a norm. These shared values are perhaps the most difficult to change, but possibly also the most important. In the project, the participants found their own strategies for how to deal with being different.
3.2 Regular use of public transport – for the children For almost all of the participating children, the car-free year meant that they had to transport themselves more on their own. During the previous year, they were mostly driven to their regular sports activities by the parents in their cars. When living car-free, the families, including the children, had to acquire new practices for how to get around in the
3936
Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices
city. As a result, most of the children started to use public transport on their own, without accompanying parents. For the children to learn how to use public transport on their own, many new elements had to be obtained. They had to make sure to have valid tickets and find their way without getting lost, as examples of personal materiality and individual knowledge that had to be obtained. Finding your way is also connected to the elements of distributed infrastructure and the children’s new transportation practices were particularly challenging when infrastructure failed (e.g. the tube suddenly stopped or the bus did not arrive on time). As the children tried public transport out, found their way and sorted out the occasional problems, they became more confident and eventually found it normal to travel on their own. With the children’s increased confidence, also the parents felt more secure. However, there were situations when the parents asked themselves if they were doing the right thing. The children also found ways to enjoy, or make use of, the trips by public transport: they listened to music, read books or did their homework. These added practices made them feel all right with the fact that the trips sometimes took considerably longer by public transport than by car. Also, when the parents did not spend time driving their children they, to some extent, had better possibilities to have dinner ready when the children arrived home, which all family members appreciated. All these activities can be seen as elements of skills and individual knowledge that were acquired and even though some inconveniences aroused, the new practices also had benefits. One of the children’s sports teams used an online tool for ridesharing as part of a digital platform being used for signing up for activities. This tool can be seen as an element of personal materiality (a technology and a service), as well as an element of individual knowledge (e.g. when someone needed to identify whom to ask for a ride). It can also be seen as an element of shared values as it reinforces the car norm by suggesting that the children should be driven to activities in cars. There were also more sensitive examples of shared values being challenged when the parents felt concerned that other parents would consider it bad parenting to let the children travel alone by public transport.
3.3 Occasional weekend and holiday journeys – or renovating the house During the previous year, two of the families used their cars to get to their summer houses, one family more frequently than the other, as their summer house is closer to Stockholm. The third family, without a summer house of their own, used their car for occasional home renovation projects during weekends and holidays, but also for visiting friends all over the country. For the car-free year, new practices had to be obtained for all of these situations. Learning how to use public transport to get to the summer houses was considered a challenge in the beginning. Examples of these elements of individual knowledge were: finding, and keeping track of bus times; packing food and clothes to last for the whole weekend, but at the same time being able to carry the luggage between the family members; and transporting large and heavy items. One family made use of the service of
3937
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist
ordering food online with delivery in their local store, near to the summer house, as a way to minimize the transportation need. This service can be considered a personal materiality element connected to the products (the groceries). Another example of this type of element is the trolley the family acquired for easier transportation of goods. One of the experienced benefits when using public transport, as opposed to the car, was the discovery of the different family members being able to travel to and from the summer house at different times. When using a car, everyone had to leave at the same time, but without a car the various individual needs could easier be fulfilled. The occasional holiday trips had similar challenges as the summer house travels, when performed without cars. Transporting the whole family, including all luggage and necessities, required considerable planning skills, including not only how to deal with the specific situations (for example how to bring bulky toilet paper and beddings) but also deciding on where to go and how to move about once there. Previously with the car, these aspects were nearly non-relevant, but without a car they became high priorities of the holiday planning. All these can be seen as elements of individual knowledge, where new competences had to be obtained by the participants. Other interesting examples of this type of element are the positive emotions several family members’ travel experiences revealed. Travelling together on a train, all family members had possibilities to enjoy the trip, even those who would normally drive. Sitting facing each other, as can be normal on a train, encouraged more conversations and the travel time spent together was valued more. Another example of when occasional transport needs emerged, was during renovation projects two of the families carried out. In these cases many new elements of practices had to be acquired. The families experienced that it was quite easy to order, and receive, new products and materials online. For example, buying white goods was simple and ordering wood panels was a straightforward business. However, second-hand shopping of furniture through various online platforms was a lot more difficult as home-delivery was not included in these services. Furthermore, when wanting to get rid of leftover materials or scrap, there were hardly any services to find. The services of transporting stuff to and from the homes can be considered both as elements of personal materiality as well as distributed infrastructure. It is interesting to note how normal it has become during the last few years to order food and materials online for home delivery. It is also interesting to pay attention to the lack of normality, and lack of services provided for transporting scrap. When no monetary streams exist , there are fewer business potentials and hence not so many companies ready to help. At several occasions, the families had to ask relatives, friends or colleagues for help to transport their stuff away from home. Some of these were happy to help, gladly offered their cars as enablers, which potentially made the lender feel better about their own car ownership. At other times, the participants felt uncomfortable about having to ask for help, leaving them with a feeling of owing the lenders something. The shared values in society, the norm of owning a car, had in these circumstances to be overcome and the families had to
3938
Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices
learn to cope with the discomforts and insufficiencies through individual strategies ranging from embracing the rebellious challenger role to brushing it off with humour.
4. Designing seeds for change In this section we present some design seeds nurtured through the insights from the analysis of the elements of changed practices. By suggesting these design possibilities we aim to spark imaginations of sustainable lifestyles. Furthermore, we plan to use these design concepts as tools for dialogues (Sennett, 2012) and inspiration in future collaboration activities with local politicians, authorities and organisations. It is clear that collaborative efforts at many different levels will be required in order for more people to live car-free. With our interventionist approach, the “configurations” (Suchman, 2012) of the families’ transportation means were altered and their practices were changed. The light electric vehicles are research “devices” (Lury & Wakeford, 2012), different from the families’ prior cars, brought into their lives by this research project and, by trying them out, a number of new practices emerged. Following how these provided “links” are enacted upon (Law, 2004), we can better understand possibilities for change. Apart from the vehicles, support and services were also included in the trial set-up. These intangible assets proved essential to take the families through the car-free year. Following these insights, several embryos of design possibilities with regards to encouraging people to try new things out, were generated in the project, where not only new elements of personal materiality (such as vehicles and equipment, including services), but also access to individual knowledge (like planning skills) were included. Distributed infrastructure (for example bike lanes and public transport) and shared values (challenging the car norm) were also addressed in the proposed design possibilities.
4.1 New try-out vehicle schemes One suggested design concept, where several design seeds are surfaced, is to initiate, implement and communicate try-out schemes with electric vehicles and bikes provided by for example employers. Included in the trial-periods, services directly related to the physical vehicles allied with expert advice, should be provided. This could mean collaborations between shops where vehicles are sold and serviced, and companies and organisations wanting to promote sustainable lifestyles. Retail shops can value from this by developing their business more sustainably, where new revenue streams can arrive from services sold, complementing products merchandised. Companies and organisations can benefit from this in many different ways, where intangibles such as goodwill and employees’ wellbeing can be generated but also concrete benefits like fewer required parking spaces. Employees can take advantage of discovering new sustainable practices in easy and non-committing ways. Once tried out, together with added skills and knowledge, new habits have a chance to settle. When tried together with others, and with local support, it is also easier to break norms.
3939
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist
Furthermore, municipalities and authorities can lead the way to sustainable practices by not only adhering to schemes for their employees’ private usage, but also by professional use of different vehicles in their practices, such as inner-city policing by electric bikes or caretaking of the elderly using electric four-wheeled motorcycles. Questioning given norms and invisible societal structures should be important purposes of politicians and governmental agencies.
4.2 Further design possibilities Elements of practices can be addressed using suitable design specifics, for example communication skills when designing infrastructure or service design thinking when approaching materiality. We believe that by taking a practice-oriented design approach (Scott, Bakker, & Quist, 2012), using a deeper understanding of all the types of elements needed for new practices to emerge, paths between the nodes can also be provided. By responding to actual social innovations taking place, and understanding how radicals solve their particular problems, structures of pathways can be provided. The three families in the study, as well as many of the families who applied to the car-free year, expressed a desire to live car-free and had in many cases already a limited car use. However, they were unsure how they would manage without owning a car and were hesitating to make the leap to sell it. In some situations it can be easier to make such a leap, for example when the car is old and need to be replaced, when moving or when life changes in other ways that affect everyday practices. We see design opportunities in understanding and intervening at these “tipping points� in life, as a way of supporting transitions towards more sustainable practices. It is not unusual that local authorities and state agencies focus their efforts on the development of the physical infrastructure. In Stockholm a number of cycling initiatives have been carried out aimed at increased bike use. However, these initiatives neither include electric nor box bikes and their particularities. As we have seen in this research project, there are many opportunities to support these alternative vehicles. Infrastructure plays a fundamental role, but their mere existence is not enough to make people change transportation practices. The communicative design aspects of infrastructure also need to be elaborated with explicit and evident gestures clearly showing, for example, cyclists that they are cared for in the traffic. Other physical materiality also includes products where many design possibilities exist, for example related to improved design of the light electric vehicles. By also embracing services, creating well-functioning product-service-systems, focus can be shifted from consuming artefacts to experiencing use values and consequently facilitating the creation of sustainable solutions (Manzini & Vezzoli, 2002). We have identified many readily available service design opportunities in the car-free year project. It can be easier to get people to try unknown products, and practices, if the required services are included in the offer, hence facilitating pleasurable user experiences.
3940
Give car-free life a try: Designing seeds for changed practices
At the more abstract level, acquiring additional knowledge and novel skills have proved essential in order to change practices. When trying new things out, one has to learn to master the materiality but also obtain practical information about how and where to move. New meanings have to be made when individual values are to change, connecting abstract with real. We can in this research project see the potential of design, not only its optimisation of functionalities but also in its meaning-making role (Manzini, 2015). Finally, and most importantly, as we have repeatedly encountered in this one-year design intervention, questioning the car norm is difficult. The development of individual strategies to deal with emotions of being different and insufficient is necessary to cope with the emerged inconveniences. New shared values need to replace old ones, and reinforcements are required for them to bite. In this transformation, we believe, there are many design, and design research, potentials.
5. Sowing the seeds For seeds to grow they have to be set in the ground. Unless planted, they never stand a chance to flourish, but once deployed, given the right soil, surroundings and resources, their roots can branch out and grow to strong and vivid structures. Changing everyday practices is difficult. Unless planted, they do not stand a chance to even emerge. But once attached, they can, just like seeds, settle and sustain. However, just like any resilient ecosystem, diversities, flexibilities and fruitful collaborations between all involved agents, have to exist. In the planned continuation of this research project, we aim at further study necessary cooperations and suggest more design possibilities for new sustainable practices to emerge and establish. Acknowledgements: This work has been funded by the Swedish Energy Agency. The authors are grateful to all the family members participating in the study and the project partners involved in the set-up as well as the execution of the car-free year project.
5. References `Brown, B., Reeves, S., & Sherwood, S. (2011) Into the Wild: Challenges and Opportunities for Field Trial Methods. In CHI 2011 (pp. 1657–1666). Brynjarsdottir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E., Disalvo, C., & Sengers, P. (2012) Sustainably Unpersuaded: How Persuasion Narrows Our Vision of Sustainability. In CHI 2012 (pp. 947–956). ACM. Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000) The Anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter, (41), 17–18. Kuijer, L. (2014) Implications of Social Practice Theory for Sustainable Design. Technische Universiteit Delft. Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge. Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (2012) Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. Routledge. Manzini, E. (2015) Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT Press. Manzini, E., & Vezzoli, C. (2002) Product-Service Systems and Sustainability: Opportunities for Sustainable Solutions.
3941
Mia Hesselgren and Hanna Hasselqvist
Mose Entwistle, J., Kruse Rasmussen, M., Verdezoto, N., Brewer, R. S., & Schaarup Andersen, M. (2015) Beyond the Individual: The Contextual Wheel of Practice as a Research Framework for Sustainable HCI. In CHI 2015. Reckwitz, A. (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. doi:10.1177/13684310222225432 Schatzki, T. (1996) Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge University Press. Scott, K., Bakker, C., & Quist, J. (2012) Designing change by living change. Design Studies, 33(3), 279– 297. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.08.002 Sennett, R. (2012) Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. Yale University Press. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and how it Changes. SAGE Publications. Simon, H. A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., … Sorlin, S. (2015) Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). doi:10.1126/science.1259855 Stern, D. (2003) The Practice Turn. In S. P. Turner & P. A. Roth (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (p. 382). John Wiley & Sons. Strömberg, H., Selvefors, A., & Renström, S. (2015) Mapping out the design opportunities: pathways of sustainable behaviour, (February), 37–41. doi:10.1080/19397038.2014.1001469 Suchman, L. (2012) Configuration. In Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. Routledge.
About the Authors: Mia Hesselgren is a PhD student in Design and Sustainability. Her research focus is on how methods of service design, strategic design and collaborative design can be used in sustainable development and for transitions towards a sustainable future. Hanna Hasselqvist is a PhD student in Interaction Design and Sustainability. Her research focuses on how interactive technologies can be designed to support sustainable practices and in which contexts they may be useful.
3942
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services: diagnosis and conceptualisation Joon Sang Baek*, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology *joonsbaek@gmail.com DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.203
Abstract: This study was motivated by the finding that there is a lack of design knowledge in the area of systems design of collaborative services. This study introduces a framework for developing service design strategies to foster collaborative communities and support social innovation. Based on the sociotechnical systems design, the framework allows designers to conceive the strategies, which belong to the domain of technical system, with an understanding of the social system of an organisation. It aims to achieve a seamless interaction between the social and technical systems of a community, leading to increased impact of social innovations. Social network analysis was used to understand social relations, and a co-design workshop to generate design strategies to foster them. For validation, the framework was applied to a community enterprise in South Korea. The paper discusses the effectiveness of the framework and concludes with its broad implications to the design of socially sustainable services. Keywords: sociotechnical systems, service design, sustainability, social innovation
1. Introduction Collaborative services are defined as the services where final users are actively involved in designing and producing solutions to social problems of their own based on peer-to-peer and collaborative relationships (Jegou & Manzini, 2008). The social forms constructed by these people are called collaborative organisations, and when such forms are bound by the sense of community, they are called collaborative communities (Baek & Manzini, 2012; Manzini, 2015). Collaborative services are social innovations in the sense that their production generates solutions to a wide range of social problems and reinforces social cohesion, thereby creating a positive impact on society (Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011). By This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
definition, collaborative communities exhibit two essential characteristics: the ability to solve their own problems and the relational qualities such as trust and intimacy (Cipolla & Manzini, 2009). These elements can be mutually supportive because the relational qualities are necessary to generate solutions, i.e., collaborative services, and implementation of these solutions can further enrich the relational qualities in return. The interdependency between solutions and relational qualities is coined as the virtuous circle of a collaborative community (Figure 1), and leads to a proposition that a collaborative community is a sociotechnical system (STS) (Baek, Meroni & Manzini, 2015). According to STS studies, a human organisation is an integration of two heterogeneous but mutually supportive systems that can be manipulated to influence the performance of the organisation: a social system in which the members form relationships through activities, and a technical system where they perform a series of tasks related to specific goals (Trist, 1981). These systems are interdependent and their integration leads to higher productivity and wellbeing of an organisation. As a human organisation, a collaborative community too is an STS, and the optimised integration of its social and technical systems leads to higher productivity of collaborative services: In the social system there are people and their relationships, and in the technical one there are communal activities that transform community resources into desired values (e.g. trust, conviviality). People and their relationships are an essential resource to organise and implement communal activities, and these activities in return lead to reinforcing the relationships of the participants. This mutually supportive interaction of social and technical systems increases the productivity of collaborative services (Baek & Manzini, 2012; Baek, Meroni & Manzini, 2015). Collaborative community (STS)
Production of solutions
Production of social networks
Figure 1 A virtuous circle of collaborative community
While existing service design literature focuses on the design of technical system (e.g. design of service concepts, processes and interfaces), that of social system (e.g. fostering social relationships in the direction relevant to design goals through design interventions) has been relatively undermined. It is partly due to the view that human relations are known to be contingent and spontaneous in nature, and hence cannot be anticipated or designed (Cipolla, 2008; Luhmann, 1995 in Fischer & Herrmann, 2011). Service encounters, which occur when people interact and exchange values, are hence the subject to be designed for
3944
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
(Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011; Manzini, 2015). This stochastic view is contrasted by a more deterministic one which considers service encounters as the subject to be planned and designed (Snelders et al., 2014)1. Without leaning to the deterministic view, we argue that the social system can be analysed, designed for, and assessed with appropriate sociotechnical interventions. This argument is supported by several social network studies: Sociotechnical interventions transform social networks of a virtual community (Haythornthwaite, 2002), foster trust within a local community (Kavanaugh, 1999), and enhance social capital such as interpersonal contacts, participation and community commitment (Wellman et al., 2001); social network analysis is used as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of community development (Ennis & West, 2012), sense of community (Gruzd, Wellman & Takhteyev, 2011), community resilience (Akama, Chaplin & Fairbrother, 2014; Baek, Meroni & Manzini, 2015), or sustainability of social-ecological systems (Gonzales & Parrots, 2012). According to the virtuous circle of a collaborative community, the design of technical system would then benefit from the understanding of social system. We hence address the following questions: (1) How do we diagnose the social system of a collaborative community? (2) What are the implications of the diagnostics to the design of collaborative services and of socially sustainable services in general? To address these questions, a framework to diagnose a collaborative community and form design strategies was devised. It was then applied to an empirical research for validation. This study is a sequel to an earlier work which proposes a collaborative service design process from sociotechnical systems perspective (Baek, Meroni & Manzini, 2015). We argued that collaborative services are the technical system of a collaborative community, and can be designed based on the understanding of the social system state. The social system state is in turn influenced by the implementation of the technical system. The design process is iterative and comprises four phases: (1) analysis, (2) design, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation. During the analysis and design phases, the social system is analysed and its qualities are reflected on the design of the technical system. During the implementation phase, the technical system is implemented and influences the the social system state. In the evaluation, the effectiveness of the technical system is validated by assessing changes in the social system. The framework in this paper becomes an analytic module of the design process, and used during the analysis and evaluation phases to understand the existing social system state and evaluate the effectiveness of the technical system respectively.
2. Methodology The framework employs the notion of collaborative encounters, social network analysis, and co-design in the construction of methodology. They are relevant to the aim of the framework because collaborative encounters provide a perspective of observing collaborative communities while social network analysis offers a strategy to investigate their 1
Snelders et al. note that the deterministic view is built on service research literature predating service design field such where services are treated as a predefined process (for instance, Shostack, 1977 and Ramaswami, 1996 in Secomandi & Snelders, 2011).
3945
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
collaborative network structure from a system’s perspective, and co-design engages communities and designers in conceiving design strategies to address the problems derived from the analysis.
1.1. Framework design Collaboration takes place when people encounter and exchange resources with an aim to create shared values, and collaborative encounters are an act of people meeting and interacting in order to do something they recognise as a value (Manzini, 2015). They are the core of collaborative services, and also a viewpoint of observing collaborative communities with the focus on the act of collaboration. While collaborative encounters vary in their contexts and results, commonalities exist in terms of the participant involvement and quality of interactions on which they are based. The former is further classified into active involvement and collaborative involvement, and the latter into social tie strength and relational intensity (ibid). These four commonalities are the variables to describe various types of collaborative encounters. These variables were reviewed for the possibility of applying social network analysis, which entailed finding relevant attributes and metrics for each variable, translating the variables into measurable metrics, collecting and analysing the data, and interpreting the data to understand their implications to collaborative encounters. The relevant social network attributes were identified through an internal discussion and literature reviews. As a result, collaborative involvement and social tie strength were matched with ‘collaboration’ and ‘tie strength’ respectively. On the other hand, we were not able to find the attributes that can be the indicators for active involvement and relational intensity. They were thus analysed qualitatively based on the information gathered from an interview and a co-design workshop. Collaborative involvement is the degree to which the participants collaborate during an encounter. Collaboration in this context has the qualities of socially constructive and open, and is distinguished from collaboration “that can produce destructive results to others” such as mafias or terrorist groups (Sennett, 2012 in Manzini, 2015: 100). It is represented as the function of cooperative attitudes and openness to innovations within an organisation. The degree of collaboration is categorised as high and low. People with high degree of collaboration tend to work jointly on a mission while those with low degree of collaboration choose to compete. In between are disengaged people who participate in neither collaboration nor competition. Social tie strength is the aggregate strength of interpersonal ties that participants establish in a collaborative encounter, and it determines the characteristics of relationships within a community such as stability over time or openness towards outside world. Based on the strength, interpersonal ties are classified as strong, weak, and absent (Granovetter, 1973). Strong ties arguably take decades to be formed while weak ties are formed more quickly. Tie strength has another implication connected to the previous variable, which
3946
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
is the potential of innovation diffusion within an organisation. Described as the strength of weak ties (ibid), weak ties play a critical role in connecting an organisation to outside world, thereby allowing innovations to diffuse. On the other hand, innovations in an organisation whose relationships are mostly strong tend to be self-contained. Configuration of collaborative encounters can be described on a two-dimensional space – social tie strength and collaborative involvement in axes (Figure 2). Social Tie Strength +
Strong/ Competitive
Strong/ Collaborative
_
+
Weak/ Competitive
Collaborative Involvement
Weak/ Collaborative
_
Figure 2 The framework of collaborative encounter
Previous social network studies measure collaboration by defining the notion of collaboration, and introducing the metrics and their measurement (Moody, 2001; Newman, 2001; Godly, Barron & Sharma, 2011; Schoen et al., 2014). For instance, Newman investigated the scientific collaboration by analysing the connections among scientists in the bibliographic databases based on the assumption that co-authorship of scientific publications is a scientific collaboration. The network characteristics associated with collaboration include distance, fragmentation, betweenness, number of collaborators, the giant component, strength of collaboration among others. For this study, we selected three metrics relevant to the small size and locality of the subjects under investigation: network density, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and network centralisation. In defining the nature of collaboration, we considered any relations formed in the process of implementing a collaborative service. This assumption was necessary since not all relations formed within a collaborative community were collaborative. Therefore, existing relations prior to the collaborative service or those not associated with the endeavour was excluded from the dataset. Social tie strength is an aggregate strength of interpersonal ties that exist in a collaborative network, and can be measured by calculating the proportion of strong and weak ties within a network. According to Granovetter (1973), the tie strength can be measured in combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual
3947
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie. To estimate the tie strength, we adopted a method proposed by Ennis and West (2012) who required people to describe their relationship with another person in terms of ‘close friend or family’ (a strong tie), or not (a weak tie). We asked the participants to describe their interpersonal relationships formed through business in terms of ‘intimate’, ‘close’, ‘acquainted’, and ‘not related’. ‘Intimate’ and ‘close’ were considered as strong ties, ‘acquaintance’ as weak ones, and ‘no relationship’ as absent. Table 1. Attributes of collaborative services and related metrics in SNA from the literature Attribute
Metrics
Reference
Collaborative involvement
Network density, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, network centralisation
Moody, 2001; Newman, 2001; Godly, Barron & Sharma, 2011; Schoen et al., 2014
Social tie strength
Tie strength
Granovetter, 1973; Ennis and West, 2012; Manzini, 2015
In integrating social network analysis into the design process, we followed the framework to design collaborative services from an earlier study (Baek, Meroni & Manzini, 2015). While this framework is introduced in the context of community resilience, it was developed under consideration for the wider context of designing for sustainable services. The framework follows the process of (1) defining the scope of system under investigation, (2) analysing the system state, (3) diagnosing problems, and (4) forming goals and strategies.
1.2. Framework application For validation, the framework was applied to a community enterprise called Neighbouring Farmers (NF) in the district of Ulsan Buk-gu, South Korea. As an organisation owned and controlled by a community and such that undertakes business on behalf of the community, a community enterprise is an exemplary organisation to deliver collaborative services. NF is one of seven community enterprises in the district, and it was chosen because it is relatively young, one year old at the time of investigation, and growing so that the social network dynamic is more visible than others. In defining the system scope, the target system and the boundary of its social and technical dimensions are identified. Since we aimed to understand the social system of a collaborative community, the boundary of target system was defined as community members engaged in a collaborative service. It includes employees, producers, consumers, local government, and other partners participating in the operation of NF. During the system state analysis, social network data representing the aspects of social system under investigation were collected and interpreted. We analysed and compared the social network data at two points in time, before and after the implementation of a collaborative service (September 2013 and August 2014 respectively), to identify how the technical system influenced the social system over time. The pre-service network was
3948
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
identified retroactively by inquiring the community network at the time of launching the business1, and the post-service network at the time of investigation. The data were collected from the community members using a survey followed by an interview (Table 2). The questionnaires were devised to identify the nature of collaborative encounters based on the previous studies in the use of SNA in community development and qualitative and quantitative approaches to social network analysis (Emmel & Clark, 2009; Ennis & West, 2012; Baek, Meroni & Manzini, 2015) The survey was the primary source of information about social network structure while the interview provided supplementary data including the nature and background of the relationships and clarification of doubtful issues. During the interview, the data were reviewed, doubtful issues clarified (e.g. why are certain people and relationships missing in the network?), and notable changes in the networks discussed. The results led to the visualisation of collaborative networks at two different junctures, i.e., before and after the implementation of the collaborative service. The data were analysed using UCINET 6 and Netdraw, which are SNA software that provide numerical and visual descriptions of network features respectively (Borgatti, Everett & Freeman, 2002). Interpretation of the data led to problem diagnosis and goal forming. The problems are defined as the characteristics of social networks that potentially inhibit the production of collaborative services. This step was conducted by the project team consisting of design researchers knowledgeable about network theories. The results were fed into a co-design workshop where the community enterprises sat together and discussed how to enhance the social system through design interventions. The workshop consisted of an introduction, SNA review, sharing problems and goals, strategy building, and wrap-up. The overall process lasted for 150 minutes. In the introduction, the purpose of the workshop was presented with the notion of virtuous circle. To help the participants’ understanding, a case study of scaling up a social innovation through the virtuous circle was provided. Next, the design goal based on the problem diagnosis was shared and discussed. SNA results were presented by comparing the social networks of each enterprise at two different junctures and between the enterprises. The participants then identified and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their social and technical systems, which became the input for generating goals and strategies.
1
The retroactive method was used because the data to be obtained occurred before this research started.
3949
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
Table 2. Survey questionnaire
Section
Queries
Personal information
Name, occupation, home address, period of residence, role in the community enterprise, period of participation
Company information
Company name, date founded, representative director, number of employees when founded and now, products/service, sales
Stakeholder information
Stakeholder name, relationship, satisfaction of collaboration
Social network information
Name, gender, role in the community enterprise, tie strength, age, home address, minority group (yes or no)
3. Context of study NF was launched in 2013 with an aim to revitalise a local community in Dalgok Village, Ulsan confronted with socioeconomic challenges. Once a thriving clan, the village has decayed in the process of urbanisation and industrialisation over the past decades. It is now mostly inhabited by elders as young people left the village for jobs. The residents are mostly small and medium-sized agricultural producers who are loosing ground in the globalised and industrialised agriculture. NF believes that they need a new model of production and distribution that are more competitive, more attractive, and closer to customers, i.e., lowimpact farming and direct sales. It thus practices community-supported agriculture (CSA) with a group of producers in the village. CSA is an alternative, and potentially sustainable, economic model of producing and distributing agricultural products. It typically works as consumers make a contract with local producers and pay at the onset of the farming season for a share of the anticipated harvest. In return, they periodically receive shares of seasonal vegetables and farm products. Its main service is the delivery of locally produced vegetables and other farm products to neighbouring consumers. The products include seasonal vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, abalone, tofu, eggs, and dried seafood. In addition, it also runs farm visit and camping programs on demand (Figure 3).
(a)
Figure 3. Food box (a) and farm visit program (b) by Neighbouring Farmers
3950
(b)
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
3 Results 3.1. Social network analysis From the time of launch (September 2013) to that of investigation (August 2014), NF’s collaborative network has grown in size with more members and relationships. The size grew from 19 to 30 as more producers joined the initiative. More members implies increased possibility of collaboration, and in fact, the number of relationships also increased from 6 to 69. It also means a greater variety of products and services NF could offer. In terms of the composition of stakeholders, the network remains the consortium of the employees (E), producers (P), consumers (c), and the district government (G) (Figure 4 & 5). C1 C2
C11
C12
C3
P4 E2 P3
C4
C10
E1 P2
C5
G1
C9 P1 C7
C6
C8
Figure 4. Collaborative network before CSA (C: consumers, P: producers, E: employees) G1
G2
P10
P11
P9
P8 P7
C12
P5
E4
C11
P6
P4
C10
P3
E1
E2
C9
P2
E3
C8
P1
C7 C6 C1
C5 C4
C3
C2
Figure 5. Collaborative network after CSA (C: consumers, P: producers, E: employees)
With the overall network remaining highly centralised, collaboration increased mostly between NF and the customers/producers. Network density, the number of ties divided by
3951
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
the number of possible ties, means how densely are the nodes connected. It increased from 0.11 to 0.49, driven by and confined to the relationship forming between the employees and two sets of people, i.e., customers and producers. At the centre of the before-CSA network was the founder (E1) with the highest betweenness centrality of all nodes, which is quantified as the number of times an actor acts as a bridge along the shortest path between two other actors. It indicates that he has a large influence on communication and the transfer of goods. After CSA was initiated, E3, a staff in charge of distributing the food box, emerged as one of foci of the network. Throughout the project, the network maintained the centralised structure, which reflects a lack of autonomy and collaboration within the organisation and inefficient resource management. The mean number of collaborators, represented by degree centrality, has tripled from 1.00 to 3.06, implying an increase in involvement. There was a significant increase in the overall network centralisation, from 9.8 to 58.46, indicating that the organisational structure became more centralised to E1 and E3 (Table 3). Table 3. The summary of the analysis of NF’s collaborative network
Attribute Network size
Collaboration
Social tie strength
Metrics
Before
After
Total number of members
19
30
Total number of relationships
6
63
Network Density
0.11
0.49
Betweenness centrality of founder
15.00
241.83
Degree centrality (no. of collaborators)
1.00
3.06
Network centralisation index (%)
9.80
58.46
Mean tie strength
0.21
0.50
The social network of NF is dominated by weak ties. In the beginning, the social tie strength was 0.211 with only weak relationships. As the community grew, the tie strength increased to 0.50. The proportion of weak ties increased from 21% to 36%, and that of strong ties increased from 0% to 6.9% (Figure 6). An in-depth look at the development of the participants’ relationships reveals that the strengthened relationships, i.e., weak ties into strong ones, are confined to those among the employees and between the employees and the producers (Figure 5). Quite the contrary, those within or between the farmer and consumer groups were not at all fostered. It is also noteworthy that the change of tie strength was mainly driven by the increase of weak ties, which is explained by the new relationships NF established with its producers and consumers. The fact that they are weak and coincide with the exchange route of goods raises a doubt whether they are the
1
Social tie strength is the mean strength of existent ties. The strength of existent ties, which are categorised in four types, is quantified as follows: not related: 0, acquainted: 1, close: 2, intimate: 3.
3952
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
inevitable consequence of business transactions, as found in typical business environment, or the result of social cohesion.
Figure 6. Change of social tie strength
3.3. Problem diagnosis Based on the analysis, characteristics of NF’s collaborative network that hinder, or can hinder, the production of collaborative services were identified as problems. Firstly, the level of collaborative involvement of the producers is low. The collaborative network thus heavily relies on the commitment and sacrifice of the founder. Without a certain level of autonomy and teamwork, the founder is likely to be overburdened with workload, and causes inefficiency in collaboration. It also means that the community is highly vulnerable because a removal of the leader would lead to the dysfunction of the entire network. Moreover, a lack of collaborative involvement among the producers can be a barrier to the operation of services that require combined efforts. Behind these problems is the weak sense of community in the Dalgok Village manifested by the pervasive distrust and selfishness. Second, relationships among consumers are inactive. This is problematic from social innovation point of view because the driving force of CSA is missing on the consumer side. From business perspective, it means the lost opportunity to take full advantage of early adopters. Early adopters are important not only as a test bed for new services but also a marketing resource. Given a persistent and effective relationship building, they can create a bandwagon effect and generate a momentum for business expansion. This is particularly important to NF because it has an urgent need to increase sales volume in order to maintain partnerships with the producers. The current scale renders the business an insignificant revenue stream to the producers. Third, there is no relationship between producers and customers. There is no indication, at least in terms of the social relations, that producers and consumers are part of the collaborative community. The producers and consumers participate in the supply chain, yet lack opportunities that foster their relationship forming during service operation which is essential in community building. Positing that a community enterprise is an organisation “run by a community as well as for a community� (locality, accessed in October 13th, 2015:
3953
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
http://locality.org.uk/our-work/community-enterprise/what-is/), NF is not a fully-functional community enterprise because it is run for a community but not by a community. Likewise, it is an incomplete CSA because it lacks the social function of creating relationships of solidarity between the farms and the subscribers (Feagan & Henderson, 2009). Lastly, NF has few external relationships, which keeps the social innovation contained and reduces its social impact. External connections also enhance community resilience by increasing the chance of receiving supports from outside in the times of difficulty. For instance, there are already seven other community enterprises running in the North District and some have practiced CSA in the past. Communication with these companies would allow NF to learn from their success and failure. In conclusion, NF makes little contribution to building a community. If it continues to function as such, it is unlikely to have any communities formed or fostered as the result of purposeful activities, which is a significant loss to the community enterprise incubation program. This problem may be approached from two directions: The first approach to strengthen the social capital of the Dalgok Community where the producers are rooted in; the second approach is to organise and empower consumer groups which support local agriculture.
3.4. Design The design goal was thus set to foster the relationships within and across the producer and customer groups both quality and quantity-wise, and to create missing links between the company and the outside world to amplify its socioeconomic impacts. In the next step, the diagnostics was brought to the co-design workshop with the stakeholders for discussion and strategy building. These strategies ranged from sales, marketing, design, and partnerships. 20. The participants had a demand to diversify the distribution channels, expecting that it would increase the access to target customers and stabilise the firms’ sales. They proposed a farm store connected with the ongoing farm visits. They also wanted a retail store to sell their products in the urban area which it could not afford, and thus proposed a collective retail store (a small department store) and joint branding for all community enterprises in the district together. Through this joint effort, the participating firms could share the costs of advertising, renting a place, and selling while increasing the product diversity.  In marketing, the participants wanted to utilise information communication technologies (ICTs) such as social network services and online media more effectively and efficiently to promote their products and services. The demand particularly lied in reducing the costs of developing and maintaining the marketing activities. A suggested idea was a joint online platform and store for introducing the community enterprises in the district and their products and services.
3954
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
The participants also shared the need for design resources. They looked for opportunities to work with designers in the locality, particularly in packaging, graphic, and character designs. Suggested ideas included a collaboration with the neighbouring universities to procure design resources from students in the forms of volunteer work, bartering, or profit-sharing. Their understanding of and interests in design value tended to be limited to tangible and physical attributes which have immediate perceived changes in product quality and consequently reactions in the market. In line with the design goals, the participants were encouraged to brainstorm ideas that stimulate mutual support and partnerships among the community business companies in the district. They reported that interactions at the executive level already existed in the form of occasional and friendly gatherings. The purpose of gatherings was to share the difficulties and distresses in business, and in doing so gain empathy or find solutions. The participants were guided to design strategies to address such difficulties through mutual reciprocity. A suggested idea was an after-school program organised by NF for the children of working mothers in other community enterprises in the region.
4. Discussion Co-design is the process of bridging the gap between user needs and designers’ intention, and this process is not necessarily without conflicts. In co-designing sustainable solutions at systems level, a continuous tension was observed between the design team and the participants who had different views on what the problems and solutions are. The participants tended to focus on urgent business issues, possibly due to the increasing pressure from the government on the economic performance of community enterprises. They often generated solutions that lack entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency. For instance, the ideas of collective retail store or collaboration with local design schools were dependent on pro bono services by local stakeholders. These solutions also convey the participants’ lack of systems thinking, i.e., ability to think beyond their individual interests and have a holistic understanding of the system, which together with transformational nature of the workshop created a dissonance between the participants and designers in building strategies. The role of designers in this case was not only a facilitator but also a transformer with an aim to reshape the collaborative network with design interventions. Their role thus included steering the workshop towards the formulation of long-term, socioeconomic, and empowering strategies. On the contrary, the participants anticipated from the workshop immediate solutions to what they perceived as urgent issues, i.e., increasing profits in the short term. Some participants found the workshop irrelevant and the outcomes unsuited to their business. It is speculated that the dissonance between the designers and participants is partly because the design problems were defined not from stakeholder needs but from the systems state. The participants hence did not perceive the problems as problematic nor the
3955
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
solutions as relevant. To conclude, it was and remains as a challenge to co-design sustainable solutions that address communal or societal needs without compromising the needs of participating actors. A lesson from our empirical study is that to bridge the disconnect between the system goal and those of individuals, an effort to align them is necessary and it could begin as early as the problem diagnosis phase. To set a viable goal, it is essential that the design team and the participants reach a consensus between on what the problems are at systems level and how they relate to individual needs. This process may require negotiation and persuasion if the design team has a different set of priorities from the participants. In presenting the notion of collaborative encounter constituted of four sets of variables, Manzini (2015) argues that successful social innovations, ones that spread and generate social impacts, achieve the balance of opposing characteristics. In other words, configuration of collaborative encounters in the design of collaborative services should aim for the balance between strong and weak ties, relational and formalised interactions, collaborative and individual activities, and active and passive involvement. However, the recipe of balancing the opposing qualities is difficult to articulate, and remains as an open question to be explored. Until now, the nature of balance is abstract such as that between body and soul or yin and yang rather than concrete. The act of balancing is to recover the characteristics submerged by the contrasting ones “to the detriment of deeper human dimension” based on the understanding of the nature of encounters (ibid: 103). While the sociotechnical framework was devised in the context of collaborative services, its application extends to any organisations which can benefit from increased customer interactions in service production processes. Active participation of customers in service production, also called customer process, is a basic element constituting a service (Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996). Customer process has become increasingly important in recent years with the rise of sharing economy or collaborative consumption (Lessig, 2008; Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Sharing services such as Airbnb, Uber, or TaskRabbit are distinguished from commercial ones in that they create social, environmental, and economic values through more efficient distribution of resources, i.e., sharing. At their origins are the social innovations conceived by people who “rediscovered the power of doing things together” in the era of extreme individualisation (Manzini, 2015: 86; Penn & Wihbey, 2015). However, a closer look at the trajectory of some of the widespread sharing services reveals that the true meaning of networking and collaboration which is at the core of their predecessors has dissipated in the process of commercialisation. For instance, CouchSurfing, a non-for-profit initiative of sharing houses for travellers, aims to foster cultural exchange and mutual respect among users envisioning a world connected by travel (CouchSurfing, 2015). However, the vision and functionality of reinforcing social capital are no more found in Airbnb, a commercial version for sharing lodging. It remains a question to be explored whether there is a common pattern behind the consolidation of social innovations. It is only noted here that such a concern raises the potential contribution of this framework to service design: the meaning of relationships at systems level is becoming increasingly relevant to
3956
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
competitiveness and sustainability of services, and thus needs to be intentionally and thoughtfully approached at the early phase of design process. The sociotechnical framework provides designers with a means to explore the social dimension of customer process. It also integrates the generation of relational values into service conception by articulating the interaction between the social system and service concept. In the framework, problems diagnosis leads to the identification of social systems needs (needs in the sense that changes are necessary for the transition towards a desired state), which become the opportunities for new service development.
5. Conclusion Recently, an increasing number of social innovations and businesses have adopted collaboration as a means to achieve social and economic values. While human encounters including collaboration are difficult to predict or control due to their contingency and spontaneity, design interventions combined with an understanding of social relations can facilitate their transformation by creating favourable conditions. This paper is an effort to develop such an intervention in the context of community-driven social innovations. We noted that collaborative communities are a sociotechnical system in which people’s relationships and technical solutions develop interdependently. We also noted that existing design interventions tend to focus on developing technical solutions while research on fostering social networks is few. We thus proposed a sociotechnical framework to conceive the technical solutions based on the understanding of the social networks with an aim to foster collaborative communities. The framework employs the collaborative encounters and social network analysis to understand the social system. It is useful for diagnosing the social system with quantifiable metrics. It informs designers about the current state and desired state in terms of the configuration of collaborative encounters. It also supports their embodiment by providing design opportunities related to specific aspects of collaborative encounters. Although the framework was devised in the context of collaborative services, it is applicable to any services which may benefit from customer engagement and collaboration. This paper contributes to design for social innovation and sustainable services at two different levels: (1) at the theoretical level by introducing a systemic approach to understanding and designing for the social system of services; and (2) at the methodical level by proposing a framework and tools to analyse specific attributes of interpersonal encounters and interpret their social impacts. Acknowledgments: This study was funded by the the Ministry of the Trade, Industry & Energy on the 'Promotion of Special Design-Technology Convergence Graduate School' (N0000973) of the Korea Institute of Design Promotion, and District office of Ulsan Bukgu, South Korea. The authors thank the community enterprises in Ulsan for their collaboration.
3957
Joon Sang Baek, Sojung Kim and Yoonee Pahk
6. References Akama, Y., Chaplin, S., & Fairbrother, P. (2014). Role of social networks in community preparedness for bushfire. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 5(3), 277–291. Baek, J. S., & Manzini, E. (2009). Designing Collaborative Services on the Digital Platform. In the proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. Baek, J. S., & Manzini, E. (2012). A Socio-technical Framework for Collaborative Services. Paper presented at the Design Research Society International Conference 2012, Bangkok. Baek, J. S., Meroni, A., & Manzini, E. (2015). A socio-technical approach to design for community resilience: A framework for analysis and design goal forming. Design Studies, 40, 60–84. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic technologies. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Collaborative consumption. New York: HarperBusiness. Cipolla, C. (2008). Creative communities as “relational” innovations: a service design approach. In F. Jegou & E. Manzini (Eds.), Collaborative services. Social innovation and design for sustainability (pp. 153-156). Milano: POLIDESIGN. Cipolla, C., & Manzini, E. (2009). Relational Services. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 22(1), 45-50. Cottam, H., & Leadbeater, C. (2004). RED Paper 01. Health: Co-creating Services. London: British Council. Couchsurfing. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2015, from https://www.couchsurfing.com/ Edvardsson, B., & Olsson, J. (1996). Key Concepts for New Service Development. The Service Industries Journal, 16(2), 140-164. Emmel, N., & Clark, A. (2009). The methods used in connected lives: investigating networks, neighbourhoods, and communities. Real Life Methods, the Manchester / Leeds Node of the National Centre for Research Methods. UK. Ennis, G., & West, D. (2012). Using social network analysis in community development practice and research: A case study. Community Development Journal, 48(1), 40–57. Feagan, R., & Henderson, A. (2009). Devon Acres CSA: local struggles in a global food system. Agriculture and Human Values, 26(3), 203–217. Fischer, G., & Herrmann, T. (2011). Socio-Technical Systems – A Meta-Design Perspective. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 3(1). Gonzales, R., & Parrot, L. (2012). Network Theory in the Assessment of the Sustainability of Social– Ecological Systems. Geography Compass, 6(2), 76-88. Godley, J., Barron, G., & Sharma, A. M. (2011). Articles Collaboration in Health Research. Journal of Healthcare, Science and the Humanities, I(2), 99–116. Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Gruzd, a., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294–1318. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media. The Information Society, 18, 385–401. Jegou, F., & Manzini, E. (2008). Collaborative services: Social innovation and design for sustainability (F. Jegou & E. Manzini Eds.). Milano: Edizioni Poli.design. Kavanaugh, A. (1999). The Impact of Computer Networking on Community: A Social Network Analysis Approach. Paper presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference 1999, Alexandria, VA, USA.
3958
A sociotechnical framework for the design of collaborative services
Kimbell, L. (2011). Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 41–52. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury.
About the Authors: Joon Sang Baek is an assistant professor at the School of Design and Engineering at Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST). His research areas include design for social innovation and sustainability, transformation design, and product-service system design. Yoonee Pahk is a doctoral researcher at DESIS lab, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) in Korea. She is researching design with specific focus upon the issue of ageing for application in support of active lifestyles and sustainable well-being through design methods. Sojung Kim is a Ph.D. student majoring in industrial design at UNIST in Korea. She studied the application of Product-Service System (PSS) development methodology to smart appliance development. Currently, she is focusing on nature-inspired design approach for sustainable PSS design.
3959
This page is left intentionally blank
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework Francesco Mazzarella*, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell Loughborough University *F.Mazzarella@lboro.ac.uk DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.140
Abstract: The current economic crisis is building momentum for designers to challenge the linear take-make-waste model and explore sustainable strategies, services and systems. With this in mind, this research explores how service design can encourage textile artisans’ communities towards a sustainable future, providing social engagement, rescuing cultural heritage, boosting economic development and enhancing environmental stewardship. Service design is here proposed as an approach to empower such communities, co-design collaborative services and sustain innovations within an enabling ecosystem. The paper focuses on the first study of this research where a theoretical framework to help textile artisans’ communities transitioning to a sustainable future was co-developed with academic experts in the field. A Nominal Group Technique and semi-structure interviews were used to collect data; results and findings are presented as barriers, enablers and a manifesto to encourage a sustainable future. To conclude, next steps and challenges posed by the envisioned future are discussed. Keywords: textile artisans’ communities; social innovation; sustainable future; service design
1. Introduction In order to face the complex challenges of the current and future world, design is moving its focus from product and manufacturing issues towards strategies, services and systems, addressing social and environmental problems (Buchanan 2001). Within this arena, we are also witnessing an upsurge of interest in artisanship, considered as a resilient response to the increasing demand for flexible, customised and redistributed manufacturing, reconnecting communities to their local material culture and reaching global markets. In particular, within the craft landscape, this research is focused on textile artisanship, here defined as the human-centred economic activity of giving form and meaning to local fibres, This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
by hands or directly controlling mechanised and digital tools, and managing the process of making small and flexible batches of culturally and socially significant apparel. For the purposes of this research, the textiles sector is chosen for its high employment of skilled artisans, wide range of applications, and ever-increasing consumption trends, causing urgent environmental and social challenges (Earley et al. 2010; DEFRA 2011; Crafts Council 2014). Recent evidence suggests that the textile sector is one of the most complicated productive chains, involving different actors (i.e. farmers, manufacturers of fibres, yarns, fabrics and apparel, retailers), service sectors and waste management (DEFRA 2011). Although technical reports produced by several organisations (e.g. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs – DEFRA; Waste & Resource Action Programme – WRAP) assess the environmental sustainability of textiles, there is still a shortage of literature seeking to envision sustainable futures in this field, which this research intends to contribute to. Moreover, this research intends to overcome the shortage of studies on the artisan and his/her social implications, beyond environmental issues.
2. Sustainability Challenges within the Textiles Value Chain Increasing global competition is leading many artisans to live in a precarious, fractured and marginalised condition (Scrase 2003). Due to exclusionary policies, lack of investment, poor infrastructure and rapid urbanisation, we are witnessing an overall decrease in the number of artisans and an increase of those who have joined an informal economy (Seth 1995), undertaking low-quality jobs and not covered by social benefits or wage protection laws (International Labour Organisation 2014). As the working condition of artisans is precarious, craftsmanship itself is under threat too. For instance, a hybrid form of “bricolage” (Scrase 2003) is emerging (consisting of items inspired by foreign archetypes and mass produced in global peripheries, then sold in cheap supermarkets to cosmopolitan consumers and used out of context), challenging the real concept of artisanship. Artisans are even more endangered in the developing world, where they often face subjection to large monopoly businesses, market corruption and unreliability, as well as lack of perception of international consumers’ trends (Nash 1993). In fact, due to price competitiveness, production is often outsourced to developing countries, where artisans are usually at the “bottom of pyramid” (BOP) (Prahalad and Hart 2002). In this context, BOP artisans have little opportunities to overcome their poverty due to the lack of long-term market access, regular wages and opportunities to learn new skills (Kulick 2015). Furthermore, the lack of innovation opportunities makes young artisans less inspired and motivated, therefore fewer of them carry on production of traditional crafts (Mirza 2015). To preserve traditional artisanship, government and non-government organizations (NGOs) implement aid policies, but such top-down support often fails in setting labour conditions and rights, quality standards and competitive prices for craft products, as well as in recognising artisans’ needs and translating them into a strategic agenda (Scrase 2003). Even fair-trade bodies, while focusing on fair prices, sometimes undervalue artisans’ labour, and most of the income often go to charities and NGOs without reaching the producer. In particular within the textiles sector, dwindling
3962
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
of resources and re-localisation of urban manufacturing are making natural fibres expensive and unaffordable for artisans who have consequently turned to mass production (Scrase 2003). Many of the items once produced by skilled textile artisans have been replaced by fast fashion, which means mass-production of low quality cheap garments (Mirza 2015). These fast consumption trends do not take producers, heritage and the environment into account, resulting in the parallel emergence of “fast landfill” (Earley et al. 2010). For instance, 2 million tonnes of clothing waste are produced per annum in the UK, increased by around one third from 2000 to 2006 (DEFRA 2007). According to WRAP (2012), the process from raw material to garment supply contributes for around one-third of the waste footprint, three-quarters of the carbon impact and most of the water footprint of clothing (for the production of natural fibres such as cotton). 40% of consumers claim the lack of sufficient environmental information about clothes. Furthermore, if the average life of clothes was extended by three months (over an estimated lifetime of 2.2 years) of active use per item, each of the carbon, water and waste footprints could be reduced by 5-10%. In the UK every year, at the end of their life 34% of clothes goes to overseas reuse, 31% to landfill, 14% to recycling and to UK re-use and 7% to incineration. These facts and figures drawn from WRAP (2012) make evident the need for changing the way we supply, use and dispose of clothes in order to reduce the footprints associated with the textiles supply chain. In this regard, Forum for the Future (2015) suggests that such complex global problems cannot be solved by single top-down policies or global institutions without systemic thinking. With this in mind, this research proposes an enabling ecosystem as a platform for sustaining bottomup and cross-disciplinary collaborations among different stakeholders encouraging textile artisans’ communities towards a sustainable future.
3. Research Opportunities towards Sustainable Textile Artisanship Several design approaches could be adopted to develop textiles which are environmentally responsible, socially just and economically fair, as well as culturally meaningful and enriching at a personal level (Walker and Giard 2013). The designer’s imagination could be summoned to encourage sustainable development, building resilient interconnections between environmental, technological and economic resources, social and cultural values. This could be achieved through the shared efforts of policy makers, artisans’ communities and individuals, as summarised in Table 1.
3963
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
Table 1
Key findings from the literature on the potential for textile artisanship to move towards holistic sustainability. Considering the four pillars of environmental, social, economic and cultural sustainability, this means going beyond mere improvement of what textile artisanship is, to considerate what it could be in the future.
The above-mentioned practices (which will be continuously reviewed throughout the research project) are just some of the possible directions that design for sustainable textile artisanship could undertake. However, to ensure the most likely adoption and sustainability
3964
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
of such innovations, it is recommendable to deeply understand the context of design intervention and define together with relevant artisans what strategy is better to adopt to address specific issues.
4. Service Design as Innovative Research Approach This section suggests service design as a user-centred, relational and systemic approach to implement some of the above-mentioned sustainable guidelines in context-specific design interventions. Service design is here defined as the process of “prosuming” (i.e. producing and consuming) services, which are based on intangible frames (i.e. social and cultural) and tangible interactions (i.e. technological) (Morelli 2002; Meroni and Sangiorgi 2011). Service design could be a sustainable alternative to the take-make-waste model, providing customers with the same level of performance but with less use of resources and lower environmental impact (Meroni and Sangiorgi 2011). Additionally, product-service-system design (PSSD) is evidenced to be more sustainable than mere product design (Vezzoli et al. 2014), if combined with localization (Walker 2009), community engagement (Meroni 2007), lightness (Thackara 2005), and changes in consumer’s behaviour (Tukker and Tischner 2006; Marchand and Walker 2008). With this in mind, this research does not focus on textile craft products themselves, but on the relational infrastructure (of service providers and users) behind sustainable products. By adopting service design methods (e.g. shadowing, contextual interviews, co-creation workshops, stakeholders mapping, service blueprinting), this research proposes to elicit (or empathise with) textile artisans’ needs, evaluate current systems and envision future ones, in relation to some of the service design paths outlined in Table 2 below. Table 2
Possible service design directions to encourage textile artisans’ communities towards achieving holistic sustainability (adapted from DESIS DOP 2013).
4.1 Empowering Textile Artisans’ Communities In order to trigger the process of social innovation, Meroni (2007) recommends the designer to understand communities’ creative ways of organizing, triggering social interactions, and
3965
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
co-designing strategies for collaborative innovation involving multidisciplinary stakeholders. A hybrid “middle-up-down” (Stakowszki 2010) process involving bottom-up engagement and top-down support is envisaged to help activate and sustain social innovations. With this in mind, this research proposes the need for textile artisans to be empowered by gaining access to information, skills and independency, therefore becoming less vulnerable and more resilient (Medvedev 2010; Kulick 2015). This means fostering mutual help and community structure, a pattern more recurrent – out of necessity of cultural values – in developing countries rather than in industrial societies, which are, instead, more driven by individualistic consumption and functionalism (Marras and Bala 2007). Furthermore, within collaborative communities, the success of interpersonal relationships, the feeling of active participation in solving a common problem, the freedom of expression and selfdetermination have been shown to be key factors for sustainable innovation, contributing to happiness and wellbeing (Escobar-Tello 2011). Also real-world context, service orientation, and a network of relationships among local participants are advocated as key success factors for social projects (Thackara 2005).
4.2 Co-designing Collaborative Services Once creative assets and social bonds within a community are empowered, Jégou and Manzini (2008) suggest the opportunity for designers to develop collaborative services. These are bottom-up solutions grounded in the paradigm of users as resources rather than problems, as they are co-designed with community members and require participants’ interactions to exist. Collaborative services are based on the skills and resources available in a specific place and boost interpersonal encounters between participants who co-produce and share the material and immaterial benefits of the service (Cipolla and Manzini 2009). Therefore, beyond the tangible evidences of a service, designers are also required to deal with intangible values, such as trust, harmony, empathy, usability, transparent anticipation of service rules, coherent service identity (Lo 2011). Moreover, Lo (2014) highlights that collaborative services are increasingly reliant not only on face-to-face encounters, but also on online interactions. These are enabled by the proliferation of digital media and peer-topeer technologies, such as websites, mobile devices, apps, social media, crowd-funding platforms (e.g. Kickstarter), e-shop channels (e.g. Etsy), etc. Although most communities rely more on ideology than on technology, Information and Communication Technology could contribute to improve existing services, enable followers to join a service or start up new ones, introducing some digital innovations as those outlined in Table 3 (Luiten 2007). However, from case to case, it is important to assess what kind of added value technology can really introduce.
3966
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
Table 3
Potential digital innovations within textile artisans’ communities (adapted from Luiten 2007).
4.3 Envisioning an Enabling Ecosystem In order to maximise sustainability and scalability of collaborative services, Jégou and Manzini (2008) recommend connecting small and distributed initiatives via social networks and platforms. As services tackle different issues in specific contexts, local solutions cannot be replicated, yet inter-connected within a wider network enabling mutual learning. Such platforms could be equipped with tools for organizing and maintaining collaborative services, and designed so that enabling solutions share the same base and new modular services could be added as the system evolves (Voss and Mikkola 2007). Connecting artisans’ communities within an enabling ecosystem requires systemic thinking and engagement at all levels, encouraging open sharing of resources and information among artisans, designers, local communities and policy makers. An enabling ecosystem is envisioned to be autopoietic, that is self-sustaining and self-reproducing thanks to balanced intra- and inter-connections among its actors, who interact and co-evolve without affecting each other (Mazzarella 2013). Finally, an enabling ecosystem is sought to give birth to new forms of active communities, trigger new ideas of locality and build a strong sense of belonging and social responsibility (Mazzarella and Engler 2014).
5. Scoping Study “Challenging Sustainable Futures” To address the shortage of comprehensive studies on long-term sustainability of textile artisans’ communities, the scoping study “Challenging Sustainable Futures for Textile Artisans’ Communities” was conducted during the Nordes 2015 Conference at Konstfack University in Stockholm (Figure 1), and followed by online semi-structured interviews with international academics. The aim of this study was to review and consolidate an initial
3967
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
theoretical framework for a sustainable future tailored to textile artisans’ communities and inform future Participatory Action Research (PAR) phases of the research project.
Figure 1
Nominal Group Technique at Konstfack.
5.1 Data Collection Methods Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and semi-structured interviews were chosen as methods to explore the scope of specific textile artisans’ communities in relation to future trends. The former consisted of interactions within a group of academics who discussed a topic supplied by the researcher, gathering collective rather than individual views (Morgan 1988). The small sample size and different backgrounds of the participants allowed yielding large and in-depth data in a short period of time. As a follow-up of this study, short semi-structured interviews were conducted via Skype with selected academics from different locations and at times more convenient to them. Interviews were chosen as flexible data collection method of building knowledge through discussion about interviewees’ interpretations of the world (Kvale 1996; Cohen et al. 2011). Respondents to both the NGT (Table 4) and the semi-structured interviews (Table 5) were sought from international locations, with expertise in environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability and holistic understanding of the textiles landscape.
3968
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
Table 4
List of participants at the NGT.
Table 5
List of interviewees.
Future trends identified from the literature review and supported by case studies were shared with the experts, with the aim of being tailored to the scope of this study. The disruptive challenges posed by slow fashion, alternative economies, redistributed manufacturing, flexible production, circular economy, advanced artisanship, design entrepreneurship and enabling ecosystems were considered (Figure 2).
3969
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
Figure 2
Future trends used for the scoping study.
3970
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
5.2 Data Analysis To ground the future trends on real world issues in relation to textile artisans’ communities, respondents explored different case studies that allowed consolidating literature review and enriching the initial theoretical framework. At the end of the NGT, suitably designed templates were hanged in the exhibition space at Konstfack, so that new ideas could be added via post-its, widening the spectrum of responses (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Contribution to NGT’s templates at the exhibition space at Konstfack.
Subsequently, the data collected through the NGT and the interviews were subject to thematic analysis; clusters and codes are summarized in Table 6. Table 6
Coding system used for the study.
5.3 Results and findings The following section summarises the results and findings of this study. They have been collated under the following eight future trends.
3971
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
C ONSUMERS ’ V ALUES : S LOW F ASHION One of the biggest barriers to achieving a sustainable future was identified as the lack of consumers’ awareness of the sustainability challenges within the textiles supply chain. The participants suggested that the designer could play an educational role (for instance, through communication campaigns or co-creation workshops) to trigger consumers’ sustainable behaviours. Instead of pushing trends from the market, a slow approach to textiles and fashion was proposed, grounded on beauty, quality, know-how, longevity and sustainability. To imbue such meanings into garments, some participants proposed to explore the design of product-service-systems and convey the origins of products (e.g. Fashion Revolution’s campaign “Who made my clothes?”). Storytelling (e.g. by means of packaging and labels indicating origin and authenticity) and environmental certifications (e.g. Cradle to Cradle) were suggested as powerful tools to market sustainable garments to mindful customers. Many case studies were cited to reinforce these ideas. For example, Maiyet, Maria Cornejo and Prabal Gurung are exemplary for their deep synergy and longterm commitment to designers and artisans, who produce garments, that are expensive but sold to last a lifespan. In the UK, Toms Shoes offers fair trade to a worldwide community of consumers who, through their purchases, may feel committed to the artisans who made their shoes. M ARKET M ODELS : A LTERNATIVE E CONOMIES The perception of most interviewees was that weak and uncertain global regulatory systems, resource scarcity, and high commodity and transport costs boost “onshoring”, that is relocating production processes to lower-cost locations. This poses the challenge for designers to systematically map and engage suitable stakeholders, setting up fair regulations, policies and supplies to prevent artisans from joining an informal economy. As an example of empowering currently vulnerable artisans, People Tree was mentioned as a social enterprise outsourcing manufacturing of apparel to collectives of artisans; in this case, the revenue of online sales aids not individuals, but the community. In Bangladesh, the Grameen Bank is a credit delivery system, which provides banking services to rural poor people, overcoming exploitation by moneylenders, and generating employment and income opportunities. Furthermore, participants suggested boosting artisans’ marketing skills and triggering their understanding of different socio-economic contexts to target suitable markets. The Cape Craft and Design Institute in South Africa for example, provides creative and business support to artisans and designers at various level. Furthermore, digital communication, social media and fundraising campaigns were proposed as ways to enable artisans to reach a wider portfolio of customers, while receiving further feedback to sustain and innovate artisanship. The participants suggested the need to disrupt the “business-asusual” and challenge the cheapness associated with artisanal products, setting fair prices, which value all the people involved in the textiles supply chain. A restoration of the ecosystem, but also of our human, social and cultural systems, was advocated as a way to provide everybody with an opportunity for flourishing.
3972
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
B USINESS M ODELS : R EDISTRIBUTED M ANUFACTURING Technological advancements (in terms of information, retailing, transaction speed, etc.) are disrupting the textiles value chain, negatively impacting our desire to consume more and faster, but also positively democratising the fashion system. As a matter of fact, textile design is no longer centralised in Europe and USA and then manufactured in the Far East; it is getting redistributed all over the world. This is creating new opportunities to set up relocalised business models (more networked and less hierarchical), while also reducing labour costs, increasing product quality, facilitating business management and encouraging closer customer relationships. A good example of this is the designer Jane Solomon (South Africa) who sources local fabrics and prints textile collections locally under the brand FabricNation. Additionally, social enterprises were proposed as a sustainable business model for small artisans specialised in niche processes (i.e. remanufacturing or recycling) supporting the supply chain of larger manufacturers and generating profit for a good cause. For instance, the English company Good One upcycles textiles and outsources sustainable fashion manufacturing to Bulgaria. Another example of sustainable business model is adopted by the American company Alabama Chanin, which follows a lean manufacturing system, where garments are only produced on demand. In fact, when the company receives a customer order, the worker is contacted and commits to produce (and sign) the garment at his/her home, without discarding any material. Finally, the participants highlighted the raise of platforms for sharing skills, resources and time within an artisans’ community (e.g. the “sharing economy”). For example, a collaborative approach to sourcing, manufacturing and selling is adopted by Threadcount, a South African collective of independent textile artisans who share their workspace within a former mill. P RODUCTION M ODELS : F LEXIBLE P RODUCTION Although the handmade and the digital are generally regarded as binary opposites, the view of most participants was that we are witnessing the raise of synergies between these two realms. Making things by hand was advocated as a way to re-educate consumers about the origin of clothes, rescuing the value of the hand-made and preserving traditional know-how. However, the participants highlighted that technology needs to be used astutely as a tool to develop creative ideas, while rethinking new aesthetics and meanings, but without compromising the tradition of hand-making durable garments. For instance, in response to cultural exchanges and the advent of new technologies, Shehal Bathwal in New York designs and digitally prints quilts, which are then embroidered by hand in India. Moreover, the participants highlighted that artisanship embodies a form of flexible production, which is scaled to real needs, reducing planned obsolescence, logistics and waste and allowing lower cost for product personalisation. This was recognised as an opportunity for textile artisanship, as customers are willing to pay more for some degree of product customisation, as in the case of the fashion design studio Unmade that has patented a machine to produce one-off custom garments. Furthermore, mending old garments was recommended as an approach to extend product lifespan, making items more personal, therefore more durable and sustainable.
3973
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
D ESIGN P ROCESSES : C IRCULAR E CONOMY Issues of resource scarcity, increases in commodity prices and tighter waste regulation were recognised as a fertile ground for the transition from a linear take-make-waste model towards a closed loop of resources (i.e. the “circular economy”). The latter was recommended as an approach to use locally sourced fibres (e.g. organic cotton), and natural dyes as well as providing transparent environmental information. This is the case of the company Honest By whose e-shop provides customers with in-depth information about the supply chain behind each garment. Several approaches to the circular economy were recommended, such as waste minimisation (e.g. zero-waste pattern cutting), repairing (e.g. hands-on workshops to creatively mend damaged garments), services for waste collection (e.g. collecting used clothes to be sorted, hanged, tagged, priced and merchandised to reuse and resell, as in the case of the charity Traid), remanufacturing (i.e. giving a second life and value to otherwise discarded garments) upcycling (i.e. breaking down textiles into their constituent fibres to be used for other quality products), and biodegradation. Ananas Anam was presented as an example of a social enterprise, which produces Piñatex, a sustainable alternative to leather, obtained from waste leaves of pineapple used to manufacture bags, footwear and furnishing. Finally, the participants agreed that the circular economy is expected to rapidly gain pace over the next decades; however, the need for regulatory change, new technology, cross-industry collaboration and shifts in consumer behaviour were identified as barriers to the implementation of a circular economy. P RODUCT T YPES : A DVANCED A RTISANSHIP The participants suggested that long tail markets are emerging and are disrupting the “best seller” model with niche products, locally and flexibly produced in small batches, with low stock, low distribution costs, and customised on demand. New product types were envisaged to embed iconic and functional values, material and immaterial features, do-ityourself and digital technologies. Future artisanal textiles were envisioned to be ethical, desirable, durable, repairable, smart, developed through collaboration between artisans and lead users. In order to develop new product types, the participants pointed that artisans should deeply understand the potential of materials and manufacturing techniques, empathise with their target customers and use contexts, and collaborate with professionals from other disciplines. Consequently, traditional aesthetics, identities, functionalities and design processes will be disrupted. The Masai people in Kenya were highlighted as an example of an artisans’ community, which is responding to the exposure to foreign cultures by rescuing the prestige of its own fashionable authenticity and uniqueness. Moreover, the case of the Kente cloth in Ghana, whose gold thread is iconic of aristocracy, was discussed as an example of “genius loci” to be conveyed to consumers through textiles. D ESIGNER ’ S R OLES : D ESIGNER -E NTREPRENEUR To address the development of complex artefacts, long networks and outsourcing, design has become a complex, interactive and collective process. Besides facilitating the multidisciplinary process of co-designing, the role of the designer was identified as providing
3974
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
contextual understanding, envisioning a sustainable future, building connections within an enabling ecosystem, making sense and telling the story of innovation. A deep understanding of technology, economics, marketing and management of the supply chain were outlined as skills to be nurtured within design education, in order to address issues of environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability. In order to manage innovation, the participants highlighted that the designer could draw on a palette of skills, such as data visualisation, product-service-system thinking, participatory design, making, and customer experience prototyping. Among the resources available to support the designer’s role, the Higg Index was mentioned as an open source tool to assess environmental impact within the clothing value chain. Finally, creating a certification system was recommended as a way to promote the value of artisans’ entrepreneurship as a living treasure to be acknowledged within crafts schools and as a means to encourage the professional development of craftspeople. S YSTEMIC R ELATIONSHIPS : E NABLING E COSYSTEMS The participants agreed that the diversity of the artisan landscape is an essential resource, and suggested the need to create synergies within this diversity. Building an enabling ecosystem at glocal level could help finding fair and resilient ways to overcome the “artisanship for survival” which does not allow room for creativity or innovation. With this in mind, ethnographic research (supported by online and offline services, platforms and networks) was recommended as a possible way to empathise with local contexts. At the same time, the participants suggested facilitating collaborations between multidisciplinary stakeholders while catalysing expression of artisans’ identity, awareness, self-confidence, professionalism and pride. In this regard, the Party project was brought as an example of an enabling ecosystem involving international design educators who conduct participatory action research with marginalised communities in South Africa and Namibia, with the aim to develop sustainable products and services. Also the Legacy Collection was provided as an example of building collaborations between fashion design students from London and New York and artisans in the developing world.
5.4 Barriers, Enablers and a “Manifesto for a Sustainable Future” Generalisation and displays in the form of “conceptually clustered matrices” (Robson 2002) were used as analytical research tools to draw meaning out of the data collected. This gave way to the identification of barriers, enablers and the proposition of an initial “manifesto for a sustainable future”. These data displays (Figures 4 and 5) also provided an effective tool which was shared with the participants throughout the semi-structured interviews.
3975
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
Figure 4 Barriers and enablers to achieve a sustainable future.
Figure 5
Manifesto for the sustainable future of textile artisans’ communities.
3976
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
6. Discussion & Next Steps The study benefited from a high response rate (considering the qualitative type of this study) from participants who were highly knowledgeable, and representatively contributed with different backgrounds and international experiences. The participant information pack successfully enabled all the planned topics to be discussed within the given timeframe. Due to time limitations, the NGT did not allow collecting in-depth data, but the follow-up interviews successfully enriched the theoretical framework. The major challenge posed by the participants was the difficulty to achieve an overarching consensus on future trends, barriers and enablers, as they are too context-specific and each case is unique in terms of economy, society and culture. In response to this critique, it was necessary to clarify that this research does not intend to replicate specific collaborative services, but rather to conduct subsequent self-reflective cycles within a service design process in different contexts and draw generalizable conclusions on the contribution of its methods towards a sustainable future. Overall, no contrasting opinions emerged, but participants presented a good plethora of case studies to support the findings. The participants showed enthusiasm about the original contribution of this study. Overall, the systemic approach of this research was valued by the participants but engagement of a wider range of stakeholders within the next stage of the action research was recommended. The proposed list of barriers and enablers was judged to be comprehensive, and the manifesto for a sustainable future meaningful. The latter - to be continuously refined throughout the PAR - was suggested to be regarded as a tool to help artisans self-assessing their practices in relation to the shared values. Finally, it was identified that in order to enhance validity of the findings across cultures, research methods will need to be adapted for specific contexts. With this in mind, the theoretical framework co-developed with academics will be enriched through further literature review; its real-world implication will be assessed through participatory action research with the relevant textile artisans’ communities involved in the next stages of the project.
7. Conclusions This paper has contributed to the current discourse on textile crafts, which is mainly based on individual artisans, who are many in number yet economically too small to become a critical mass to draw the attention of governmental and non-governmental bodies. For this reason, here it is intended to shift the worldviews from individual practices to communities of practice, strengthening the human and social assets of artisanship. The research so far has suggested that the textile sector is facing significant social and environmental challenges, evidencing the need for further research on holistic sustainability within the textiles value chain. The first study of this research has confirmed artisanship to be a timely issue, and outlined a theoretical framework for a sustainable future tailored to textile artisans’ communities. The findings summoned the adoption of a slow approach to manufacturing and consumption as an interesting way to disrupt the fast fashion and
3977
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
embrace new ethical and aesthetic values at systems level. It was also highlighted the opportunity for textile artisans to explore sustainable business models (i.e. based on sharing and circular economies) within flexible and redistributed manufacturing, making our social and cultural ecosystem flourish. With this in mind, this paper has highlighted the original contribution of applying service design in a new area, such as textiles, and has proposed a strategic approach to co-design tangible and intangible values within the textiles supply chain. Furthermore, the need for developing an enabling ecosystem of multidisciplinary stakeholders was emphasised to trigger holistic sustainability. Finally, the findings of this theoretical study will inform the next stage of participatory action research with the aim of transitioning textile artisans’ communities towards a sustainable future. Acknowledgements: This research and paper are supported by Loughborough Design School and funded by the AHRC Design Star CDT. The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to all the research participants who gave their valuable contribution to this study.
8. References Aakko, M. and Niinimäki, K. (2013) Experimenting with Zero-Waste Fashion. Sustainable Fashion: New Approaches. Helsinki, Finalnd: Aalto University. Anderson, C. (2012) Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York, USA: Crown Business. Armstrong, L. et al. (2014) Social Design Futures: HEI Research and the AHRC. Brighton, UK: University of Brighton. Boston Consulting Group (2012) More than a third of large manufacturers are considering reshoring from China to the US. [Online]. Available: http://goo.gl/ddojXz Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. (2010) What's mine is yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. New York, USA: Harper Business. Braungart, M. and McDonough, W. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York, USA: North Point Press. Buchanan, R. (2001) Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, Volume 17, No. 4, Autumn 2001, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Cerasis (2014) The Rise of Distributed Manufacturing and 7 Advantages over Traditional Manufacturing. [Online]. Available: http://goo.gl/14LKhs Chapman, J. (2013) Design to Reduce the Need to Consume. Fashion Futures. Sweden & UK. Cipolla, C. and Manzini, E. (2009) Relational Services. Knowledge, Technology & Policy. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 45-50. Cohen, L. et al. (2011) Research Methods in Education. London, UK: Routledge. Crafts Council (2014) Measuring the Craft Economy: Defining and Measuring. Craft Report 3. London, UK: Crafts Council. DEFRA (2007) Sustainable clothing roadmap: meeting briefing note. London, UK: DEFRA. DEFRA (2011) Sustainable Clothing Roadmap: Progress Report 2011. London, UK: DEFRA. DESIS DOP (2013) Exploring the role of design for new production processes and models in a social innovation perspective. [Online]. Available: http://desis-network.org/dop
3978
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
Earley, R., et al. (2010) Making Theory into Textiles through Sustainable Design Strategies, Pedagogy and Collaboration. Brink, R., and Ullrich, M. (eds.) (2010) Future Textile Environments. Hamburg, Germany: University of Applied Sciences, HAW College Hamburg. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014) Towards the Circular Economy: accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains, Vol. 1. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Escobar-Tello, M. C. (2011) Explorations on the Relationship between Happiness & Sustainable Design. Loughborough, UK. PhD thesis. Loughborough Design School, UK. Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys. London, UK: Earthscan. Fletcher, K and Grose, L (2012) Fashion & Sustainability: Design for Change. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Forum for the future (2015). [Online]. Available: http://thefuturescentre.org/trend-cards. Government Office for Science (2013) What are the significant trends shaping technology relevant to manufacturing? [Online]. Available: http://goo.gl/mZGYQO Hurst, A. (2014) The Purpose Economy: How Your Desire for Impact, Personal Growth and Community is Changing the World. Boise, US: Elevate. International Labour Organization (2014) Informal Economy. [Online]. Available: http://goo.gl/rzUQB4 Jégou, F. and Manzini, E. (2008). Collaborative services. Social innovation and design for sustainability. Milan, Italy: Edizioni Polidesign. Kulick, G. (2015) Conducting Design Research in Pakistan’s Craft Sector: Opportunities and Limitations. Nordes 2015: Design Ecologies. No 6. Konstfack, Stockholm, Sweden, 7-10 June, 2015. Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews. London, UK: Stage. Lanzavecchia, C. (2004) Il fare ecologico. Turin, Italy: Time & Mind. Leadbeater, C. (2008) We-think. London: Profile. Light, A. and Miskelly C. (2014) Design for Sharing. London, UK: Sustainable Society Network. Lo, K. (2011) Designing service evidence for positive relational messages. International Journal of Design, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 5-13 Lo, K. (2014) Hybrid Touchpoints for Relational Service in Social Innovation: A Case Study of “Eat Me!”. NordDesign 2014, Espo, Finland/Melbourne, Australia, 27-29 August 2014. Luiten, H. (2007) Replication of the cases: environmental considerations and technological demands. Creative Communities: People Inventing Sustainable Ways of Living. Milan, Italy: POLI.design. Maffei, S. (2011) Artisans today. Understanding contemporary innovative processes between design, new forms of creativity and design, in addition to the development of production models. In: Arquilla, V. Intenzioni creative. Design e artigianato per il Trentino. Rimini, Italy: Maggioli. Marchand, A. and Walker, S. (2008) Beyond abundance. Changing the Change Conference, Turin, 1012 July. Margolin, V. (2002) The Politics of the Artificial. Essays on Design and Design Studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Marras, I. and Bala, P. (2007) European creative communities and the “Global South”. Creative Communities: People Inventing Sustainable Ways of Living. Milan, Italy: POLI.design. Mazzarella, F. (2013) Design processes for social innovation. Critical analysis of worldwide approaches, from digital fabrication to artisans’ communities. Turin, Italy. MSc thesis in Ecodesign. Politecnico di Torino.
3979
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
Mazzarella, F. and Engler, R. (2014) Self-production and Craft: Advanced Processes for Social Innovation. 5th International Forum of Design as a Process: The Shapes of the Future as the Front End of Design Driven Innovation. Tecnologico de Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico, 18-20 September, 2014. McKinsey and Company (2013) Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. [Online]. Available: http://goo.gl/ktnS5w Medvedev, K. (2010) Designing from Dumpsters: Cambodians Start at Grassroots with Fashion. Fashion Practice. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 223-248. Meroni, A. (2007) Creative Communities: People Inventing Sustainable Ways of Living. Milan, Italy: POLI.design. Meroni, A. and Sangiorgi, D. (2011) Design for services. Gower, UK: Aldershot. Micelli, S. (2011) Futuro Artigiano, l’innovazione nelle mani degli italiani. Venice, Italy: Marsilio. Mirza, S. (2015) Threads of the Indus: Dialogues and Empowerment through Textile Craft for Traditional Artisanal Communities in Pakistan. TEXT Journal, Vol. 42, 2014-2015. Morelli, N. (2002) Designing Product/Service Systems. A methodological exploration. Design Issues, Vol. 18, No. 3, 3-17. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Morgan, D. L. (1988) Focus groups as Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nash, J. (ed) (1993) Crafts in the World Market. Albany, NJ: State University of New York Press. Neely, A. et al. (2011) The servitization of manufacturing: Further Evidence. 18th European Operations Management Association Conference. July 2011. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge. Prahalad, C. K. and Hart, S. L. (2002) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy & Business. Issue 26. McLean, USA: Booz Allen Hamilton. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2014) Five key sharing economy sectors could generate £9 billion of UK revenues by 2025. [Online]. Available: http://goo.gl/UZ7w9y Rissanen, T. (2013) Zero-waste Fashion Design: A Study at the Intersection of Cloth, Fashion Design and Pattern Cutting. PhD thesis. Sydney, Australia: University of Technology. Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research. MA, US & Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Scrase, T. J. (2003) Precarious Production: Globalisation and Artisan Labour in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 24(3), 449-461. Seth, S. (1995) Towards a volunteer movement of artisan support. In: Craft News, 6 (1), 3-4. Staszowski, E. (2010) Amplifying Creative Communities in NYC: A Middle-Up-Down Approach to Social Innovation. SEE Workshop proceedings. Florence, Italy. Tapscott, D. (2008) Grown Up Digital: how the net generation is changing your world. New York, US: McGraw-Hill. Thackara, J. (2005) In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tukker, A. and Tischner, U. (2006) Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 1552-6. Van Abel, B. et al. (2011). Open Design Now. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: BIS Publishers. Vezzoli, C. et al. (2014). Product-Service System Design for Sustainability. Sheffield, UK: 71 Greenleaf Publishing. Von Busch, O. (2008) FASHION-able. Hactivism and Engaged Fashion Design. Gothenburg, Sweden. PhD thesis in Design. School of Design and Crafts (HDK), University of Gothenburg.
3980
Moving Textile Artisans’ Communities Towards a Sustainable Future – A Theoretical Framework
Voss, C. and Mikkola, J. H. (2007). Services science: The opportunity to re-think what we know about service design. Services Science Meeting. 14-15 June 2007. Cambridge, UK. Walker, S. and Giard, J. (2013). The Handbook of Design for Sustainability. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing. Walker, S. (2009). Integration of scales, mass-produced plus locally made parts. Design Studies. Berg, Oxford, UK: Berg, 354-7. WRAP (2012) Valuing Our clothes: The True Cost of How we Design, Use and Dispose of Clothing in the UK. [Online] Available: http://goo.gl/bb9RsJ.
3981
Francesco Mazzarella, Carolina Escobar-Tello and Val Mitchell
About the Authors: Francesco Mazzarella is a PhD researcher at Loughborough University, member of the Sustainable Design Research Group and the AHRC Design Star CDT. His PhD aims to explore how service design can encourage textile artisans’ communities towards a sustainable future. Carolina Escobar-Tello is a lecturer in Design at Loughborough University. Her research interests include happiness and well-being, sustainability, social Innovation and systemic thinking. She has professional design experience, and her work has been published in journals and international conference proceedings. 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, codesign and the use of creative methods to study the home.
3982
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability Maria Cecília Santos*, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima University of São Paulo *closchia@usp.br DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.406
Abstract: Unsustainability, be it environmental, social or economic, is a feature of our contemporary society. This complex challenge affects every aspect of the design field, such that moving towards sustainability requires profound changes to current practices and goals. This paper argues that design, in practice, must contend with real emerging issues, and especially in large urban centers. This paper discusses 10 years of experience with the elective university course AUP0479 - Design for Sustainability offered by The Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism - FAUUSP, Brazil, which deals with the work of the local COOPAMARE waste pickers cooperative. The class operates with design for need rather than design for greed as a foundation. As an observation on the span of the course’s history, it raises questions and points to future opportunities for integrating sustainability in design teaching. Keywords: education; design; sustainability; solid waste.
1. Introduction "We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. ... We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations. ... Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life." (The Earth Charter, 2000)
15 years after the publication of this letter of intent and almost 30 years since the publication of the report Our Common Future, we are still far from overcoming the unsustainable conditions of our current society and our own future. 2015, the year the United Nations and 185 world leaders had established as the deadline for achieving the
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s)1, aimed at eradicating poverty, a number of the eight major goals outlined in the MDG report 2 suggest significant progress including: a progressive decline in the number of people living in extreme poverty, improved access to clean water, increased primary school enrollment and diminishing child mortality rates. In September this year the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit established the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s)3. These are intended to end poverty, hunger and inequality, take action on climate change and the environment, improve access to health & education, build strong Institutions and partnerships, and more. These goals are aligned with the focus areas of the United Nations Development Program's (UNDP) strategic plan: sustainable development, democratic governance & peace building, and climate and disaster resilience. We are 7 billion people, with more than half of us living in urban areas, seeking quality of life and the benefits of an economic system based on mass production, consumption, waste and disposal. Everything we do, buy and use, on an individual or collective level, has a direct impact (Fry, 2009). What is called the development model has, "... a complex logic of economic, social and cultural relations, and the policies of global capitalism ...," causing disparities, social divisions, homelessness and the exploitation of workers among other equally significant consequences (Santos, 2014, p.46; Walker, 2014). According to the UNDP4 (2015), 1.5 billion of us live in poverty with the added burdens of poor health, education and a low standard of living. However, there are 1.8 billion people between the ages of 10 and 24, more young people than ever before, which represent, "... unprecedented potential for economic and social progress …" (United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], 20155; Sahtouris, 2002). At the same time, these young people are mostly concentrated in developing countries, living in extreme poverty or in contact with it and thus on the threshold and potentially at risk. According to the UNFPA (2015), "... with proper investment in their education and opportunities, these young people’s ideas, ideals and innovations could transform the future." Achieving sustainability depends on systemic and holistic change, principally on improving current economic models, and as pointed out by Braungart and McDonough (2009), the intellectual disciplines that create and support them. In the context of this system, according to Walker (2014), the combination of product design and advertising has become a powerful tool of persuasion aimed at driving consumption. The regular changes and updates to designs and styles, and their consequent aesthetic and technological obsolescence, have 1
They are: 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; 2. Achieve universal primary education; 3. Promote gender equality and empower women; 4. Reduce child mortality; 5. Improve maternal health; 6. Combat HIV / AIDS, malaria and other diseases; 7.Ensure environmental sustainability; 8. Develop a global partnership for development. 2 The Millennium Development Goals Report, available at: http://tinyurl.com/p92xdd3. 3 They are currently: 1. No poverty; 2. Zero hunger; 3. Good health and wellbeing; 4. Quality education; 5. Gender equality; 6. Clean water and sanitation; 7. Affordable and clean energy; 8. Decent work and economic growth; 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure; 10. Reduced inequalities; 11. Sustainable cities and communities; 12. Responsible consumption and production; 13. Climate action; 14. Life below water; 15. Life on land; 16. Strong peace and justice Institutions; and finally, 17. Partnerships for the goals. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/pqo2nar. 4 Available at: http://tinyurl.com/pb6xjp3. 5 Available at: http://tinyurl.com/n9po8gg.
3984
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
become driving forces in design, and are mainly in the service of increased sales and profits. Contemporary society is essentially a consumer society, reinforcing a superficial and limited view of design. As highlighted by Fry (2009), it is necessary that industrial culture be reconfigured, which will only happen through design and through its redesign. This transformation of design implies a re-education process of the practice itself in which the designers begin to operate in new spheres of influence, well beyond those currently available to them and where they shape and create products based on true need. Similarly for Walker (2014), a move in this direction requires considerable changes in practice and re-examination of the very purpose of design itself. This would require new priorities where technological and psychological obsolescence, the objectives of which are to create dissatisfaction and encourage consumption, cease to drive design. The new priorities would need to go beyond punctual, mollifying transformations, and profoundly rethink the nature of our material culture. It is essential that design be able to act, reflect and consider new contexts and scenarios independent of those prevailing and exclusively dedicated to consumption— especially those solely accessible to the few wealthy consumers and aspired to by masses. Furthermore, these new contexts and scenarios would fully manage materials and byproducts, both pre- and post-consumer. This is especially relevant to Brazil where the acute contrast of wealth and poverty coexist as a persistent quotidian reality without any real dialog. We must consider design in the context of life at the margins, apart from wealth, reconstruct design practice and harness its power as an agent for social change. It is essential to understand design possibilities as agents of intervention, addressing the emerging challenges in large urban centers. As pointed out by Papanek (1974, p. 219) in his seminal book Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, it is fundamental, "... to design for people's needs rather than their wants...”. This discussion about reconfiguring design education and practice is very much of the moment and has been addressed in several papers, many of them published and presented in conferences dedicated to the subject1. Considering that education is at the core of experimental and professional design practice, Santos (2013) makes clear that this is an effective way to disseminate ideas regarding a variety of contexts and it is possible to address emerging issues such as the management of materials in production and waste cycles, as well as urban poverty. However, Margolin (2014) rightly points out that these issues are scarcely addressed in the academic environment. Therefore, design education is a crucial discussion topic2. As argued by Santos (2013) on the basis of Margolin (2014), current design pedagogy in a vast majority of schools is oriented 1 Some recent conferences that addressed the repositioning of practice and teaching in design include LearnxDesign: the 3 rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (2015), Unmaking Waste Conference: Transforming Production and Consumption in Time and Place (2015), and Design with the other 90%: Cumulus Johannesburg Conference (2014). 2 The Earth Charter (2000) establishes as one of its guidelines: “Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life. a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development. b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education. c. Enhance the role of the mass
3985
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
toward the market, consumer needs, their privileged conditions and fosters awareness of consumer culture rather than real problems. Recalling a passage by Papanek (1974), Santos (2013) emphasizes that, in the context of design education, problems arise due to the lack of connection with the real world—apart from a population that is privileged in terms of wealth, culture and technology. It is therefore crucial to connect with this real world and its needs, which are often local. In this sense, Fry (2009) emphasizes that students be confronted with the local environmental, social and economic context in order to redirect and develop their skills, and that classes should include content that promotes critical reflection. Specifically regarding the Brazilian context, Santos (2014) points out the importance of design students confronting otherness in their own context, such as the large population of homeless and roaming recycling waste pickers—those people often disregarded in design education due to their marginal status. In line with Fry (2009), Santos (2014) adds that design practice could effectively contribute in these scenarios. In response to this situation, an elective course was offered to undergraduate students of the Architecture and Urbanism Faculty at University of São Paulo - FAUUSP in 2003, which addressed design for social responsibility and sustainability. Active and critical participation with waste pickers from the Autonomous Collectors of Paper, Cardboard, Shavings and Reusable Materials Cooperative1 (COOPAMARE) was central to this class’work from the outset. The experiences and activities of these classes have already been presented in several studies2 over the past few years. The goal in this paper is to address its 10-year history, reflect on the changing context, profiles and themes of work undertaken by participants and to generate qualitative indicators that facilitate future study.
2. Methodology The literature review and contextualization about the matter of sustainability introduce the paper and situate the course AUP0479 - Design for Sustainability in relation to the issue. Then, the paper analyses the course from the following data since its beginning up until now: 21. Systematic discuss and notes about the classes, realized by professors Maria Cecília Loschiavo dos Santos and Tatiana Sakurai, and by monitor Verena Ferreira Tidei de Lima; 22. Review of specific literature; 23. Comparative analysis of class programs and activities (2003- 2015);
media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges. d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.” 1 COOPAMARE, the first waste pickers’ cooperative in Brazil, was founded in 1989. 2 Some of the works are: “Re-shaping Design - The teaching experience at COOPAMARE: listen to the collector’s voice” (2004), “Design for social responsibility: perspectives on students’ work” (2005), “Design education against exclusion: from COOMAPARE to CAMAPET” (2006), “Educational experience in design for sustainability: enhancing a critical perspective among undergraduate students” (2013), and “Teaching design in unsustainable conditions” (2015).
3986
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
24. Numerical data regarding the course (number of students, projects developed and frequency dropout rate of students); 25. Digital data: video recordings and photos along the years; 26. Testimonies of some participants: students, members of the COOPAMARE, invited speakers, professors and monitors, collect by interviews and questionaries; 27. Projects and proposes developed by the students; 28. Participation in scientific events presenting the class experience and collecting impressions. Much of the data was collected and systematized through the on-going project "10 years of experience in elective course AUP0479 - Design for Sustainability: Education and Learning". The project is further clarified in this paper. The data analysis was conducted in the light of the sustainability discourse, comprehending its evolution over the years. The parameters used were the inputs provided by the course and the results achieved by the students, in order to verify the relations between them, as it is shown in the figure below:
Figure 1 Parameters of data analysis
The database is quite select. However, as pointed by Sears (1986), such a fact does not threaten the validity of the results. In his paper, Sears (1986) discuss about the influences of a narrow database on research. Although the discussion conducted by Sears along his paper concerns another field of research, his statement regarding the validity of the results is accurate, specially if we consider that here, in this paper, the presented conclusions represent a view of a specific experience to which the database used is directly connected. Naturally, in the case of using the main findings in other experiments and in different contexts, there should be the awareness that the results may or may not be the same.
3987
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
3. Origins and objectives of Class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability This class was created in 2003 by Full Professor Maria Cecília Loschiavo dos Santos at the FAUUSP, and was offered to undergraduate students of Architecture and Urbanism. Since 2014, the course has been given in conjunction with Professor Tatiana Sakurai. It is elective, with a workload of sixty semester-hours distributed among fifteen weekly classes, and is offered annually in the second semester from August to December. The students can choose from a catalogue of options the classes with specific knowledge that will complement the basic curriculum, and the class AUP0479 - Design for Sustainability is one of many options. It is a theoretical and practical design course that combines various educational activities: lectures by visiting experts, site visits to COOPAMARE, theory lectures, design exercises, and presentations. The class objectives are: Introduce students to the requirements of environmentally sustainable design; investigate the possibilities and limits of integrating sustainability with product design; Stimulate new ways of considering design that prevents product disposal and promotes re-utilization in the urban environment, including electronic component waste; Develop understanding of the concepts of sustainable design and its social interface; Develop understanding of solid waste production in urban areas with an emphasis on the environmental education of consumers and the role of recycling pickers cooperatives as key actors in the reduction and management of waste; Develop understanding of waste reduction of in the design process. With these objectives the course focuses specifically on the very relevant sustainable recycling being done by waste pickers, mainly within COOPAMARE, under the direction of professor Santos who pioneered this educational program. The cooperative, easily accessible but invisible both socially and spatially, is located on the Galeno de Almeida Street, within a semi-open shed underneath the Paul VI highway overpass in the Pinheiros neighbourhood on the western side of São Paulo (http://tinyurl.com/o6c9mzu). The region has hilly terrain, with a population density of 9.14 inhabitants per square kilometer1 with high-income, amid mixed use residential, service, office, retail and library buildings.
1
Information provided by the city hall website (Prefeitura de São Paulo, Dados demográficos dos distritos pertencentes às subprefeituras): http://tinyurl.com/3far3mu.
3988
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
Figure 2 Location of COOPAMARE via Google Maps. Details: Satellite Photo via Google Maps of COOPAMARE and its surroundings. The cooperative is located under the overpass and flagged in red.
3.1 The class: dynamics and teaching methodology The class has evolved since its beginning, having gone through several changes. It is currently divided into two main stages: the first theoretical and the second practical, each composing nearly 50% of the whole class. In the first stage, students are introduced to a variety of sustainability concepts and interventions of differing scope and scale that become the subject of study and foundation for identifying key relationships and points of conflict within social and environmental spheres. In this context, the problem of waste is discussed, and as formerly reported by Santos (2013), the course considers such related topics such as social equality, class domination, gender and privilege. It consistently conducts critical assessments of the performance and behavior of design in relation to these factors. The National Policy on Solid Waste (PNRS, Law 12.305), adopted in March, 2010, by the Brazilian legislature, is also widely discussed in the classroom. At first, these contents are discussed in theory lectures and by visiting experts from disparate fields beyond the field of design and architecture, including: management, environmental management, law and engineering, among others. Along with these experts, researchers, teachers and representatives of civil organizations is the recycling collector and community leader Eduardo Ferreira de Paula,who brings his invaluable insights to the discussions on the PNRS, COOPAMARE and the work of recycling pickers. So often ignored in academic settings and traditional design school curricula, it is a unique privilege that the class, the students and the FAUUSP as a whole, have access to such authentic and profound knowledge on this theme amassed from the collectors. At this point in the class, reference texts are read, discussed, and presented by the students. Late in the first stage students are brought to COOPAMARE. Visiting the cooperative, students have the opportunity to observe the dynamics and monitor in detail the work of the recycling pickers. It is also an opportunity to talk to the collectors in their working
3989
Maria CecĂlia Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
environment enabling knowledge sharing in a way that minimizes the barrier of acute social hierarchy. The visit to COOPAMARE completes the first stage of this class, and it is here that students identify sub-themes of interest, which will guide their projects in the second stage. ok Having identified the sub-themes of interest from activities conducted in the first stage and subsequent brainstorming, students form into in small groups of up to four members to start the second stage of the class. The second stage is essentially practical, and includes the development of student projects. The three steps follow described below:
Previous Inputs Specific literature Regular lectures Lectures of invited experts Seminars Guided visit by a COOPAMARE’s member in situ
Figure 3 The three steps of the second stage
Student performance, continuously assessed both individually and collectively, is considered as a whole within in the context of all their activities throughout the semester. Regarding the projects themselves, the design process is as important as the result. In 2015, we began employing a knowledge consolidation questionnaire immediately after the first stage in an attempt to identify the content assimilated by students up to that point. Unlike a test, the questionnaire asks students to comment on the content covered in a frank and open manner and to elaborate on its impact on their education. We look forward to finishing this year by opening an exhibition of works to the larger FAUUSP community and with the now essential and traditional presence of coop members on the jury panel to critique student work.
3990
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
Figure 4 Several activities of the class
3.2 The students Since its inception, this course had aroused the interest of a considerable number of students. Because it is elective, students choose it based on their interests and identification with the subject. Each year, between fifteen and twenty students typically enroll in the course. However, in 2015, forty-three students enrolled. In the very first class students are asked what motivated them to enroll. A common response is that this is the only class at Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism that addresses the issue of sustainability specifically and directly. Many express personal and professional interest in the subject and consider it to be urgent and extremely important today. Some students, having just arrived from an exchange program (mostly in European countries), mention that they have studied the subject in their foreign school. In general, two points recur among the students: the importance of this course because of its focus and personal and/or professional identification with the issues it examines. It is important to note the course´s growing number foreign exchange students. The FAUUSP receives many such students from a wide variety of countries, including Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Spain and France. In 2015, nine of the forty-three students enrolled were from foreign universities. The presence of these students provides a rich and diverse range of experiences in the area of resource and waste management. This marks quite a departure for Brazilians, promoting two-way learning. Students’ impressions of COOPAMARE are also noteworthy. After visiting, they make a remarkable range of observations. While many students feel the cooperative and its space are surprisingly large, others consider it to be small in relation to the size of a megacity like São Paulo. Many students report a noticeable organization and systematization of activities, while others focus on the informality of transactions conducted on site. They are, however,
3991
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
unanimous in their remarks on the massive amount of waste accumulated in the cooperative versus the small number of people working there. Students frequently note the waste sorting processes, with an emphasis on the separation of different plastics and the collector´s know-how in regard to procedures. Thus, the visit to COOPAMARE provides students with a critical and real understanding of the daily excesses of production, consumption and disposal in a megacity like São Paulo. It also allows them to discover the extremely vulnerable human dimension of this population and their unique knowledge.
3.3 The projects There are a variety of proposals related directly or indirectly to COOPAMARE: new products made from discarded materials found in the cooperative; construction materials and finishes to be derived from waste; management and work safety procedures; projects that raise awareness among the surrounding population; communication platforms connecting members, the larger society, government and other cooperatives; educational games for children; inexpensive everyday architectural solutions for the cooperative; cell phone applications regarding the work of the collectors; tools that optimize the activity of collection and separation; and many more. Projects not directly related to COOPAMARE are common, but the problem of waste production and management as a whole remains central. The variety of design projects underscores how inspiring the topic of resources disposal is to our students. Moreover, issues such as urban poverty and homelessness also attract a great deal of attention from students who choose to develop projects dealing with these issues. It is possible to see significant changes in projects undertaken by the students over the 10 year history of this course. Many of these are related to the advent and spread of certain technologies and platforms—such as the Internet and smartphones—and also the evolution of critical discussions and reflections on the production and management of waste as a whole. Initially, the projects developed by the students were often related to the use of recyclable materials found at COOPAMARE. Many of these resulted in products (Figure 5), and the recyclable materials chosen were often used in the raw state in which they were found.
3992
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
Figure 5 Cardboard Bench made from folds and cuts in the material. Student: Camila Souza. Year: 2004.
Over the years, rehabilitation projects which intervened physically in COOPAMARE began to emerge, as well as projects related to awareness of the cooperative (Figures 6 and 7) and waste management.
Figure 6 Nameplates on the cart used by collectors. The sign reads: "Be careful, collectors at work". Students: Joyce Delatorre and Marisa Bueno and Souza. Year: 2006.
3993
Maria CecĂlia Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
Figure 7 Poster publicizing COOPAMARE and its services. Information includes: "who we are", "where we are", "materials we collect", "how to help", "location", "partners", and "support". Students: Ana Gabriela Akaishi and Suzana Bozza. Year: 2009.
In the last three years, new communication and information technologies have permeated several projects, including smartphone applications (Figure 8) and websites related to the collection and disposal of waste (Figure 9). Services have also cropped up among recent projects (Figure 10).
3994
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
Figure 8 Mobile phone application: educational game based in the activities of waste pickers. Student: Juliana Eiko Hiroki. Year: 2014.
Figure 9 Virtual tool for the disposal of construction waste. Students: Andreia Tagomori and Denise Kaminaga. Year: 2012.
3995
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
Figure 10 A system for accumulating points based on selective collection, and aimed at reducing waste generation. The less waste produced by an individual each week, the greater the number of accumulated points they receive that can be redeemed for benefits—much like an airline miles program. Student: Juan Garcia. Year: 2014.
Most projects focus on experimentation and direct manipulation of solid waste as a crucial component to the design process. The produced items are intended for domestic or public use, individually or collectively, or as systems, and as building construction components, and these have been well explored. Several projects can be seen at http://aup479.jimdo.com, the website itself was developed as the final project of student Rodrigo Yudi Honda in 2010. Others have been shown in works1 previously published on the course. It is worth mentioning that a project developed by a student in 2012 resulted in a patent application filed with the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in 20142. This was inspired by a class lecture by Lucia Helena Xavier, a researcher at the Joaquim Nabuco Foundation who at the time had been working on her postdoctoral studies on the reverse logistics of electronics waste at the University of São Paulo. In this sense, it is remarkable to point that the inputs provided by the course have strongly influenced the results achieved by the students. The projects often reflect the emphasis adopted during the first stage of the course. It can be observed below:
1
Some of the works are: "Re-shaping Design - The teaching experience at Coopamare: listen to the collectors’ voice" (2004), “Design for social responsibility: perspectives on students' work” (2005), “Design education against exclusion: from Coopamare to Camapet” (2006), “Educational experience in design for sustainability: enhancing a critical perspective among undergraduate students” (2013), and “Teaching Design in Unsustainable Conditions” (2015). 2 The University of São Paulo aided the process. Application to the INPI has been made and is awaiting review. The design is of a tool for optimizing the separating of certain materials from electronic waste.
3996
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
Figure 11 Emphasis on the inputs provided and the results achieved
Figure 12 Emphasis on the inputs provided and the results achieved
4. The project "10 years of experience in elective course AUP0479 Design for Sustainability: education and learning" With the Dean of University Culture and Extension from the University of São Paulo, the project "10 years of experience in elective course AUP0479 - Design for Sustainability: education and learning" was approved in 2015. The one-year project, begun in August 2015, is coordinated by professors Santos and Sakurai, with the participation of two scholarship undergraduate students, Deborah Piacente de Oliveira and Yedda Magalhães Figueredo, and in collaboration with the doctoral student Verena Ferreira Tidei de Lima.
3997
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
The project aims, in general, to gather and systematize the content, methodology and results achieved by the class so far, and make them available to the public through the restructuring and improvement of an existing website and through the publication of a book (digital and/or printed). These activities are intended to expand and support discussion and reflection on the classes’ theme, and will include an international perspective. A variety of information on the class has been accumulated, some unknown until now and some even forgotten, including: changes in nomenclature, enrolled students, several developed projects and related publications, among others contents. In the next step, former students will be contacted (many of them now graduates) in order to collect as much information and available materials as possible about the projects.
5. Final considerations Unsustainability, a prominent aspect of our contemporary society, is primarily related to an economic system and its patterns of excessive production and consumption, the consequences of which are environmentally and socially harmful. Among these is the problem of waste production and management, especially in large cities like São Paulo. Changing this condition is a very complex issue that permeates the design field, the current activity of which is predominantly directed at consumption—especially consumption practiced by privileged parts of society. Thus, a considerable change in the practice and purpose of design is required, one in which obsolescence is not the main driver and consumption not the first priority. One must consider design in different contexts, outside the exclusive context of consumption, and instead integrated with the issue of waste. Especially in Brazil, it is essential to understand design as a discipline of knowledge that is able, through teaching and research, to train agents of change confronting challenges that include the production and management of waste, as well as urban poverty, among other issues. If we consider education as an important means of disseminating new ideas in a variety of contexts, it is essential to discuss the inclusion of emerging issues in design education such as those mentioned above. The current design education paradigm is oriented toward consumption, which makes re-orienting it toward real problems and needs that much more urgent and crucial. The elective course AUP0479 - Design for Sustainability, first proposed by Professor Maria Cecília Loschiavo dos Santos in 2003, is based in the perspective of Design for Need, instead of Design for Greed. Its sphere of activity is the theme of waste, and specifically the recycling work of COOPAMARE members and of waste pickers in general. Analysis of the evolving path and changes occurring in the discipline in question, together with the dynamics of this class and results achieved to date, raise further questions and points which are addressed below. The flattening of hierarchies and the multiplicity presented in this class, especially in its early stages, are certainly among its greatest assets. The possibility of interaction between
3998
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
students and experts from various fields and backgrounds—academic or otherwise—have brought a diversity of views to the question of design, expanding the possible paths to approaching it, and contributing in a very significant and productive way to the accumulation of knowledge regarding issues of waste production and management, collectors of recyclable materials, and the area of design for sustainability as a whole. Regarding the participation of specialists from various fields, it is particularly important to note that a visiting professor and researcher of reverse logistics was instrumental to one student´s patent application in 2012. Interest in the subject must also be highlighted. Growing demand by students points to a rising interest in this important field. Because of this, it would appear important to argue for the possible incorporation of classes of this nature in school curricula in a binding and definitive way. It is also therefore valid to question the lack of other classes oriented toward sustainability at FAUUSP. In interviews with select alumni of the course is observed the concrete "lifelong learning" concept advocated by Su et al. (2011, pp. 158) for which the “institutions of higher education must reconsider and reframe their curricula and pedagogy to develop students who become lifelong learners capable of creating a desirable and sustainable future”. The opinions and insights of students are key to the construction and evolution of this class and reinforce its horizontal organization. Students’ design process is a crucial component and is as important as the final outcome of their projects. Experimentation is one of the classes’ most valuable features, especially in the second stage whatever the projects. Transferring the class to a room beside the LAME brought many benefits because the students could devote themselves more readily to active experimentation and implementing their projects. Learning is often based on empiricism that is built up during the design process and allows for personal and professional development that is both critical and autonomous. The evolution of student projects allows us to infer that, year after year, they have understood with ever more clarity the complexity of sustainability issues as a whole. Tackling new issues such as homelessness and civil construction shows that the course is fulfilling its purpose to address real needs and problems of our currently unsustainable context. Incorporating technologies from their daily life into their projects as the tools and platforms they choose in tackling these contemporary challenges, reflects the level of student commitment and further underscores the topical and urgent nature of the class. The completion of the culture and extension project "10 years of experience in elective course AUP0479 - Design for Sustainability: education and learning" will enable significant study into its means, methods and future possibilities. The dissemination of project results (via website, and a digital and/or printed book) will ensure national and international reach to this discussion. The increasing scope and complexity of the discipline to keep in step with the challenges of sustainability only serves to highlight the immediate value and continual relevance of this
3999
Maria Cecília Santos, Tatiana Sakurai and Verena Lima
course. The educational experience of the class, by engaging students with new perspectives and possibilities for learning and taking action via design, has allowed them to explore emerging issues in the real world and to develop innovative responses in the form of class projects. The multiplicity of results presented by students shows the potential of design in contexts beyond mere consumption and urges consideration of replicating such an educational experience at other learning institutions. Acknowledgements: Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - CAPES. Dean of University Culture and Extension from the University of São Paulo. To designer Matthias Brenddler for final review. To all COOPAMARE members, students, teachers, researchers and monitors who were with us on this journey.
6. References Braungart, M. & McDonough, W. (2009) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things, Vintage. Breytenbach, A. & Pope, K. (2014) Design with the other 90%, in Cumulus Johannesburg Conference Proceedings. Johannesburg, South Africa, Greenside Design Center & University of Johannesburg. Factum, A. B. S. & Santos, M. C. L. (2006) Design education against exclusion: from Coopamare to Camapet. in Conference Proceedings IV Global Conference on sustainable product Development and Life Cycle Engineering, São Carlos : Suprema, v. 1. Fry, T. (2009) Reconstruções: ecologia, design, filosofia, Editora da Universidade de São Paulo. Margolin, V. (2014) Políticas do artificial: ensaios e estudos sobre design, Record. Papanek, V. (1974) Design for the real world. Human ecology and social change, Paladin Books. Prefeitura de São Paulo. (2010) Dados demográficos dos distritos pertencentes às subprefeituras, http://tinyurl.com/3far3mu, (Accessed 7 November, 2015) Sahtouris, E. (2002) Skills for the age of sustainability: an unprecedented time of opportunity, http://tinyurl.com/2vc3ryc (Accessed 23 November, 2010). Santos, M. C. L. (2004) Re-shaping Design - A teaching experience at Coopamare: listen to the collectors voice, in The Zone: an area of transition. Cumulus Conference Utrecht 2004, Utrecht. Utrecht/Cumulus 2004. Finland: UIAH, v. 1. p. 1-1. Santos, Maria Cecilia Loschiavo (2013) Educational experience in design for sustainability: enhancing a critical perspective among undergraduate students, in Walker, S.; Girard, J. (eds). The handbook of design for sustainability (pp. 273-282), Bloomsbury Academic. Santos, Maria Cecilia Loschiavo (2014) Lições das cidades de plástico e papelão: resíduos, design e o panorama visto da margem, in Santos, M. C. L. (ed.), Design, Resíduo & Dignidade (pp. 41-55), Editora Olhares,. Santos, M. C. L., Jonas, W., Chow, R. & Verhaag, N. (2005) Design for social responsibility: perspectives on students'work. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference of the European Academy of Design, EAD 06 (pp. 10-20), University of the Arts Bremen, v. 1. Santos, M. C. L., Sakurai, T. & Lima, V. F. T. (2015) Teaching design in unsustainable conditions, In Unmaking Waste 2015 conference proceedings. Adelaide, SA: Zero Waste SA Research Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour.
4000
Sharing 10 years of experience with class AUP0479 – Design for Sustainability
Sears, D. O. (1986) College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature. Journal oh Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 51, No. 3, 515-530. Su, Y., Feng, L., Yang, C., Chen, T. (2011) How teachers support university student’s lifelong learning development for sustainable futures: The student’s perspective, in Fuller, T. (ed.) Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, Elsevier, n. 44, pp. 158-165. The Earth Charter Initiative. (2000) The Earth Charter, http://tinyurl.com/nzkynem, (Accessed 4 November, 2015). Thornton, K. (ed.). (2015) Unmaking Waste 2015 conference proceedings, Adelaide, 2015, Zero Waste SA Research Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour. United Nations. (2015) The Millennium Development Goals Report, http://tinyurl.com/p92xdd3, (Accessed 6 November, 2015). United Nations Development Program. (2015) Sustainable Development Goals, http://tinyurl.com/pqo2nar, (Accessed 6 November, 2015). United Nations Development Program. (2014) Human Development Report 2014, http://tinyurl.com/pb6xjp3, (Accessed 5 November, 2015). United Nations Population Fund. (2015) 10 things you didn’t know about the world’s population, http://tinyurl.com/n9po8gg, (Accessed 4 November, 2015). Walker, S. (2014) Terras dos Resíduos: sustentabilidade e Design com Dignidade, in Santos, M. C. L. (ed.), Design, Resíduo & DignidadeEditora Olhares, (pp. 15-27). Zande, R. B., Bohemia, E. & Digranes, I. (eds.). (2015) LearnxDesign: proceedings of the 3rd internacional conference for Design Education Researchers, Chicago, Aalto University.
About the Authors: Maria Cecilia Sant is a philosopher and full professor of Design at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, University of São Paulo. She got her MA and her Ph.D., in Philosophy, Aesthetics. Her current research is about modern furniture design, homelessness and recyclable material collectors. Tatiana Sakurai is a professor and got her Ph.D. at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, University of São Paulo. She graduated and got her MA at Architecture and Urbanism Institute - USP. Her current research is about Experience Design and interfaces for domestic spaces. Verena Lima a Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, University of São Paulo and got her MA at the School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, EACH-USP, in Textile and Fashion. She graduated in fashion design. Her current research is about the sustainability approach in higher education in fashion design.
4001
This page is left intentionally blank .
SECTION 26 THE POLITICS OF COMMONING AND DESIGN
This page is left intentionally blank
Introduction: The Politics of Commoning and Design Bianca Elzenbaumera, Valeria Grazianob and Kim Trogalc a
Leeds College of Art Middlesex University c University of the Arts, London DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.614 b
This session prompts designers to engage with the political dimensions of working with commons. It brings together practitioners, activists and researchers who explore the tensions and potentialities they encounter when designing for (and from within) commons and ‘community economies’. As political theorist Massimo De Angelis (2007) points out, commons can today be thought as the basis on which to build towards futures of social justice, environmental sustainability and a good life for all. However, just as ‘community economies’ that have at their core the well-being of humans and non-humans alike (GibsonGraham and Roelvink, 2011), they operate within a world dominated by capital’s priorities and are thus not only sites of hope, but also sites of struggle as well as targets of co-optation and enclosure. In organising this panel, our concern was that the political understandings of commons and the politics of their contexts often go unaddressed in design work and discourse. Our desire has been to create a space that foregrounds these dynamics and confronts design with the political meanings and implications of commons. In this short text we introduce three aspects of commons that have implications for design, before introducing the papers in the panel. First, we introduce the common as a political notion, briefly considering the implications for design when working with different theories. Secondly, departing from an idea of commoning as an ongoing process rather than something that ends with a completed commission, we suggest that the common demands rethinking the ways in which design relates to the challenge of commitment, and particularly, how commons and community economies are sustained over time. Thirdly, the common demands that production cycles are thought in direct relation to livelihood - where do the resources for cultivating commons come from, how are they distributed, and what could be the contribution of the activity of designing within the political economy of the commons?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Bianca Elzenbaumer, Valeria Graziano and Kim Trogal
Commons as political notion The common is one of the more significant ideas within contemporary progressive political discourse today, functioning as a transversal notion able to connect different kinds of movements and struggles in different parts of the world. It promises are many and diverse, from outlining an active principle against the enclosures and extractivism that sustains the ongoing privatization of resources, to suggesting an alternative mode of organizing public provisions in more democratic manners. As geographer David Harvey summarised, “The common is not something that existed once upon a time and has since been lost, but is something like the urban commons, continuously being produced. The problem is that it is just as continuously being enclosed and appropriated by capital in its commodified and monetized form, even as it is being continuously produced by collective labour [and nature].” (2012: p.77)
The implications of theories of the common are so profound and ubiquitous - that in the face of the present triple crisis of rising mass unemployment, armed conflicts and environmental collapse - design cannot afford to ignore them. To confront and position one’s practice in relation to such discourse becomes an urgent task in the field, as the common cannot be seen as simply another trend or optional topic informing practice. There is not however a single, unified theory of the common from which practitioners can turn to for reflecting on their own modes of creation. Rather, the common is a contested notion within political theory, entailing different implications for practice. Without launching into an exhaustive exploration of the term here, we’d like to outline some initial points of orientations that we find specifically relevant to the realm of design. It seemed important to critically take stock as in the last fifteen years, designers have begun to respond to the challenge of the common in their practices. These have been aligned for instance with the writings of Elinor Ostrom or with the approach endorsed by organisations such as the P2P Foundation, which can be seen to have some consequences. What these share is an understanding of the common that considers it as a set of attributes intrinsic to specific objects - such as air or knowledge. The common here is seen as a political effect of a compound of specific characteristics, for instance, the impossibility of becoming fully enclosed. While it is easy to see why the approaches that understand the common as ‘commons’ or ‘common goods’ would be especially relevant for design, other, more neglected approaches to this notion open up new possibilities. More specifically, feminist and Marxist approaches to the concept of commoning shift the focus from properties that are intrinsic to the goods being taken into consideration to the social relations that frame and sustain their production and reproduction. To put it differently, these theories reject the idea that there are goods or social objects that are naturally in common: both in the case of natural resources such as water or cognitive products such as software, the common is first of all a mode of political action that challenges property as an absolute right to exclude. Here, the common speaks of the forms of organization that sustain the autonomous cooperation of the social, and importantly create social spaces that subtract value from processes of capital accumulation and
4006
Introduction: The Politics of Commoning and Design
appropriation. From this angle, the ethos for practice that emerges complicates the one offered by peer to peer production. As Matteo Pasquinelli put it, in the latter “each node of the network” is posited as having “virtually the same power as any other” (2008;.66) but in a binary model such as this one, there is no nuanced explanation of surplus, and how the nodes might product and exchange in asymmetrical ways. The implications for design and design practice then, is the need to engage its own political economy. This means to better account for the economies of practice within existing ‘parasitic’ and asymmetrical conditions (Pasquinelli, 2008) and through that practice, remake those very economies and relations.
What is the time of the common? Inasmuch as the political economy of practices must be opened up, the common compels designers and creative workers to rethink the role of temporality in their practices. The time of the common is different to the time of the ‘project’, the common is never finished and needs ongoing care. Yet for designers whose work is situated in the ‘gig economy’ for instance, it is becoming increasingly difficult to commit or care for alternative and more sustainable modes of creation in the long-term. The demands on designers and researchers in this context is to produce quickly and to produce on a project by project basis. It is perhaps clearer that through temporary situations, particularly temporary urbanism, designers have enabled temporary forms of commons through their projects. While such initiatives are often well supported, the wider problem is that existing funding infrastructures rarely support longer term projects and will not invest in activities unless they provide immediate, tangible and measurable outcomes. In the knowledge economy, in which contemporary design and academia is located, demands to make everything ‘productive’ reveals the extent of the ongoing intensification of value extraction demanded by financial capital, in which speed itself is crucial vector. As network theorist Matteo Pasquinelli has put it, claims to Intellectual Property (and therefore its rent) are based on competition that exists rather in time than space; it is played out in speed differentials. He writes, “actors in a knowledge economy are engaged in a race against time, rent applied through a provisional hegemony along time” (2008; 98). Many digital products will ultimately become freely available online, but what customers pay for is the newness of the latest release, or the privileges to preview novel audio and visual materials (the release of Beyonce’s latest visual album ‘Lemonade’ on paid access platforms TIDAL or HBO, is one recent high profile example). As Barbosa, Reimer and Mota’s paper in this session raises, the use of temporality in urban development is another visible manifestation of intensification that keeps urban sites ‘active’ and ‘productive’ during redevelopment. The value generated through creative projects in such cases stays with the owners of the property, and yet it relies completely on the social relations that practitioners and inhabitants alike create. These are social processes that demand time and affective investment, and could be understood as an example of what Stefano Harney has named ‘synaptic labour’ (Harney, 2015: 176); this is the work of relaying information and affects as the unrecognised source of value later attributed to a given product. These forms of labour
4007
Bianca Elzenbaumer, Valeria Graziano and Kim Trogal
and social relations, exploited and divorced from their makers quickly, take time to build if they are to be genuine. If cognitive capitalism is based on speed, in which we everything we do must be productive in order to sustain our own being, it seems to us that the common requires a very different politics and conceptualisation of time. This is not to argue that it is a matter of counterposing speed to ‘slow’ living, but is rather a struggle over the control and determination of the rhythms of life. While commoning is often understood, particularly in architecture and urbanism, as a predominantly spatial form of organising, including the occupation of public spaces and squares (De Angelis and Stavrides, 2010) or the cooperative organisation of the domestic and reproductive activities such as housing, laundries, shared kitchens (Hayden, 1982; Choi and Tanaka, 2014), it is time as well as space that also needs reclaiming (Stavrides, 2013). The projects presented in this panel implicitly contain questions around time and, from our perspective, highlight the need to reclaim time for the common. The papers give examples of initiatives that demand people’s time if they are going to succeed, so how can the political economy of ‘giving time’ and the temporality of such projects be critically understood and developed? We want to suggest that design might contribute to the reclaiming of time in two ways, which seem to us to have developed separately until now. The first is through designers’ own organisational and work procedures. We are referring to those creative and progressive experiments that practitioners deploy in their everyday working environments. Recent experiments include designers closing their offices on particular days of the week to support their staff’s well-being; giving them time to care for others, their families or community projects. While this might not be specific to design, as any other organisation or profession might equally undertake such initiatives, the location of one’s everyday work practice and life rhythms are important sites of intervention and remaking. The second, and perhaps more significant arena to engage with time might be through the practice of design itself. How might design practice lead to the reconceptualisation and experiences of time? Time is a biopolitical construct, or rather time as we know it and experience it is a particular concept of time. Scholars of the historic commons of England and Wales, describe some of the temporal rhythms of that common life and particularly highlight its differences with time as we normally conceive of it today (Federici, 2004). They tell us of a calendar marked by collective events, fetes and many celebrations and holidays, based on cyclical and seasonal time. They emphasise in particular those events that marked moments of mutuality and collective life (Kropotkin, 1908). The transformation from feudal life to industrialised capitalism, and with it the creation of a labour force for that industry, demanded the standardisation of measuring time and the abolition of such moments of collective ‘free’ time understood as a common. It took management a long period to discipline workers to turn up for work, and the abolition of collective events of joyful celebration played an important part in this process (Thompson, 1963; Ehrenreich, 2007). The scholars Michelle Bastian, Larissa Pschetz and Chris Speed have suggested that design
4008
Introduction: The Politics of Commoning and Design
has the capacity to open up alternative experiences and understandings of time. They suggest we need to “redesign time in order to better address current concerns”1 and that a new field of ‘Temporal Design’ is emerging. What are the creative mechanisms and ideas that would facilitate this in the creation of new commons? It is perhaps even in the intersection or cohesion between these two areas of action, in which time might be reclaimed? Considering how one’s energies and creativity can be invested in longer term goals, brings us to the question of one’s own livelihood.
Livelihood A significant implication of the common for design processes, is the challenge it brings to design knowledges, which are conventionally conceived as part of a professional practice separate from a private sphere of life. Conversations around the rising precarization of labour in the last twenty years have already highlighted the ways in which, for many workers, the flexible paradigm of cultural and creative labour became the norm, and according to which there are no more boundaries between life and work. While this blurring has so far played out arguably in favour of capital accumulation, recent theorists grappling with ideas of commoning encourage us to reconsider the process from the perspective of an increased liberation from the centrality of work in our life practices. The political economist Massimo De Angelis speaks of the importance of co-produced livelihoods, livelihoods that are autonomous from the circuits and value practices of capital. He writes of the ways we need commons “in which bodies can live, nurture, prosper, desire and even collide without being measured by money, but instead make up their own measurement of each other and 'things'.” (De Angelis, 2007; p.5) These are the time-spaces that are not mediated by the measures of the market. When speaking about design and the common, we find designers and researchers particularly engaged in local collective experiments and initiatives around reproductive activities. Significant examples including urban agriculture, farming and gardening (Krasny, 2013), work around collective energy schemes, new civic initiatives and new forms of cohousing and cooperative forms of development. These practices are important not least for the ways in which they provide inhabitants with an opportunity for different experiences, values and relationships in their everyday lives. These practices often work with new kinds of social economies. For example, co-operative forms of eco-housing develop mechanisms that restrict speculation, make housing inclusive through innovations in borrowing as well as working with ‘in-kind’ contributions (Pickerill, 2015). As Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval have argued, the proliferation of commons and social economies, such as the ones mentioned above, represent a different kind of economic freedom that is not the one of the market, yet is very different to the centralised economies of the former socialist countries (Dardot and Laval, 2015: 396). Such practices of social economy can become prefigurative of a more democratic and just society, as they are one of 1
See http://www.eca.ed.ac.uk/school-of-design/news-events/temporal-design-an-interdisciplinary-workshop
4009
Bianca Elzenbaumer, Valeria Graziano and Kim Trogal
the few forms that is capable of mobilizing desire of living otherwise, in a social body that is otherwise depressed and burnt out. However Dardot and Laval also point out that while alternative practices have pedagogical effects and support processes of subjectivation, such an eco-social transition could end up being a series of closed, isolated experiences and reconstitute an illusional retreat from systemic power relations. What is significant is these initiatives should not just be based around economic pluralism, but rather be understood within a scenario in which civil society self-organises at all levels in order to construct a force that is strong enough to contrast extractive and financial capitalism. Even alternative forms of production by themselves are not enough in the struggle for the common. Rather, the important question to address has to do with what form could be given to social and public policies which would able to supplement various kinds of common associations, and how to construct effective networks of decision making, beyond localism. Obviously the design of digital tools and smart technological objects and infrastructures,a s well as services and logistical models have a huge role to play in such developments. In the field of architectural design it is possible to find examples when people are working concretely with alternative economies (such as cooperative housing) and questions are beginning to be explored around how such initiatives can become operative at a larger scale, moving beyond isolated instances. The urban theorist Neil Brenner, for instance, has recently discussed the ways that grassroots tactical urbanism might actually become a real challenge to neoliberal urbanism. He suggested that while many guerrilla efforts might not be as radical as they claim to be, grassroots urbanism might pose an actual threat to the capitalist management of the city once they direct their work at multiple levels, in an effort that he calls ‘institutional redesign’ (Brenner, 2016). One example he offers is Cohabitation Strategies proposal for a new housing model for New York. Their proposal makes strategic connections between a Land Bank, a Community District Land Trust, a Mutual Housing Association, a Cooperative Housing Trust and A Housing Credit Union. Through these five interconnected initiatives, they aim to develop a legal and economic structure for commons, beyond isolated instance. They propose, in their own words, a “hybrid model for the production of permanent affordable living” (Rendón and Robles-Durán, 2016). Cohabitation Strategies also organise themselves as a cooperative, and in this way are a good example of the possible convergences between both design work and the re-construction of one’s own self-organisational practice and conditions of livelihood. To put it differently, designing for ‘the common’ demands that production cycles are thought in direct relation to livelihood; where do the resources for cultivating commons come from, how are they distributed, in other words, it means to position social reproduction at the core of design thinking. Short of this, even otherwise participatory and inclusive design efforts risk to achieve little more than a ‘feel good’ effect that actually stands in the way of more meaningful political change. Moreover, from a materialist, feminist perspective, social reproduction requires addressing the asymmetry between waged and unwaged time from the perspective of the work conditions faced by designers themselves; to question ‘the invention of work’ (Gorz, 1989) and indeed ‘the problem of
4010
Introduction: The Politics of Commoning and Design
work’ (Weeks, 2011). The common thus also invites to reimagine what design practices could become if the livelihood of those involved in them found ways to be less dependent upon the market. If we take up commons as invitation- the role of designers needs to be transformed into something we may not be able to even recognise, as the roles created to meet capitalist needs won’t be the same as those meeting commons needs.
Concluding points The papers gathered here in this session all further the exploration of the common that we have sketched above, and articulate its practical traction in the context of concrete design practices. All bring implications for the future training of designers and architects, suggesting a widespread need to collectively acquire new skills, such as how to implement participatory budgets or rethink institutional infrastructures. They suggest that designers need skills for common, and for this they need experiences and exposure to the common to learn from in everyday life. The paper ‘Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence’, highlights that the institutions of higher education can be a good place to begin this learning, when Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström explore new organisational forms and techniques in their studio teaching. Their paper pays attention to the politics and dynamics of such an initiative, exploring not only successes, but some of the more hidden ways that exclusions and hierarchies can emerge in group settings. Initiating democratic, collaborative ways of working in educational contexts, opens the possibility of their future sustainability, as once students’ have directly experienced these social forms, they have greater capacity to initiate new ones themselves, in their own future situations and lives. Designers working for commons often evoke other values in their work, such as participatory, openness collaboration, yet as Sanna-Maria Marttila’s article ‘From Rules in Use to Culture in Use – Commoning and Infrastructuring Practices in an Open Cultural Movement’ makes clear, we also need monetary strategies for the common alongside strategies for property. Their case study highlights the importance of such strategies when working “with a range of actors with different motivations and commitments.” Their paper helps to open up discussions around who profits and who benefits from open resources such as theirs, and how to design might positively work with those difficulties. The reflection on the project outlined by Janaina Teles Barbosa Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota in ‘Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal’ similarly points to the difficulties of around labour and compensation in temporary urban practices. Theirs is the enduring task of sustaining participatory urban interventions that must work within given constraints of temporary resources and finite social energies. Their intervention provides a good practical illustration of the argument Brave New Alp put forward in their contribution ‘Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice?’, that design can and should be understood as action on the ‘frontier’ of appropriation. They suggest that design action is
4011
Bianca Elzenbaumer, Valeria Graziano and Kim Trogal
located on the borders of property, taking value from the commons and appropriating it, often for a client rather than themselves. This notion of ‘frontier’ work, emphasise for us that working for the common in the field of design means recognising the ways design redistributes knowledge and social relations in its objects.
References Brenner, Neil (2016) ‘Is ‘Tactical Urbanism’ an alternative to neoliberal urbanism? Reflections on an exhibition at the MOMA?’ in Petrescu, Doina and Trogal, Kim (eds) The Social (Re)Production of Architecture: Politics, Values and Actions in Contemporary Practice. London: Routledge, forthcoming. Choi, Binna and Tanaka, Maiko (2014) Grand Domestic Revolution Handbook. Amsterdam, Valiz. Dardot, Pierre and Laval, Christian (2015) Del comune o della rivoluzione nel XXI secolo. Rome, Deriveapprodi. De Angelis, Massimo (2007) The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London, Pluto Press. De Angelis, Massimo and Stavrides, Stavros (2010) ‘Beyond Markets or States: commoning as collective practice (a public interview)’. An Architektur, 23 and also available at: http://www.eflux.com/journal/on-the-commons-a-public-interview-with-massimo-de-angelis-and-stavrosstavrides/ Ehrenreich, Barbara (2007) Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy. Macmillan. Federici, Silvia (2004) Caliban and The Witch. Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. Brooklyn NY, Autonomedia. Gibson-Graham J.K and Roelvink Gerda, (2011) ‘The nitty gritty of creating alternative economies’ in Social Alternatives, Volume 30 (1): 29-33 Gorz, Andre, (1989) ‘The Invention of Work’ in Critique of Economic Reason. Radical Thinkers Series. London, Verso. Pp. 13-22. Harney, Stefano,(2015) ‘Hapticality in the Undercommons’ in Martin, Randy, (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Art and Politics. Routledge, pp.173-180. Harvey, David (2012) Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London, Verso Hayden, Dolores, (1982) The Grand Domestic Revolution: History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighbourhoods and Cities. Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London MIT Press. Krasny, Elke (ed) (2013) The Right to Green: Hands on Urbanism 1850-2012. Hong Kong, MCCM Creations. Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich (1908), Mutual Aid; a factor of evolution. New York, Dossier Press Ostrom, Elinor (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions) Cambridge/ New York, Cambridge University Press. Pasquinelli, Matteo (2008) Animal Spirits. A Bestiary of the Commons. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers / Institute of Network Cultures. Pickerill, Jenny (2015) ‘Building Eco-Homes for All: Inclusivity, Justice and Affordability in the proceedings of the Architecture and Resilience on a Human Scale, Cross Disciplinary Conference 10-12 September 2015, Sheffield, UK
4012
Introduction: The Politics of Commoning and Design
Rendón, Gabriela and Robles-Durán, Miguel (2016) ‘Social property and the need for a new urban practice’ in Petrescu, Doina and Trogal, Kim (eds) The Social (Re)Production of Architecture: Politics, Values and Actions in Contemporary Practice. London: Routledge, forthcoming. Stavrides, Stavros (2013) ‘Contested Urban Rhythms: from the Industrial City to the Post Industrial Urban Archipelago’ in The Sociological Review 61: pp. 34-50 Thompson, Edward Palmer (1963) The making of the English working class. Vol. 322. IICA. Weeks, Kathi (2011) The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries. Durham and London; Duke University Press.
4013
This page is left intentionally blank
Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice? Fabio Franza and Bianca Elzenbaumerb* a
Sheffield School of Architecture Leeds College of Art * bravenewalps@gmail.com DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.96
b
Abstract: Many designers today (including ourselves) are experimenting with how their practice can engage in meaningful ways with the complexity of pressing social and environmental issues. Being very much concerned with the politics and power relations that run through such issues, in this paper we will explore what points of orientation the framework of the ‘commons’ and that of ‘community economies’ – seen from an autonomist and feminist Marxist perspective – can offer when working on socially and politically engaged projects. We mobilise these two frameworks as possible entry points through which eco-socially just modes of reproducing livelihoods can be fostered. Moreover, we will consider how they can encourage designers to more directly activate their skills to support human activities that move our societies towards eco-social justice. Keywords: eco-social justice, commons, community economies, vectors
Introduction Ever since we decided to stay with the field of design – after an ethical crisis of purpose in year three of our undergraduate studies – we have been driven by the desire to activate our skills for social, environmental and political matters. So if today we still call ourselves “designers” this is because we are convinced that designers contribute to create powerful – even if not always desirable – imaginaries that shape the ways in which we live in this world. Having lived over prolonged periods of time in various places around Europe (the Italian Alps, London, Warsaw, Leeds, Milan, Naples, Stuttgart) and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Jerusalem, Bethlehem), while simultaneously producing socially and politically engaged projects in those places, we have become acutely aware of the detrimental consequences of globalised capitalism: environmental destruction, extreme inequality,
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer
exploitation, precarisation, displacement, dispossession and the dumping of all sorts of other negative externalities on those with less power – all effects constantly justified by the holders of capital1 to remain key players in what is called “the economy”. Despite (or maybe even because of) the overwhelming nature of many of the situations we have engaged with, we are more eager than ever to see design skills mobilised to enact prefigurative politics that bring into being ways of doing and relating that call forth radically different and eco-socially just futures. Thus, what we are attempting to do here is to engage with autonomist and feminist Marxist writings in order to grapple with the question of what human activities can constitute ‘vectors’2 that allow for a “queering of the economy” (Gibson-Graham, 2006a, p. xiii) and a creation of commons through which destructive capitalist relations can be undone. So we are writing here with the question in mind of how design skills can be mobilised to foster such queering vectors that might open up, construct and enact ways of living that go beyond the eco-socially detrimental ones created by capital.
Commons and commoning – a possible basis for eco-social justice In our quest for sustaining social and political engagement for progressive social change our attention has been drawn to the commons by autonomist Marxist thinkers, who frame commons as “a means to the creation of an egalitarian and cooperative society” (Federici & Caffentzis, 2014), and whose interest in the commons “is grounded in a desire for the conditions necessary to promote social justice, sustainability, and happy lives for all” (An Architektur, 2010, author's emphasis). In short, in a perspective that seeks ways for achieving eco-social justice, the commons represent a “social system in which resources are shared by a community of users/producers, who also define the modes of use and production, distribution and circulation of these resources through democratic and horizontal forms of governance.” (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014)
Therefore, commons encompass a material as much as a ‘social’ dimension that both fosters and in turn is sustained by the cultivation of other values and “value-practices”3 (such as solidarity, care, co-operation, mutuality, interdependence) rather than the precarising and detrimental ones that are located at the basis of capitalist social relations and are in turn reproduced by them (such as exploitation, individualisation, personal profit, competition, maximisation of efficiency). For the political economist and commoner Massimo De Angelis, the commons are based on the construction of “common interests” by “communities” of people, and are enabled and reproduced through practices of “commoning” (2009) – a term coined and popularised by 1
By ‘capital’ we mean money that is being invested into something with the primary goal of generating more money (Harvey, 2010, p. 76). 2 With ‘vectors’ we mean realms of human activity that have the power to catalyse people’s desires and energies to reach a specific common goal. Here we connect with Mariarosa Dalla Costa’s formulation on “engines” (Dalla Costa, 2003). 3 Value-practices being described by De Angelis as “those actions and processes, as well as correspondent webs of relations, that are both predicated on a given value system and in turn (re)produce it.” – “(…) selecting what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ within a value system and actually acting upon this selection” (2007, p. 24).
4016
Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice?
autonomist commons-historian Peter Linebaugh (2008) as a process by which people start to take their lives into their own hands – that is, the social practices of constant democratic and horizontal negotiation of the members of a given community around the terms of access to the resource(s) it holds in common (De Angelis, 2010a). Importantly, De Angelis defines “community” as “a web of direct relations among subjects whose repetitive engagement and feedback processes allow them, through conflict and/or cooperation, to define the norms of their interaction on the basis of other values than those of capital.” (2007, p. 65, author’s emphasis)
This makes the tight interrelation between commons, community and commoning unequivocal. There can be “no commons without community” (Federici & Caffentzis, 2014) and “no commons without commoning” (De Angelis, 2010b). When we engage with this framework of the commons and consider how socially and politically engaged designers can mobilise practices of commoning, create commons and/or communities in order to foster eco-social justice, it is of importantance for us to question the notion of a commons as a “resource”. This questioning is especially relevent to us because in our era of the “anthropocene” or even “capitalocene” (Haraway, 2014; Moore, 2014a, 2014b) – in which “humankind [or, more precisely, capital] is foregrounded as a geological force or agent” (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2009) – we find the idea troubling that on the one hand we have “human communities” and on the other hand we have “resources” for humans to use. We rather like to embrace a critical posthumanist approach that sees humanity but as one amongst many natural species, and that avoids a utilitarian vision of more-than-human others, especially as such an approach seems more conducive to foster social and ecological justice. Indeed, as (for example) J.K. Gibson-Graham and Ethan Miller show, the expansion of the capitalist economy has proceeded hand in hand with the establishment of an instrumental vision of nature as something passive, separate from “the economy”, and as a “resource” that is only there in order to be exploited by certain humans to generate profit (2015) – or, one may add, as a dumping ground for waste of all sorts, which again becomes a means to generate profit as part of legal or illegal capitalist economies (Brave New Alps, 2011). Therefore, within the context of the commons, there is a need for an update on the idea of resource (as much as that of “community”) in order to encompass posthumanist conceptions that acknowledge that “it is no longer possible to identify a singular ‘humanity’ as a distinctive ontological category set apart from all else” (Gibson-Graham & Miller, 2015, p. 10). And this is in fact a realm where we can see designers contributing prolifically to progressive practices of commoning by experimenting with this shift in perspective through practice. What does it mean to design for just relations between humans and more-than-human assemblages? What kind of power relations between different actors do our design proposals for commoning strengthen, weaken or transform?
4017
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer
Commons and enclosures – a frontier to constantly negotiate To further define positions from which to design for commons as a basis for eco-social justice, we think it is also important to locate commons in a broader historical and political framework to attune ourselves to what often seem subtle, but can actually be quite big differences. Since the 1970s, neoliberal politics have taken capitalist value-practices – framed around private property, exploitative labour, the submission of nature, exchange value and profit to yet new levels of intensity and capillarity that have resulted in increased individualisation, competition and asymmetric accumulation of wealth and power (Harvey, 2005, 2008) that is, value-practices that have been normalised by humans around the world. In this dynamic, the term “new enclosures” – coined by the Midnight Notes Collective in 1990 – defines capital’s large-scale attempt to “subordinate every form of life and knowledge to the logic of the market” (Federici, 2010). Moreover, this term highlights the fact that the creation of commons and their enclosure is an ongoing process rather than one relegated to history.1 Quite on the contrary, the constant creation of commons by the people and their enclosure by capital is what in fact constitutes capital’s main engine. Specifically, De Angelis underlines how the constitution of new forms of commons is the accumulated result of past struggles which “capital, if it cannot administer them on its own terms with new forms of governmentality compatible with accumulation, must enclose” (De Angelis, 2007, p. 82). Capital must enclose – the ultimate aim of enclosures being to “increase people’s dependence on capitalist markets for the reproduction of their livelihoods” (Ibid., p. 133). In this sense, for De Angelis, enclosures represent entry points for capital into new spheres of life, a perspective that underlines the idea that “capital [is] not […] a totalised system, but […] a social force with totalising drives that exists together with other forces that act as a limit to it.” (Ibid., p. 135, author’s emphasis)
Sticking with De Angelis’ line of thought, capital is in constant search for the limit that separates what capital has already colonised and what is still there to be colonised. At the same time, capital elaborates strategies to overcome this limit (which De Angelis calls the “frontier”) and expand its sphere of influence. We – that is, people – instead become aware of this frontier only in the moment in which capital attempts to overcome it and we have to decide whether or not to defend it: “the extent to which we are aware of enclosures is the extent to which they confront us” (Ibid., p. 144). To capital’s enclosing drive, De Angelis counterposes strategies of counter-enclosure, or, the creation, defence, and expansion of the commons, which, as a result, provokes also a diversification and complexification of the colonised-colonisable frontier. In fact, for Silvia Federici, the privatisation of vast portions of land, water, services, knowledge, culture around the globe has ironically produced, in the people directly or indirectly affected by it, a heightened attention towards those things that were previously held in common and the social relations – such as solidarity, cooperation, 1
In more traditional Marxist accounts, primitive accumulation – through the expropriation, privatisation and commodification of common lands – occurred only at the outset of capitalism and laid the foundation of a capitalist mode of production, constituting its precondition (see for example, Marx, 1976, p. 714).
4018
Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice?
direct democracy, attention to use-value – that were embedded in and sustained such common properties (2010). We therefore see the capital-commons frontier as in constant transformation, always shifting and mutating in form, as from one side capital encloses and from the other people defend existing commons threatened by enclosures or constitute new ones in ever new spheres of life. To use the words of De Angelis and Harvie, “the commons are the terrain of a clash between capital and commonism” (2014). The question, then, for us as designers is what are the conditions that we put in place, and what kind of politics do we enact, when engaging in the creation of such new commons. What effects does the work of designers have on the defence or enclosure of commons? If by creating material, social or digital commons we effectively build new segments of this frontier, we think it is crucial to consider the following questions: how do we build commons and communities? What features do we provide them with? What chains of resource extraction, commodity production and disposal do we tie them into? What form do we give them and what kind of practices and relations does that form afford? If our aim is to construct commons and practices of commoning that confront, exit or undo capitalist relations in a drive for eco-social justice, how do we make sure that these new segments are as impermeable as possible to the infiltrating forces of capital? Indeed, what we want to avoid is to construct parts of a frontier that actually welcomes or encourages easy entry points for capital into spheres of life revolving around the commons and practices of commoning (see also, Elzenbaumer, 2015). What we want to stress here is the importance for designers (but also engaged citizens more generally) to see the act of defending or creating commons as politicised, as inscribed in relations of power and as requiring awareness of the challenges of commoning vis-à-vis capital’s infiltrating and enclosing drive. When considering the frontier between commons and enclosures, Silvia Federici and George Caffentzis alert us, for instance, to the fact that today we recurrently encounter commons that are being set up by groups and organisations seeing in them a vehicle to gain “security, sociality and economic power” (reported examples include consumer groups, home-buyers, many urban gardens and assisted living homes), which although speaking to genuine and legitimate desires, are little transformative in nature, and thus risk – often unwillingly – to generate new forms of enclosure. This is because brought into life by “a broad range of social democratic forces that are either concerned with the extremes of neo-liberalism and/or recognize the advantages of communal relations for the reproduction of everyday life”, these commons are “constructed on the basis of the homogeneity of its members, often producing gated communities, providing protection from the ‘other’, the opposite of what the principle of the commons implies for us.” (Federici & Caffentzis, 2014)
In fact, in less politicised approaches to the commons, these often represent a third category of property (with related values and value-practices) that peacefully coexists with the public and the private, and which today are mainly driven by capitalist logics of accumulation. This is for instance evident in the work of 2009 Economic Sciences Nobel Prize winner Elinor
4019
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer
Ostrom,1 who was awarded the prize for her analysis of economic governance, especially in relation to the commons, concentrating mainly on the material dimension of the commons, in the sense of tangible resources such as land, water, air, forests, lakes, fisheries, and on the sets of rules of access and governance that guarantee the sustainability of such goods. As the awarding of this Nobel Prize demonstrates, an interest for the commons is rapidly growing within those who are concerned with the crises constantly threatening capitalism and who are afraid that the colonising drive of capital, infiltrating into ever new spheres of life in order to increasingly commodify social relations as encouraged by neoliberalism, will in fact prove to be more detrimental than beneficial for the thriving of “the (capitalist) economy”. The combination of two factors – capital needing to constantly put to work huge amounts of labour and natural resources, and the abovementioned shared concern that neoliberalism is in many ways damaging what it should instead strengthen – has brought more and more economists, development planners and policymakers to see in the commons an enormous realm that “can be made to produce very well for the market”. For example, the discovery that “under proper conditions, a collective management of natural resources can be more efficient and less prone to conflict than privatization” (Federici, 2010), could have profound effects on the way capital and enclosures operate. As Federici underlines, this approach is in line with a growing interest in the commons and the appropriation of their language by the World Bank and the United Nations, who at least since the early 1990s, in the name of preserving humanity’s heritage of “global commons”, have put in place regulations that enclosed, for example, large portions of rainforest, and granting access to them to only wellpaying eco-tourists, or that aimed at “governing access to the oceans in ways that enables governments to concentrate the use of seawaters in fewer hands” (ibid., 2010) through the institution of Exclusive Economic Zones. So for people interested in moving towards eco-social justice through the commons and commoning, the award of the Nobel Prize to Ostrom is both a matter of celebration and concern. Celebration, because this means that the discourse around the commons gets placed right in the centre of the mainstream, thus representing a unique opportunity for emancipatory struggles around the commons to become more visible. Concern, because – as De Angelis and David Harvie point out – usually the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences signals “a paradigm shift within the strategies of management of capitalist social relations” (2014, p. 289, authors’ emphasis). This echoes Federici’s point about an increasing interest in the commons from the side of institutions (not least also from the cultural industries and the field of design) as a lifeboat for capital and business (more or less) as usual, currently struggling to find strategies to get growing again while avoiding a “social and ecological apocalypse at worst, and an intensification of social conflict at best” (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014, p. 289). That is why De Angelis and Harvie call this approach “capital’s commons fix” (2014, p. 290). 1
In her work, Ostrom focussed on the concept of common pool resources (CPR) and “on how humans interact with ecosystems to maintain long-term sustainable resource yields” (Wikipedia, 2015).
4020
Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice?
An important difference between the commons à la Ostrom and the views on the subject voiced by De Angelis and his colleagues lays in the perspective on the social practices that underpin and enable the prolonged existence of the commons. Ostrom elaborated eight ‘design principles’ that in her view are fundamental to sustain the commons over time,1 and that should guide communities in properly managing a given ‘common pool resource’ (CPR): “clearly defined boundaries […] congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions […] collective-choice arrangements […] monitoring, graduated sanctions […] conflictresolution mechanisms […] minimal recognition of rights to organize […] nested enterprises.” (see Ostrom, 1990, pp. 90–102)
For De Angelis and Harvie, the way Ostrom conceptualises the government of the commons only puts emphasis on what rules are needed to prevent a common resource from being overused and avoids acknowledging that when people come together in order to communally administer, care for, and cultivate a commons, there is also the potential for other social practices to develop that “put constraints on, and push back, practices based on commodity production and capital accumulation” (Federici & Caffentzis, 2014). Instead, in Ostrom, “struggle is conceptualized only as competition among appropriators; that is, a struggle within the commons, not also as a struggle of the commons vis-à-vis an outside social force – capital.” (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014, p. 291, authors’ emphasis)
Therefore, when designing for the commons, on one end of the spectrum we have an interpretation of them that is instrumental to a pressing refurbishment of the capitalist economy, while on the other end we have an anti-capitalist interpretation, built on commoners’ desire to transform the social (and economic) relations between humans (and, one may add, the relation between humans and non-human others) and to thus create economies that function as alternatives to capitalism. This means that when designing from a perspective of eco-social transformation, we continuously need to ask what it takes for our interventions to be more than just buffers against the destructive impact of neo-liberalism and more than the communal management of resources (Federici & Caffentzis, 2014). We might ask who is involved in the production of the commons and who is excluded? Who can decide on the process of commoning and who cannot? Who benefits from them, directly or indirectly? What are the effects of a specific process of commoning locally and translocally?
Commons-based production and diverse economies – a shifting of viewpoints So how can we as designers and engaged earthlings more specifically activate our skills, time and resources in order to foster non-capitalist, eco-socially just practices and economies? For Federici the answer lays in the creation of new commons-based modes of production that weave together the many struggles around the world in which commons are created, 1
This may have prompted Federici and Caffentzis to elaborate a list of what we consider six ‘counter-criteria’ for starting to constitute anti-capitalist commons (2014).
4021
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer
defended and fought for. However, she also sees the practical exploration of such an answer hampered by the overall discourse on the commons, which “is mostly concerned with the formal preconditions for the existence of commons and less with the material requirements for the construction of a commons-based economy enabling us to resist dependence on wage labor and subordination to capitalist relations.” (2010)
In grappling in practical terms – from a position located in the global North West – with how to create economies that allow to resist absolute dependence on wage labour and subordination to precarising capitalist relations, but also how to “begin to de-link our reproduction from the commodity flows that (…) are responsible for the dispossession of millions across the world” (Ibid., 2010) we find it especially useful to put the striving for commons in dialogue with the diverse economies framework elaborated by feminist Marxist geographers J.K. Gibson-Graham (2006a, 2006b). In their work they argue that manifold non-capitalist economic activities are already and always enacted everywhere and for us some of these can pave the way for the production of justice fostering non-capitalist commons. In a feminist and poststructuralist tradition that emphasises fluidity and open-endedness, J.K. Gibson-Graham foster a vision of the economy as a realm that is far from being as monolithic as many would want us to believe. In their framework the economy is constituted by a rich multitude of economic practices, whose capitalist part is “but a small set of activities by which we produce, exchange and distribute values in our society” (Community Economies Collective, 2015). The rest of it is populated by economic modes that – to a greater or lesser extent – escape the logics of capital, and are therefore – in a more or less politicised, direct, or effective way – challenging them. To illustrate their interpretation of the economy and to explain what they call the “diverse economies framework”, GibsonGraham use an inventive visual metaphor of an ‘economic iceberg’. The iceberg as a whole represents the economy, the part above the water represents what we usually recognise as “the economy” – that is, essentially, capitalism and wage labor, production for a market in a capitalist business – while the much bigger submerged part represents the ‘invisible’1 part of the economy – including in schools, on the streets, in neighborhoods, within families, illegal, volunteer, gifts, barter, and non-capitalist firms2 (Gibson-Graham, 2006a, pp. 68–72).
1
Invisible not because we generally cannot see it (admittedly, parts of it are actually invisible to the majority of us while most are not), but because we don’t consider it to be part of what we generally regard as “the economy”. For another feminist elaboration on the iceberg metaphor and hidden economies see the work of Maria Mies (1986, 2007). 2 Interestingly, the original version of the iceberg diagram doesn’t feature “slave labour” as part of the submerged part, something that was integrated in later versions of the drawing.
4022
Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice?
Fig.1 The iceberg image drawn by Ken Byrne featured on the website of the Community Economies Collective and the Community Economies Research Network. Source: http://www.communityeconomies.org/Home/Key-Ideas (accessed: 15 August 2015)
As designers we find it empowering to align ourselves with their approach to the economy as it emphasises that both the present and the future depend primarily on the actions we (collectively) take in the present – enacting a kind of prefigurative politics where alterity is practiced “through word and deed, and making value statements” (Mason, 2014). We find it empowering that they avoid promoting apolitical and/or crisis-riddled visions of the present as something inevitable we need to simply adjust to or get prepared for. In fact, they continuously underline that they want to contribute to undo “the economy” as a naturalised “realm of objective, law-like processes and demands”, recognising it – via Callon (2007) and Mitchell (2008) – as a “historical, discursive production rather than an objective ontological category”. This in turn fosters a vision of economy not as “a separate sphere of human activity, but instead as thoroughly social and ecological” (2015, p. 8), and therefore as a field in which we have the power to intervene and that we can mould by making new economies in the here and now: “our economy is what we (discursively and practically) make it” (Gibson-Graham, 2006a, p. xxii). Through such a framing, they also undo the passé Marxist idea of a millennial future revolution which will bring about equality – which in its grandeur unfortunately nullifies any attempt to undertake steps in the present towards changing the current state of things – and promote the idea that we can move towards an eco-socially just world by “queering capitalism” through (economic) place-based practice wherever we are (Ibid., 2006a, p. xxi and xxii). J.K. Gibson-Graham’s and the Community Economies Collective’s vision of economy is thus encouraging and enticing for socially and politically engaged designers as it allows for the mobilisation of design skills away from market-driven demands (the top of the iceberg) towards a mobilisation that is actually in line with what the anthropocene/capitalocene requires as an adequate response to contributing to a good life for all on this planet. If, for example, we go back to the etymology of the word “economy” (from oikos-habitat and
4023
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer
nomos-negotiation of order), Gibson-Graham encourage us to understand this realm as a theoretical entry point through which we can begin to explore the diverse specificities of livelihood creation. Economy, in other words, is a conceptual framework to understand how a “population (members of the same species) or a community (multi-species assemblage)” arranges and negotiates different elements in order to sustain the livelihood of its members (Gibson-Graham & Miller, 2015, p. 12). Like this, one of the aims of conceiving “economy” as a radically diverse realm is to break up the dichotomy capitalism vs. alternative economy, where ‘alternative’ denotes that which is usually seen as being idealistic, inferior and powerless: “If we displace this view of the economy with one of radical difference then we open up many more spaces of action without prejudging their transformative potential.” (Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2011)
In formulating their thought on how we can cultivate new “economic subjectivities”, based on diversity rather than on unquestionable claims of universal truth and objectivity, GibsonGraham take a great deal of inspiration from second-wave feminism, a struggle – a movement – that has “transformed and continues to transform households, lives, and livelihoods around the world to different degrees and in different ways” (Gibson-Graham, 2002) without needing to “scale up” in the traditional sense – that is, requiring an overarching formal organisational structure, coordinated actions and alliances, or global institutions. For Gibson-Graham, the great strength of the movement was that it “offered new practices of the self and of intersubjective relation that enabled these new discourses to be inhabited in everyday life”, in a decentralised, uncoordinated and place-based way across the globe – myriad women performing feminist value-practices in myriad places ‘authorised’ by the slogan “the personal is political”, and “linked emotionally and semiotically rather than primarily through organisational ties” (2006a, p. xxiii and xxiv). Therefore, what Gibson-Graham want to contribute to is a widespread challenge of the capitalist status quo operated by a multitude of decentralised economic practices “connected through webs of signification” (2006b, p. xxvii) and operating at the scale of place. As second-wave feminism was built around a wide-reaching change in the subjectivity of women, also the idea of a global decentralised struggle of non-capitalist economic practices determined to overcome capitalism calls for a process through which new economic subjectivities are formed that push against our capitalist subjectivities. Quoting Colectivo Situaciones, for Gibson-Graham “combating capitalism means refusing a long-standing sense of self and mode of being in the world, while simultaneously cultivating new forms of sociability, visions of happiness, and economic capacities.” (2006a p. xxxv).
They thus see their contribution to this process of resubjectivation as a making visible of “the hidden and alternative economic activities that everywhere abound, and [connecting] them through a language of economic difference” (2006a, p. xxiv, author’s emphasis). Gibson-Graham’s response is thus a call for recognising non-capitalist economic activities as in fact prevalent and for actively building on them in order to transform our local economies.
4024
Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice?
However, non-capitalist economic practices face a problem not only of invisibility but also of inter-connectivity (see also Müller, 2006). As in the case of second-wave feminism, this may in theory be overcome alongside and via a reorientation of the economic subjectivities of the people involved in such practices, something where as designers we can play an enabling role: both discursively as well as materially, as we can design to make these practices visible and to invite experimentation, exploration and interconnection. We can support people in recognising their activities as deviating from the prevalent capitalist logics and support a deeper level of politicisation and practical engagement in overcoming the kind of social relations dictated by capital and the values and value-practices connected to it. We can support people in finding out about each other’s work and we can contribute to interlink them so that they can form growing webs of everyday economic non- and anti-capitalist spaces. By fostering the creation of such webs of experimentation and support we can thus contribute to have ‘non-capitalism’ lose its connotations of negativity by transforming it into a multitude of economic activities and relations, while capitalism loses its abstract, overwhelming singularity which despite its eco-social destructions often seems inevitable.
Community economies – practical ‘vectors’ to be mobilised Considering the potential of the commons and the diverse economies frameworks when designing towards eco-social justice, we finally propose that the life-line extended through their concepts, values and value-practices can be drawn together by designing for what Gibson-Graham call “community economies” (Gibson-Graham, 2006a, pp. 78–97). In community economies, social interdependency (an economic being-in-common) as well as ecological interdependency (a being-in-common with all of earth others) is acknowledged and respected. Thus, when designing with community economies in mind “we negotiate: what is necessary to personal, social and ecological survival; how social surplus is appropriated and distributed; whether and how social surplus is to be produced and consumed; how a commons is produced and sustained.” (“Community Economies Collective,” n.d.)
This in turn means that by designing with and through these negotiations we contribute to the production of new kinds of economic subjects, subjects who have the desire but also the social, conceptual and material means to sketch out in practice prefigurative responses to pressing questions of eco-social justice. We can mobilise our design skills to foster values and support as well as creating value-practices that challenge neoliberal capitalism with the multiple forms of oppression and exploitation it relies on. We can design – in always specific and locally relevant ways, but never losing sight of globality – for the commoning of knowledge, skills, resources and labour that moves us away from the maximisation of profit, environmental destruction and individual gains. We can share the fruits of our collective or individual work by experimenting with multiple forms of wealth distribution and we can join forces and create productive alliances with other human and more-than-human commoners to create interlinked instances of non-capitalist practice. Through designing such instances we can create community economies that effectively allow
4025
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer
us and others to “reclaim control over the conditions of our reproduction” (Federici & Caffentzis, 2014) and to form multiple and diverse bases from which to increasingly disentangle our lives from the precarising forces of the market and the state. But most importantly, we can learn from and be transformed by all of this experimentation and feed it back to what we desire and design next, because the movement towards eco-social justice is a constant work in progress, the understanding of which will continue to shift as the power relations around us are being transformed. Acknowledgements We want to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their generous comments. We also want to thank Paolo Plotegher, Doina Petrescu, Jenny Pickerill, Beatrice De Carli, Kim Trogal, Valeria Graziano, people from the Community Economies Research Network and the Precarity Pilot: Take Back The Economy reading group for challenging discussions and supportive conversations as well as continuous encouragement for experimentation.
References Brave New Alps. (2011). Laboratorio Campano. Retrieved August 11, 2015, from http://www.laboratoriocampano.org/ Callon, M. (2007). What Does It Mean to Say that Economics Is Performative? In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Sui (Eds.), Do Economists Make Markets: On the Performativity of Economics (pp. 311–357). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Community Economies Collective. (2015). Key Ideas. Retrieved August 16, 2015, from http://www.communityeconomies.org/Home/Key-Ideas Community Economies Collective. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.communityeconomies.org/Home Dalla Costa, M. (2003). Seven Good Reasons to Say “Locality.” The Commoner, (N. 6 – Winter 2003), 8. De Angelis, M. (2007). The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London: Pluto Press. De Angelis, M. (2009, December). The tragedy of the capitalist commons. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-5/capitalist-commons/ De Angelis, M. (2010a). On the commons: a public interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides. E-Flux Journal, June-August(17), 1–17. De Angelis, M. (2010b). The Production of Commons and the “Explosion” of the Middle Class. Antipode, 42(4), 954–977. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00783.x De Angelis, M., & Harvie, D. (2014). The Commons. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, & C. Land (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization (pp. 280–291). Oxon: Routledge. Elzenbaumer, B. (2015). Precarious designers and the transfromative potential of biopolitical production and the commons. Presented at the Summer Cumulus Conference, Politecnico di Milano. Federici, S. (2010). Feminism And the Politics of the Commons. In C. Hughes, S. Peace, & K. Van Meter (Eds.), Uses of a WorldWind, Movement, Movements, and Contemporary Radical Currents in the United States (pp. 283–294). Oakland, CA: AK Press. Federici, S., & Caffentzis, G. (2014). Commons against and beyond capitalism. Community Development Journal, 49(S1), i92–i105.
4026
Commons & community economies: entry points to design for eco-social justice?
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2002). Beyond global vs. local: economic politics outside the binary frame. In A. Herod & M. W. Wright (Eds.), Geographies of power : placing scale. Oxford: Blackwell. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006a). A Postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006b). The end of capitalism (as we knew it). Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K., & Miller, E. (2015). Economy as Ecological Livelihood. In Manifesto for Living in the Anthropocene (pp. 7–16). New York: Punctum Books. Gibson-Graham, J. K., & Roelvink, G. (2009). An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode, 41(S1), 320–346. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00728.x Gibson-Graham, J. K., & Roelvink, G. (2011). The nitty gritty of creating alternative economies. Social Alternatives, 30(1), 29–33. Haraway, D. (2014, May). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulucene: Staying with the Trouble. Presented at the Anthropocene: Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet, University of Santa Cruz. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/97663518 Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2008). The enigma of capital. Retrieved from http://davidharvey.org/2008/11/theenigma-of-capital/ Harvey, D. (2010). A companion to Marx’s Capital. London: Verso. Linebaugh, P. (2008). The Who and Whom of Liberty Taking. Retrieved from http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/who-and-whom-liberty-taking Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I. (B. Fowkes, Trans.). New York: Penguin Books. Mason, K. (2014). Becoming Citizen Green: prefigurative politics, autonomous geographies, and hoping against hope. Environmental Politics, 23(1), 140–158. http://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.775725 Mies, M. (1986). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books. Mies, M. (2007). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale – Revisited. International Journal of Green Economics, 1(3/4), 268–275. Mitchell, T. (2008). Rethinking Economy. Geoforum, 39(3), 1116–1121. Moore, J. W. (2014a). The Capitalocene Part II: Abstract Social Nature and the Limits to Capital. Retrieved January 11, 2016, from www.jasonwmoore.com/uploads/The_Capitalocene___Part_II__June_2014.pdf Moore, J. W. (2014b). The Capitalocene Part I: On the Nature & Origins of Our Ecological Crisis. Retrieved January 11, 2016, from www.jasonwmoore.com/uploads/The_Capitalocene__Part_I__June_2014.pdf Müller, T. (2006). Other worlds, other values: alternative value practices in the European anticapitalist movement. University of Sussex. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wikipedia. (2015, May 8). Elinor Ostrom. In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elinor_Ostrom&oldid=674662655
4027
Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer
About the Authors: Fabio Franz and Bianca Elzenbaumer aka Brave New Alps (@bravenewalps) work on design projects that engage people in rethinking social, political and environmental issues by combining design research methods with radical pedagogy, conflict mediation techniques and DIY making. They currently work on a research project titled COMUNfARE – making (economies) in common.
4028
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence Monica Lindh Karlsson* and Johan Redström Umeå University * monica.lindh@umu.se DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.120
Abstract: We describe an inquiry into how we relate to each other in design, as we design. In particular, we are interested in to what extent, and in what ways, we acknowledge diversity in knowledge, experience, and skill. We have conducted a series of project courses within design education to make students explore different ways of doing design together. Our findings point to two main tendencies: towards cultures of pluralism, of coming together as who we are; and cultures of representation, of coming together as what we are. This points to important issues related to how methodology and process structure the way we perceive and relate to each other. Indeed, in a disciplinary methodological framework ultimately oriented towards convergence and the making of a final design, how do we evolve and engage with that which must not converge to a single point but where difference and diversity must be acknowledged? Keywords: Design Practice, Design Theory, Design Methodology, Design Education
Introduction Ever since industrial design came into being as a result of an emerging industrialisation of production and consumption, there has been a dialogue between industrial contexts and the practices of design. Indeed, during one of the debates at the previous DRS 2014 conference Clive Dilnot argued that: “The specific point is that as a professional activity design does not occur, does not happen, through its own volition. Rather, Design—modern design, professional design— is called into being by Industrialization.” (Dilnot, 2014)
Ranging from searching for new forms and expressions appropriate for the machine-made (as in the early days of the discipline at places such as the Bauhaus) to the emergence of new design areas in relation to new societal and technological developments (such as experience design, service design, sustainable design and so on and so forth), professional design has continuously been responding to social, technical and not the least financial This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
changes. At the same time, design has exercised a certain influence on what and how things are made, driving change in areas such as ergonomics in the 1960’s, participation and collaboration in the 1970’s and the importance of user experience since the 1980’s, to name a few. The resulting complexity when it comes to articulating what the terms ‘industrial’ and ‘design’ in industrial design practice actually refer to should not be underestimated, but one observation could be made: that significant developments in one, will lead to changes also in the other. One issue of particular interest to us given a Scandinavian context of orienting industrial design practice towards notions such as ‘user-centred’ (cf. Norman, 2013), ‘collaborative’ (cf. Cross, 2011, Manzini, 2015) and even ‘democratic’ (cf. Ehn et al, 2014, Fallan, 2012) is how the way we do design together is evolving as a response to social and technical conditions. In particular, we’re interested in both articulating and advancing practice with respect to how we relate to each other in design – as we design – and to what extent these ways of working acknowledge difference and diversity. This inquiry takes as its starting point the structure of the typical industrial design process itself. In particular, we are interested in the implications of its ultimate aim for convergence – the basic orientation towards creating that final thing that will then be used as the basis for mass-production. Thus, there is an important difference between this inquiry and the work that has been done on re-orienting designing as such towards new objectives. What we address here is still within the basic frames of industrial design, and our questions would turn out quite differently if we were instead asking about a redefinition of what it is that design designs. For instance, if we look towards emerging practices related to social innovation, central propositions are not only a movement towards ‘everyone designs’ (cf. Manzini, 2015) but also that the object and objective of design per se has changed, and thus the overall orientation responds to a different need and context. In other words, there is a basic difference between addressing matters of participation by changing not only the way design happens but also what it aims to create, and changing the way it happens but keeping the basic objective. While we find such emerging forms of design oriented towards the social most interesting and promising, we here want to stay with the troubles of the established requirements on professional design to produce certain outcomes, and instead look towards what ways of relating to each other can be opened up within this industrial context. And so, when we now look towards issues of participation, democracy, etc. in industrial design, this becomes a key question: in a disciplinary methodological framework ultimately oriented towards convergence, how do we evolve and engage with that which must not converge but where difference and diversity must be acknowledged? In what follows, we will inquire into aspects of how we work together in design. We will not be able to address the full complexity of what diversity is and have to be in design at this stage, but our aim is to shed light on some structural properties of design processes that might be useful for having such further discussions. The basis for this inquiry is a series of project courses in design education, set-up to reveal ways of working and to engage the 4030
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence
students in opening-up design doing together. In particular we’re interested in how we come together as ‘what’ we are versus ‘who’ we are (cf. Arendt, 1958), and how relations between ‘we’ and ‘they’ come into play (cf. Mouffe, 2005).
Background To understand how we come together to design, it is necessary to look at the history of how design practice and education have developed structures for certain kinds of collaboration and relations between actors and stakeholders. In the development of the discipline of industrial design as it is also currently conceived, the notion of the professional role as one of coordination is a key idea. Perhaps first explicitly articulated in the curricula of HfG Ulm, and in the writings of Thomas Maldonado, the idea that the industrial designer will be the one responsible for the creation of a meaningful whole as different areas of expertise in problem-solving and production come together, has been central to much methodology and practice. As Herbert Lindinger comments on HfG Ulm: “As design was now to concern itself with more complex things than chairs and lamps, the designer could no longer regard himself, within the industrial and aesthetic process in which he operated, as an artist, a superior being. He must now aim to work as part of a team, involving scientists, research departments, sales people, and technicians, in order to realize his own vision of a socially responsible shaping – Gestaltung – of the environment.” (Lindinger, 1991, pp 11)
Such initial articulations of design as coordination were taken further in the ‘design methods movement’ happening primarily in the UK just a few years later. Reflecting upon what the new ways of doing design that the collection of new design methods resulted in, John Chris Jones wrote: “Looking back now, at this book, and at what has become of design methods, I think that this is the crux of the matter: the new methods permit collaborative designing whereas the old methods do not. They change the nature of designing, or can if one lets them. The essential point is that the new methods permit collaboration before ‘the concept’, the organising idea, the back-of-the-envelope-sketch, ‘the design’ has emerged (provided the leading designer knows how to switch from being the person responsible for the result to being the one who ensures that ‘the process is right.” (Jones, 1992, p. xxxiii)
Such ideas about opening up the design process, shifting from an individual artistic process towards a collaborative effort involving not only different areas of expertise but also more broadly the people intended to become the future users of the design, were taken even further in the new forms of participatory design that emerged in the 1970’s onwards. Over time the designers’ role, thus, became a matter of not only negotiating product ideas with production processes, but increasingly also about developing functionality and use in context. In some cases this could imply taking a mediating role between industry and use, between producer and consumer; in others it could also be that the role of design becomes one of facilitation rather than production, of making it possible for others to ‘design’ (cf Manzini, 2015). In practice, professional design carries elements of all these historical
4031
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
developments. Whereas research and development projects may take on more extreme positions along this spectrum, much design practice makes use of pragmatic combinations of methods and approaches, leaving traces of a range of different design roles, from artistic ones as when being responsible for the aesthetics and expressiveness of the product, to facilitating roles of future-user involvement in the process, and cross-disciplinary collaboration. This pragmatic mix of positions, however, also makes it necessary to look into that which does not vary but remain more constant, i.e. those structures in how we relate to each other that we perhaps do not challenge as much or do not even reflect upon.
The context UID This inquiry into how design doing together might deal with diversity is based on our work with the education at Umeå Institute of Design. The programme aims to educate students in industrial design for a future performance in design practice as a professional designer. Hence, the overall orientation is characterised by ‘learning-by-doing’ and project courses set up to simulate design practice. Projects are mostly performed in collaboration with external collaborators, including both commercial and public stakeholders. In projects courses students practice how to execute projects in collaboration with external stakeholders, different specialists and users. This means that the education is focused on educating students as an expert in design, rehearsing and practicing planning, coordination, collaboration and performance. Thus, the basic design process is essentially the model sometimes referred to as ‘divergence – transformation – convergence’ (Jones, 1992), ‘the double diamond’ (cf. Design Council, 2015) and similar structures oriented around stages of problem framing, exploration and problem solving. Since the education is firmly rooted in a Scandinavian tradition of usercentred design, students practice ways to work close with users in certain stages of a process such as when analysis, in concept development and when evaluation of concepts.
The set-up of project courses In order to have our students engage with aspects of working together, including ways of dealing with diverging perspectives and values, we set up the project courses in a way that challenged their established ways of working in certain ways. As our focus was on evolving forms of doing design together and acknowledge diversity in knowledge, experience and skills, we did not pay particular attention to the specifics of the design concepts and proposals nor how they were conceived from a cognitive problem-solving perspective. Indeed, the courses were not set-up to try out any particular theory or concept of design, but rather as open explorative processes. From the outside, the student’s projects were framed by familiar criteria such as: having a certain time frame and deliverables; collaboration with an external stakeholder (organisation or company); and an initial brief at the beginning of the course. All projects 4032
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence
were to result in a conceptual model to be presented for stakeholders. In contrast to these more familiar external criteria, we used certain guidelines to structure the design process in each team in order to open up for a diversity of competences and knowledge. For instance, students were told to use a ‘build-to-think’ approach, to continuously use and share design materials and work in a very open way with each other. Indeed, as all projects started with an empty space, literally building, configuring and furnishing a shared physical space – a ‘studio’ – was an integral part of the project and the scaffolding of the design work. We conducted five multi-disciplinary project courses between 2008-2012 in the BFAprogram at Umeå Institute of Design, each lasting for five weeks. Students worked in mixed teams with members from different educational backgrounds, such as design, occupationaland physical therapy and engineering programs, but also from studies at different educational levels. Each team had 6-8 members, and in two of five project-courses, one group of participants were continuously mobile, moving to a new team every week.
Figure 1 Participants started to elaborate on their shared spaces as they came together in dialogue.
In the beginning of the course, the teams typically started to discuss with each other how to approach this particular project. Since the brief was open-ended, there was also frequent initial discussion about how to understand and interpret the brief. As theirs processes started to unfold, the initially empty space evolved into a place filled with different kinds of materials, each team building their own provisional studio.
4033
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
Over time, teams started to invite the ‘users’ they worked with to come by their studios at any time, moving beyond only meeting them for specific tasks such as when doing userresearch or for follow-up sessions. Consequently, users dropped in during the whole project time, in some project more frequently than others. We studied the evolution of both process and physical space during the project time using notes, photos and video recordings to document. Throughout the courses, participant’s experiences were recorded as written reports in the form of individual self-reflections handed in every week, as well as an individual meta-reflection after finishing the project course.
Findings Below we report on the findings from these courses with respect to how participants performed doing design together and how the space evolved throughout the project courses. Here, we will focus on two main traits, or paths, that stand out with respect to how the students related to each other.
Figure 2 One team sharing and communicating their different understandings and interpretations.
As the projects began, we could see how the participants immediately started to engage with each other, inviting to a shared dialogue, asking questions and listening to each other’s thoughts and perspectives on the project. As one participant wrote: “The strength was that we took part of each others thoughts” (No 1, 2009). This resulted in very diverse suggestions 4034
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence
and ideas, concerning both planning and content. The amount of diverse opinions and understanding seemed to propeller a need to visualise and materialize what was revealed. The complexity of thoughts, understandings and opinions did not point to a unified shared understanding and approach, but rather opened up for diversity set of approaches that needed to be processed and negotiated. Hence, participants put their thoughts and understandings on paper or with material, used white boards to sketch out ideas, put printed images and information on the walls, etc. to create a studio environment that in a very hands-on way materialised everything that had been collected. In this way, participants’ understandings and interpretations became present as physical and tactile material placed on surfaces in their studios, and thus accessible for continuous interaction and intervention between participants. The material context allowed participants to inquiry into and interfere with each other’s opinions and ideas, as it was quick and easy to create new connections between planning, materials and adding new material into the increasingly complex structures on the wall. The resulting combination of acting from several positions and being challenged by each other almost seemed to become an embodiment of a complexity. As one participants voiced: “I appeared to be one with the material as a whole since everything is there at every moment” (No 2, 2008).
Figure 3 Participants materialized understanding and opinions were discussed, argued over and contrasted through dialogue and discussions using the material context.
Indeed, in the courses where one group of participants were constantly changing teams, the material context facilitated bringing the new member into the team as it exposed earlier
4035
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
actions and discussions in a way that prompt intervention. These moving participants wrote in their reflections that they experienced the material context as a body that supported their integrating into teams and the project. Furthermore, the context supported involvement of users and stakeholders who could intertwine with the process and material, keeping it open for influence. It also enhanced dialogue and discussions between different kinds of participants. As one participant wrote: ”There is a difference between being ‘we’, being ‘I’ in a group” (No 3, 2010). The interconnection between the material context and an evolving process supported a feeling of belonging and commitment among the participants, as well as users and stakeholders. Users that participated engaged not only in discussing user experiences and evaluation but rather involved themselves, and were involved, in diverse kinds of actions and discussions. Boundaries between different kinds of expertise and knowledge somewhat dissolved and participants did not feel as confined to offering views restricted to their disciplines or experiences. As we read in one meta-reflection: “I see great potential to capitalise on each other’s experiences and knowledge and utilise that we are different individuals with different ways of thinking in a project” (No 4, 2010).
Figure 4 Participants discussing concepts together.
While participants modified, elaborated or contrasted each other’s understanding and opinions of the planning by raising their voices and arguing with each other they related to
4036
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence
the material context. In reflections participants wrote that the overall planning changed over time due to what they explored and how their discussions developed. However, at times these ways of relating to each other broke down and the teams started to act in another way. For instance, we could observe taking turns leading give way as certain participants started to act as leaders, structuring up the process along known ways of doing design. Such acting leaders wrote in their reflections that they had experienced the process as uncertain and wanted more control, and on occasion that they did not really trust others to make certain choices or decisions.
Figure 5 Occasionally some participants started to act as leaders and divided other participants into different tasks.
At times of breakdown, teams showed tendencies of splitting up into groups of permanent participants and non-permanent participants. Members took on more individualistic work and distributed tasks between them based on perceived competence and knowledge. Results were then brought into the process for feedback and critique. In these situations, there would also be less interaction, as the unwillingness to interfere with each other’s work made them stay within their own dedicated knowledge or competence area. The non-permanent participants (such as the ones moving between teams, participants from non-design educations and ‘users’ etc.) reacted in different ways. Some felt resignation and
4037
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
accepted the leadership for a while, others more irritated and suffering from a lack of motivation. In the written reflections, participants nevertheless described this to be an efficient way of working, relying on methods and processes experienced in former projects knowing they ensure a successful result. Others thought about it as a fear to ‘loose ones face’, as one participant reflected: “The risk increases to avoid saying anything that is not in its place, that you feel you do not have the authority to express a particular opinion or idea. With roles will also hierarchies arise, the hierarchies of a fear of losing one’s place.” (No 5, 2010)
Figure 6 Participants divided into different subdivisions in one team.
Non-permanent participants felt they were in a power structure and hence insecure concerning their position in the team as they perceived the others as more knowledgeable. In some reflections there are also tendencies towards temporary separation between genders, and participants experienced while either male or female participants acted as leaders it some times developed into power structure. Although the teams sometimes discussed it as an issue, it seemed to be a situation that remained unsolved and only were mentioned in reflections. Furthermore, participants coming from the non-design educations at times experienced a dual feeling of either not thinking of having the knowledge to steer the discussion or being in 4038
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence
a position to make statements. This was clearly uncomfortable, and they pointed out that they did not feel this was the right way to deal with the issue, but rather a way to cope when knowledge are seen as an authority or in majority.
Figure 7 Every team in all five project courses were to present a final concept to their external stakeholders. This is one final concept, out of five in one project course, of a driving seat conducted with a truck manufacturer as the external stakeholder. The general brief was set around driver ergonomics and acts of sitting and driving. Although all of the teams presented reliable concepts, one of the teams developed a conceptual model of a new driver’s seat where sustainability and ergonomics was considered quite innovative. The conceptual work and the model later was awarded in the competition ‘International Interior Motives Design Award’, and won the first price in the category ‘Best Safety Innovation 2009’ at a ceremony at Frankfurt Motor Show, 2009, (http://www.interiormotivesawards.com).
Representation and Pluralism To understand and explore differences between the two ‘paths’ of doing design together emerging in our studies, we need new concepts and articulations. Trying to unpack our
4039
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
findings using the notion of ‘work’ and ‘action’ (Arendt, 1958) and ‘plural radical democracy’ (Mouffe, 2005), we suggest that the two tendencies can be interpreted as on one hand a culture of pluralism and on the other one of representation, First, however, we need to return to the fundamental methodology for multi-disciplinary design as in the divergence-transformation-convergence process (cf. Jones, 1992) aiming to handle complexity and align production process and design process for mass-production. A divergence-convergence process enhances coordination, control and efficiency as it structures core design activities: analysis, synthesis and evaluation. As such it also explicate a plan for when and how to invite diverse knowledge and expertise, e.g. user in user evaluation or stakeholders in decision meetings. This is clearly a structure when invitation and involvement is based on how a given individual can be said to represent particular knowledge, expertise or perspectives. If we return to the experiments described here, we found this representative approach to doing design together, but we also found alternatives. In a representative culture participants embraced a reliable structure as a means to an end. Here, participants trusted a leader to steer the process while others became divided into different tasks and roles depending on their knowledge and skills. The material context was used more sequentially, and contrasting opinions were not picked up or challenged as participants hesitated to interfere with each other. This might be described as a stable structure when participants, somewhat separated from each other, acted from specific and relatively fixed positions. In the approach we call a pluralism culture, we found another kind of doing design. Participants integrated their knowledge and experience without thinking of it as a designated task. Participants acted as clearly distinct individuals, raising theirs opinions but also taking on ‘the others’ position’ as they embodied an increasing complexity and approached it from multiple perspectives. Issues of how diverse knowledge and perspectives are brought in at distinct stages of the process were more or less completely dissolved, and participants and users engaged with the whole rather than different parts at a time. This seemed rather to be an unstable structure, although solid framed by time limits and outer requirements, when participants approached a material context moving between multiple interpretations. There seems to be two different way of coming together, one as ‘what’ one is, and the other as ‘who’ one is. This is close to the notions of ‘work’ and ‘action’ (Arendt, 1958). Work is suggested as a means to and end, reliance on proven structures, and a making. Even though we work together, we act separately from each other. In ‘action’, we come together through language and action in concert, raising our opinion as ‘who’ we are and a shared community may occur (Arendt, 1958, 2004, 2005). By starting unpredictable new beginnings we create a chain of actions. As people are seen and heard in a community, there is also power within that community. The ‘in-between’ people create is a ‘world’, a political space (Arendt, 2005). Returning to our paths of pluralism culture and representative culture, we will further examine how these paths might be understood in context of ‘work’ and ‘action’.
4040
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence
In representative culture participants acted as separate from each other although sharing a common goal with the project. They related to each other rather instrumental as ‘what’ they were depending on ‘what’ action was needed in their process though it was efficient and controllable. Division of participants supported a one-perspective-position on the material and in discussions. Furthermore the material context was routinely treated and planning organised in stages. In pluralism culture participants and users interfered in discussions not seeing themselves as experts or as representing particular knowledge. By raising their opinions, individuals were present as ‘who’ they were, coming together in what we have previously discussed as ’Design Togetherness’ (Lindh Karlsson & Redström, 2015). They acted as distinct to each other although moved and shifted between several positions. The material context invited and supported exploration of the whole through minor divergent processes that propelled the process forward.
Adversary plural culture These tendencies towards a pluralism culture and its relation to what Arendt’s describes as ‘action’ can be developed further in the light of Chantal Mouffe’s notion of radical plural democracy (Mouffe, 2005). Radical plural democracy emphasizes dissent and difference as means to constructively include minorities and different opinions. As Mouffe argues, “In a modern democratic society there can no longer be a substantial unity, and division must be recognised as constitutive.” (Mouffe, 2005, pp. 51). This points to a view of identities as relational and that every identity depends on a confirmation of difference. Seeing others in a collective, include seeing others as them, and when differences negating our identity a we/them relation occur (Mouffe, 2005, pp.2-3). While democracy as such have several interpretations in general, they all value freedom, equality and equal distributions of means to support a balance between people and protection of human rights. Representative democracy distributes authority through elections to representatives, hence have government by people through representation. Thus, it can be argued that as representative democracy rules by majority it risk exclusion of minorities. Radical plural democracy values equality and freedom but emphasizes dissent and differences as means to include minorities and different opinions such as about gender and worldviews. Radical plural democracy challenges consensus through majority by emphasising antagonism and the relation between ‘we and them’. This is a kind of friend/enemy relation where enemy should be understood as a respected ‘adversary’. Another important statement that Mouffe (2005) makes related to our inquiry concern how identities, although they belong to different communities, also take several positions and makes diverse interpretations. The notion of radical plural democracy is a paradox, and exists only as it cannot be reached, it is a “democracy to come” (Mouffe, 2005, p.5). In our case, such perspectives imply that certain aspects of design, certain actions, might have to be kept open for diversity and not be forced to converge.
4041
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
Indeed, we argue that what happens in the situations referred to pluralism design culture above, i.e. when participants interfere, interact and integrate with each other in a process scaffold by an evolving material context, can be interpreted as matters of ‘action’ and ‘radical plural democracy’. While participants acted in relation to each other, although distinct and rather engaged in investigating ‘the others opinions’ from multiple positions, they created a community and as such also a political space where voices could be raised and actions taken. In the way that participants investigated, challenged and explored content, process and the ‘other’ through disagreement, discussions and dialogue from multiple positions, they formed a ‘we and them’. As such, they acted within a kind of shared political space where different kinds of participants engaged together from multiple positions resisting convergence. Even though they also agreed in many ways, they kept matters open for discussions and dialogue, as a result creating conditions for divergence to unfold. This presents a shift from articulating concepts of doing design together where convergence and consensus is reached through representation. This points to a notion of doing design together as a process not ideally converging towards consensus but instead as a process of unfolding divergence within a political space still oriented towards a shared whole. This presents a break with representative culture, and the idea of collaboration as the bringing in of experts at given points in a design process.
Concluding remarks Given the role of design in the interactions between industrial production, people and the world we live in, it is necessary to examine how industrial design deal with diversity in different kinds of doing design together. Indeed, we think it is necessary to revisit basic methodology with respect to relations, asking questions about what and who is included, what and who is excluded and how these decisions affect doing design together. With this, we want to inquire into aspects of difference, in terms of knowledge and experience. In particular, we are interested in what kinds of politics we may find, and to understand what directions industrial design education and design practice might take in the future in relation to this. In the project courses we have discussed here, we found that participants related to each other in their processes in two different ways. One oriented around seeing others as ‘what’, as representing certain knowledge, coming together as ‘I’ in a process based on division of labour, explicit stages and roles based on expertise. However, we also found another one, in which participants related to each other as ‘we and them’, coming together through constructive dialogue, discussions and argumentation shifting and moving between several positions within a kind of ‘political space’. When cutting through and bending perspectives in an evolving situation and its materiality, they created a whole where nuances, sensibilities and differences extended smaller divergence processes. While design practice’s relation to industry, mass-production and mass-consumption seems to require and reward efficiency and control in doing design together, these offer a
4042
Design Togetherness, Pluralism and Convergence
particular kind of politics and relation to diversity by a claim of expertise knowledge as authority, and coordination as rationalisation. This might be useful when design is involved in certain kinds of production aiming for efficient and controllable unified and universal mass-production of goods and artifacts. However, the relation between producer, designer and consumer is constantly evolving in response to bigger economical, societal and cultural changes. Over time, this also calls for changes in the ‘social contracts’ a given way of doing design builds on. With this, we aim to make a contribution to how such changes, and how to articulate the challenges they bring to our artistic and methodological foundations, can be understood.
References Arendt, H. (1958) Human Conditions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Arendt, H. (2004) Philosophy of Politics. Social Research. Vol: 71. No. 3: Fall 2004. Arendt, H. (2005) The Promise of Politics. New York: Schocken Books. Cross. N. (2011) Design Thinking. Oxford: Berg. Design Council. (2015) Design Academy. Retriewed 2015-11-16, from http://tinyurl.com/qyh5rhk/ Dilnot, C. (2014) Unpublished manuscript / DRS 2014 debate ’No Future’. Dilnot, C. (2015) Design and the Questions of History. London: Bloomsbury. Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. M. and Topgaard, R. (eds.) 7 (2014). Making Futures. Marginal Notes on Innovation, Design, and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press Fallan, Kjetil (ed.) (2012) Scandinavian design: alternative histories. Oxford: Berg. Jones, J. C. (1992) Design Methods (2nd edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lindh Karlsson, M. & Redström, J. (2015) Design Togetherness. In Proceedings of Nordes 2015: Design Ecologies (No 6). http://tinyurl.com/zhry95x, (Accessed 14 March, 2016). Lindinger, H. (ed.) (1991) Ulm Design: The Morality of Objects. Cambridge: MIT Press. Manzini, E. (2015) Design, When Everybody Designs. An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Mouffe, C. (2005) The Return of the Political (2nd edition). London: Verso. Norman, D. (2013) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
4043
Monica Lindh Karlsson and Johan Redström
About the Authors: Monica Lindh Karlsson is Senior Lecturer at Umeå Institute of Design, with a background as a professional designer. After 10 years she returned to UID as program director for the BFA-program. In 2013 she started her PhD education at UID. Johan Redström is Rector and Professor at Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University, Sweden. Redström’s main research interests are experimental and emerging forms of design, combining research through design with design philosophy.
4044
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal Janaina Teles Barbosaa, Maria Hellström Reimerb and João Almeida Motaa* a
Aveiro University Malmö University *joaomota@ua.pt DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.393
b
Abstract: Western contemporary cities are investing in interactive spaces that promote passive participation through consumption. At the same time there are collaborative networks emerging in those urban areas enabling new forms of participation for the common good. One of the questions design research can raise is how design practices can assist in creating spaces that facilitate processes of commoning. This paper focuses on participatory processes in temporary spaces through the aesthetic experience. The concepts of “commons/commoning” and cocreation are examined from the perspective of Design for Social Innovation, Design Activism and Participatory Design. In this sense, this paper aims to critically analyse an experimental, interdisciplinary and cross-sectorial initiative setting up in a coastal urban community in Portugal. The project explored the possibilities to strengthen community relationships through design collaborations and encounters between different local capacities. Keywords: common spaces, aesthetic experiences, collaborative initiatives, urban areas
Introduction In post-industrial cities with economies targeted to the development of technological systems and services, the promotion of innovation through cultural activities is becoming a standard urban development strategy. Committed to attract creative minds, cities make their best to create an image of themselves as socially and culturally dynamic, a competitive model that also contributes to gentrification through the overvaluation of some urban areas at the expense of others. Consequently, cultural planning or the use of artistic practices may have negative consequences, such as the exclusion of a great part of the local population from innovation processes, or sustaining limited relationship based upon enclosure (Deutsche 1996; Mathews 2010). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota
Parallel to innovation-oriented strategies, culture-driven micro-practices of management of urban spaces have emerged. These practices aim to solve everyday problems by stimulating horizontal decision-making processes, such as urban gardening or co-housing spaces. Different from innovation, these processes can be analysed in terms of "commoning", which opens up possibilities to experience new forms of urban co-creation and work with local resources for developing a collaborative culture (Seravalli 2014). Taking into account this process, the present study investigates how design can contribute to the mediating between current urban development strategies and initiatives of commoning. Many design approaches have been developed to encourage public participation in innovation processes. In the Social Innovation field, design practices have emerged enabling users that adjust elements following progressive solutions (Manzini 2007). Design Activism takes this interaction a step further, exploring the potential for aesthetic practices in urban environments not only to affect people’s perceptions but to actively change the power dynamics and allow for new ways to establish relationships and collaborations (Markussen 2013; Fuad-Luke 2012; Markussen 2013; Thorpe 2012). The Participatory Design discussion is moving from issues of ‘democracy at work` to broader democratic matters of citizenship and public engagement (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012). Therefore, this paper argues that for a community to cultivate creativity and develop a political culture of participation applied to daily collective challenges, it requires spaces that allow open collaborations among different local capacities. Thus, the main research question of this study concerns this spatial accommodation: How can design practices assist in creating spaces that facilitate processes of commoning and enable people to take part in social progressive change? In this sense, this study is focusing on the interdisciplinary efforts of creating participatory processes through micro social practices in urban communities. It is an approach that also faces the transition to more sustainable cities from the socio-cultural perspective through changes of habits and worldviews. Consequently, it is a qualitative analysis of collaboration networks established during the development of a project of co-creation of a temporary common space in the Portuguese city of Aveiro. The paper intends to articulate the factors that enabled the activation of participation, including the local effects in terms of empowerment. Section 2 explores the process in terms of commoning including the role of design research in the design for commoning. Section 3 presents the methodology and the collected evidences from the fieldwork. Section 4 points out the results and discussions. Finally, section 5 sets the conclusions.
4046
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
Participation for commoning Commoning process The notion of “commons” refers to the collective use of natural resources of the planet claimed as common good for everybody through informal situations. It can also refer to resources that people share and do not need to pay for (Hardin 1968; Ostrom 1990). The concept is also discussed by De Angelis and Stavrides (2010) as a complex process of social production involving human knowledge, languages, social practices, forms of relationships, affectivity, etc. In this context, the political perspective of commons challenges the idea of development through the accumulation of capital and the increase of consumption. Instead, the notion of commons opens up new perspectives of collaborative practices as alternative ways of life, including alternatives for the development of a “sharing economy”, where every form of experience has an economic value independent of the rules of private corporations (Ostrom 1990). In their analysis of present societal orders, Hardt and Negri (2009) also argue that the economic system itself creates conditions for the production of commons. The economy based on "immaterial labour" brought collaborative production of more sustainable livelihoods through an increased knowledge exchange in the virtual world. In spite of the fact that the authors identify a possible production of commons within the neoliberal system, they also point to the emergence of strong control mechanisms regulating the commons and thus also changing its political sense. These aforementioned changes are conducted by integrating commons as a subculture within the cultural hegemony, translating its meaning in a benevolent social practice, instrumental for perpetuating the neoliberal agenda (Hebdige 1979). De Angelis (2010) points out three elements that characterize commons. First, every common involves necessary resources, which are not commodities such as natural supplies, mobility, housing and food, communication, etc. Second, commons are necessarily supported by communities that share resources and establish rules for its access and usability. These communities are not restricted to certain sites, but able to operate in multiple locations. They are also non-homogeneous in cultural terms. The third aspect is their groundedness in action. The “commons” is in this respect not a noun but a verb, common-ing, i.e. a continuous social process that creates and plays the commons (Linebaugh, 2008). Thus, resources, communities and continuous negotiations is what identifies commons and “commoning processes” (De Angelis and Stavrides 2010; Seravalli 2014). In terms of the spatiality of commons, some questions are raised like the territorial dispute of power, the distribution of resources and the access to basic human rights. These issues reveal conflicts and are not welcome by current urban planning strategies, which advocate open spaces for the production of experiences within the limits of "colourful environments" directed for "cordial encounter" (Reimer 2011). In this sense, how can design contribute to
4047
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota
enhance situations able to ground transitional spaces where forms of negotiations are tested for processes of commoning?
Designing participation in design research Participation as commoning is related to the collective construction of new forms of collaboration in which top-down decision structures are challenged. Participation in design is linked with co-creation that aims the progressive improvement of mutual learning between different stakeholders, from problem definition to the implementation of the design in real life (Fuad-Luke 2012). This field involves different emerging approaches in design practices and design research. This paper uses three concepts that might enable a deeper understanding of the design practice as commoning: diffuse creativity, disruptive aesthetic and democratic innovation. First, in the field of Design for social innovation, common spaces are open fields for the exchange of experiences and worldviews, in this way facilitating solutions to the problems of everyday life. As spaces for exchanges, they must be built, activated and appropriated also through co-creation with different stakeholders. These spaces are essential to the promotion of a "diffuse creativity" fostered by communities through collaborative meeting cultures, facilitating the invention and managing of innovative solutions for new forms of urban life (Manzini 2007). Second, Design activism research develops designedly ways of intervening in people's lives exploring the interference of material objects in the public sphere and in urban environments. Instead of entirely breaking with paradigms of traditional power, activist design projects use a "disruptive aesthetic" creating "contest, revelation and dissensus" from within the social order. Thus, from this point of view, it is in the intersection between the political and the aesthetic that it is possible to understand the effects of these practices on the daily life (Markussen 2013). Third, the “design things” approach proposes a transition from understanding the innovation of a technocratic process led by experts and focused on the production of objects and services to a "democratic innovation" process motivated by the relationships established between the different actors involved, in which new opportunities are pointed out and explored. "Things" are recognized as socio-material assembly processes resulting from relevant issues located at a certain time through disputes between various stakeholders (Bjögvinsson et al. 2012). For the production of "things" it is by necessity of direct participation in the co-creation process. The invitation to participate in "democratic design experiments" is an active and delicate matter of proposing alternative possibilities to prompt curiosity and ambiguity, in order to activate the participants desire for interference (Binder, Brandt, Ehn, and Halse 2015). The diagram below (Fig. 1) visualizes how these concepts previously presented are connected in this research. The concepts of design research — diffuse creativity, disruptive aesthetic and democratic innovation — are related to the three elements that identify
4048
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
commoning process — resources, communities and continuous negotiations. Together, these concepts provide a preliminary analytical map for design participation for commoning.
Figure 1 Analytical map made by the authors.
The case study The evidence sources were collected in the city of Aveiro, in June and October 2015. Aveiro is a city with 78.000 inhabitants being an important university and tourist town of Portugal (EU 2014). The studied project is called Viva Cidade, which means "Living City". It was one of the 10 selected projects in Europe forming part of the program “Actors of Urban Change” coordinated by the Cultural Foundation Robert Bosch. The purpose of the international program was “to achieve sustainable and participatory urban development through cultural activities” (Surwitto-Hahn and Schwegmann 2015). The application required the participation of three sectors of society (public, private and civil society) and included a budget of 10,000 Euros. The core team of the Viva Cidade project consisted of: a representative of the City Hall of Aveiro working in the urban planning department; a director of a small enterprise working in the promotion of cultural and design projects; and a president of an Non Governmental Organization (NGO) founded by students of the Aveiro University, working within the field of social innovation. During the design process the team worked with professionals from the fields of design, arts, education, architecture and urban planning. The project took place over 18 months between the autumn of 2013 and the summer of 2015 reaching about 250 people. It was carried out in a small space (around 15x8 metres) located in a residential neighbourhood, where of 20% of the residents are youths, most of them university students, 60% are adults and 20% are elderly people (INE 2011). The problem highlighted by the project was the distance between the academic and local community, beyond the lack of participatory channels between both the citizens and public
4049
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota
sector. Thus, one of the main objectives of the project was to promote the interaction between the university and the local community, building possible bridges of dialogue with the municipality and the local businesses. The Viva Cidade project was chosen as a case study because it presents experimental strategies for designing participation for commoning in a small urban neighbourhood, as well as the fact that the project was proposed by a foreign cultural institution representing a top-down proposal. Moreover, it also brought a relevant design challenge experiencing micro scale strategies that could promote a neutral space in which negotiations occur between top-down and bottom-up perspectives. The project proposes the possibility of negotiations between the three sectors of society with a team of designers and nondesigners. Participant observation was used to collect data in the field. In order to map conflicts and challenges, qualitative interviews were carried out with representatives of the three sectors involved in the project. Moreover, qualitative questionnaires were applied to the local residents and contributors of the project in order to identify possible effects of the experience in their lives. The collected data was interpreted using the encoding method in order to connect the information and the commoning concepts in the analysis (Saldana 2009). In this sense, the codes revealed three categories of understanding: engagement, collaboration and empowerment. The figure below indicates in which stage of the project each category was more present. However, these categories are not linear and intersect each other during the process. Subsequently, the subsections describe the stages of the project before the analysis of each category in the next section.
Figure 2 First stage, the core team started the activation of the participation process. Second stage, activating collaborations expanded the team. Third stage, the community was empowered through internal and external collaborations. “Others” refer the residents from outside of the neighbourhood. Diagram made by the authors.
4050
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
First stage This stage lasted one year when there was the process of engagement with both the local and university community towards the co-creation of a collective proposal, according to the following aspects: Collection of memories: Collection of memories through storytelling of the elderly residents in one of the oldest neighbourhoods of the city. Communicating: Mobilization process of the residents and the academic community through the creation of a visual identity, public presentations at the university and artistic interventions in the neighbourhood. Short videos with the memories of the neighbourhood were released in social networks and added to support local media that followed the entire project implementation. Meetings and designing: Four meetings were held with residents, students and interested professionals. Each meeting brought together around 25 people. The meetings were carried out through participation methods (Fig. 3 and 4) that facilitated both the collective choice of the space and the co-creation of the final proposal that could gather the expectations of stakeholders. The final selected space was one of the City Hall properties, which was temporarily provided until the construction of a street already projected for this location. It was located in a central and visible area of the city, being a strategic space to test the methodology of the project.
Figure 3 "City Mapping: Flat the Spot!�. Participants mapping the favourite and non-favourite spots of the neighbourhood with green and red flags. This technique allowed identifying ideas, desires, and collective concerns. Photo by Viva Cidade, commented by authors.
4051
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria HellstrĂśm Reimer and JoĂŁo Almeida Mota
Figure 4 "World CafĂŠ". Participants were divided into groups of 6-7 people with the challenge of responding to the problems raised in a previous meeting. Photo by Viva Cidade, commented by authors.
Sharing and changing: The final proposal was the transformation of a space in a small and cosy common area, with street furniture; a wall made of tiles with caricatures of the residents and a vertical garden (Fig. 8). A picnic was also organized by the participants in the chosen location, where the proposal was presented to a wider community. Displayed on panels and in a large format, the proposal was open to criticism and to new proposals (Fig. 5). Before the intervention two more meetings were held in order to develop co-creation strategies to seek for the necessary resources. Around 20 contributors, including local businesses and patrons had provided material resources and services needed for the construction. Most of the materials were recycled from civil construction activities.
4052
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
Figure 5 Public exhibition of the participatory process and proposal for the common space. Photo by Viva Cidade, commented by authors.
Second stage This stage was carried out during two weeks through extensive local collaborations, including the following activities: Open Lab: A small abandoned house near the selected space was provided by the owner and turned into a temporary open lab (Fig. 6).
Figure 6 Open lab: Space collectively refurbished for the purpose of carrying out workshop activities, storing materials and tools, in addition to functioning as a meeting place. Photo by Viva City, interfered by authors.
4053
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota
Making-learning activities: During three weeks, beyond the initial participants, civil organizations, artistic groups and students were involved voluntarily in different creative workshops and interactive activities. Street furniture: This workshop began with the construction of wooden cubes that were distributed around the neighbourhood with the intention “to extend a literal and easily understandable invitation to build collectively” (Surwitto-Hahn and Schwegmann 2015). After that, the environment developed through the production of benches and tables, consequently starting to build up the environment. The first prototypes were exposed making it possible for the public to comment, replicate and further stylize (Fig. 7).
Figure 7 Collaborative construction of street furniture done through a mutual learning process. Photo by Viva Cidade, commented by authors.
4054
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
Figure 8 Final event of the project with the built physical space. Photo by authors.
Third stage This stage represents the real effects of the project. According to both the observations and interviews, the area gained new social relations and affections by the residents that live around the space. Some residents feel in charge of the space to take care of the community garden, furniture, cleaning and maintenance. The space and surroundings gained a certain visibility after the project was implemented with the support of the local media, being verified the constant use of the new space by people living inside and outside the neighbourhood.
Results and Discussion Engagement: Designing participation The category of engagement is seen in developed methods and practices working to transcend enclosure and open to the involvement of new commoners, as well as its effects in the power dynamics established in the decision making process. Thus, engagement is analysed in spaces between the community and the project proposal; and among the members of the proponent team. The interviews revealed in the initial phase a conflict of generations due to the strong disbelief of older residents participating in the project. They did not believe in it as it was being driven by younger people who also led its implementation. To break this barrier the strategy was to gain the confidence of some elderly people and more communicative residents in the neighbourhood. Mapping and discussing at round tables, having coffee
4055
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota
together and providing a more playful setting made it possible for the participants to play with the territory and develop a critical view of the neighbourhood. The interaction between the three social sectors (public, private and NGO) enabled constant negotiations of conflicting interests, concessions and understandings. In spite of the fact that the municipality provided human resources to work in the project, there was a constant effort by the project promoters to legitimize the project in the eyes of the public institution, as well as to deal with the strong bureaucratic pressure imposed by the local government. Thus, the representative of the public sector in the project team participated as a mediator between the project proposal and the City Hall interests. The fact that the chosen space was a City Hall property interfered in the effectiveness of the commoning process. After the end of the meetings with the participants, in which the project proposal was discussed, co-created and approved by them, eight months passed until the start of its implementation. The main reason for that was the delayed bureaucratic process of the “approval” of the final proposal by the City Hall. After so many months, the project was finally “authorized” by the institution mainly through the pressure imposed by the Robert Bosh Foundation, which was the foreigner funding institution. Finally, the temporary space proposed by the project was “approved” as a "public space of the municipality". These evidences reflected some distrust of the public sector when facing a more horizontal and decentralized participatory process, which is related with a “common space” rather than with a “public space”. According to Stavrides(2016), while the concept of “public space” is officially introduced as a space for everyone within the rules imposed by top-down decisions, “common space” is related to the common good which is managed by a group of people through more decentralized decision-making processes. Thus, in common spaces participation becomes a dynamic process of collaboration between different capacities in which horizontal and decentralized models of participation are constantly tested. Thus, the negotiation process that occurred during the project Viva Cidade revealed the unbalance in terms of decision-making processes, in which the NGO and the local enterprise had little power in the ultimate decision comparing with the municipality. This change of meaning led by the City Hall is an evidence of its resistance in understanding and accepting commoning as a resourceful strategy in dealing with areas of the city that are in a process of rapid programmatic changes. Therefore, instead of making public this experience, the municipality strived to communicate this project to a larger audience as a top-down achievement led by its representatives. Indeed, this project was categorized to fit into an array of social sensitive projects of the municipality, which became instrumental for the municipality, not only feeding the list of social achievements but also reinforcing its political agenda to a wider public. This fact removed some of the potentiality of the project to promote changes, losing its authenticity and autonomy. Finally, this particular project reveals a critical point in the process for commoning mediated by design when it has to deal with different levels of decision. At this point, design runs the
4056
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
risk of ending in an imaginary construction of a false democratic consensus between the involved parties (Mouffe 2013). Instead of performing a limited role of mediation, the design practice as a "democratic experiment" could facilitate socio-material conditions for controversial issues, making "things" public in direct engagement (Binder et al. 2015). Thus, in this particular project the matters of concern for the activation of direct participation were hidden and smoothened through the traditional “democratic” process. Consequently, this compromised the effectiveness of the commoning process.
Collaboration: Collaborative aesthetic experience The category of collaboration was identified by joint efforts for the construction of the temporary space through collaborative aesthetic experience or the “aesthetic experience” for commoning. The aesthetic experience in Heidegger (1977) takes place through sensory appropriation of the artistic object by the observer who gives meaning to the artwork. Thus, the basis of its existence is addressed in the dynamic interplay between the object, the creator and the observer. This notion can be associated with the "poietic activity" of design practice, directly linked to its effects in the social reality. The understanding of the notion of "poietic activity" in design can be expanded as the aesthetic that activates the participation of individuals in a collective environment following a change of meanings (Carlsson 2010) or interfering in the established subjective structures (Guattari 2005) building new worldviews and changing individual habits. Thus, assembling existing resources activated the aesthetic experience in the case study. Since the project budget was limited, it was necessary to look for contributors who could donate their working time or material resources that would make the project to happen. This was made possible through the activation of the networks of each person involved. The local residents were able to negotiate with the owner of the space to temporarily provide an "open lab"; a neighbour temporarily provided electricity for the space; the municipality managed the donation of wasted construction materials; and the local entrepreneurs have got support from local businesses. Moreover, the implementation of the proposal as an "open lab" was also important for the activation of the space. The maintenance of the space was made collectively, adding new meanings to the place. It functioned as a living laboratory harbouring constant exchange of knowledge through interaction in workshops and through informal conversations. Finally, the construction of the wooden furniture put in place the final proposal to create a cosy common area. Rather than providing functional objects, relations and feelings were shared among the participants through the production. Thus, in the collaborative aesthetic experience of Viva Cidade project, the three elements highlighted by Heidegger (1977) - object, creator and observer - merge into a given space and time thought the shared "poietic activity" (Carlsson 2010), presented as a spatial experience that seeks meaning through the process of mutual making and learning among individuals with different knowledge. The management of scarce resources offered capabilities of urban resilience to the participants, which is one of the aspects highlighted by the commoning processes as way to less neoliberal economic dependences (Stavrides 2016).
4057
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota
However, no design strategies were identified to promote more effective commoning in the neighbourhood. This weaknesses of the project were identified at the moment of construction of the space, in which all the practical parts of the project were in the hands of a younger group of people with specialized artistic and design skills, without the involvement of neighbourhood residents in coordination and leadership activities. The concern about the “beauty” of the final space overlaps the collaborative aesthetic experience in mutual exchange of experiences. This was conditioned by the concentration of practical activities of the project in only three weeks, putting great expectations and demands on the coordination of the project. This meant that many activities were not completed leading to criticism from some residents, who felt dependent on some of the experts who were no longer there at the last stages of the project. These evidences are related with the third empowerment category.
Empowerment: “Designing for commoning?” The temporary spaces produced by the project can be considered as a "threshold space" towards commoning, which are attempted to control the inherent potentialities of crossing, connecting while separating and separating while connecting (Stavrides 2016). The new creative commons emerging today provide wide possibilities, developing beyond geographic limitations into virtual networks, penetrating in commodities and institutionalized spaces, producing non-finalized and fragmented commons, managing new ways to operationalize the urban system (Reimer 2011). In this sense, from the perspective of physical space was observed that the space was used by the neighbours to place traditional parties, as well as to attend the necessity of having a meeting place in that area. However, it was observed that only two residents took the initiative to take care of the space in the first months after its implementation. Many design efforts were identified to establish collaborations with bottom-up initiatives of social and cultural organizations of the city of Aveiro, despite the lack of strategy that could focus on the residents that live around the built space, which would continue to give life to the place and would allow the production of commons between them in an autonomous way. Although the materiality of the space was temporary, the collective experience was disseminated by people who participated in the development of other spaces in the city. According to the collected evidences, the establishment of a social relationships and affection for the neighbourhood was observed within the community. Beyond this specific community, it was verified that this project inspired other specific measures in the city, such as the integration of new participatory strategies by a local business association that aims to activate the local market in one of the most central city streets. The methodology of the project has been integrated in urban strategies of the City Hall of Aveiro in order to engage the residents in future decision-making processes. The university has been producing academic design projects, which investigate the participatory processes for social innovation in Portugal.
4058
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
Conclusion This paper presents a qualitative analysis of an experimental, interdisciplinary and intersectorial design project of co-creation of a temporary space in a small neighbourhood of the city of Aveiro, Portugal. The study was based on the concept of common and commoning, suggesting in the first part of the text a preliminary analytical map of design participation for commoning, in which the elements of commons were visualized (resource, community and negotiation) and its relationship with co-creation approaches developed by design research (diffuse creativity, disruptive aesthetic and democratic innovation). The mapping has resulted in three categories of analysis presented in the case study: engagement, collaboration and empowerment. It is argued that the design practices for commoning require temporary spaces that allow dynamic collaborations though negotiations among different capacities within the community and outside of it. Thus, the aim of this paper was to analyse how the participation was designed for commoning in this specific case study. In this study five further aspects have been highlighted. First, the notion of commons and commoning in design helped clarify the value of abilities developed through making things together, in which new forms of communication and stages of negotiation are constantly tested forward to respond matters of concerns in participation processes. Second, the aesthetic dimension of design applied to social dynamics allowed for an understanding of participation as a collaborative experience process through learning, teaching and doing together. Third, the negotiation process revealed the power inherent in urban territorial relations, especially in the ways in which institutions and civil society position themselves. Fourth, the project also identified the risks of participatory design projects and more horizontal and decentralized participatory culture when applied from top-down. Finally, the autonomy of participatory processes depends on extensive interdisciplinary collaboration. Rather than facilitating shared decision-making processes, design practices have the role of articulating new forms of emerging public matters of concern that influence and change people's life. Acknowledgements: This research work was supported by the National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES)- Ministry of Education of Brazil. This research is hosted at the research group: Strategy and Sustainability of the Portuguese Research Institute of Design, Media and Culture (ID+). Thanks to the contribution of Dr. Rui Miguel Ferreira Roda for supporting the development of the research project at the Aveiro University.
References Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P., & Halse, J. (2015) Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory, CoDesign- International Journal of CoCreation in Design and Arts, 11:3-4, pp 152165 BjÜgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012) Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges, Design Issues, 28(3), pp. 101–116.
4059
Janaina Teles Barbosa, Maria Hellström Reimer and João Almeida Mota
Carlsson, A. L. (2010) The Aesthetic and the Poietic Elements of Information Design. In 2010 14th International Conference Information Visualisation, pp. 450–454, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org, (Accessed 2 July, 2015). De Angelis, M., & Stavrides, S. (2010) On the Commons: A Public Interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides. E-Flux, An Architektur, 17(June-August), pp. 1–17, http://worker01.eflux.com, (Accessed 15 February, 2016). Deutsche, R. (1996) Evictions: Art and spatial politics, MIT Press. EU. (2014) Eurostat / Regional Statistics Illustrated, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat, (Accessed 9 March, 2016). Fuad-Luke, A. (2012) Design activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world, Earthscan. Guattari, F. (2005) The three ecologies, Bloomsbury Academic. Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons, Science, 162(3859), pp. 1243–1248. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009) Commonwealth, Harvard University Press. Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Contemporary Sociology, Methuen & Co. Ltd. Heidegger, M. (1977) A Origem da Obra de Arte, edições 70. INE. (2011) Statistics Portugal, https://www.ine.pt, (Accessed 10 January, 2016). Linebaugh, P. (2008) The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All, University of California Press. Manzini, E. (2007) The scenario of a multi-local society: creative communities, active networks and enabling solutions, in J. Chapman & N. Gant (eds.), Designers, visionaries and other Stories: A Collection of Sustainable Design Essays, pp. 78–93, Earthscan. Markussen, T. (2013) The disruptive aesthetics of design activism: Enacting design between art and politics, Design Issues, 29(1), pp. 38–50. Mathews, V. (2010) Aestheticizing space: Art, gentrification and the city. Geography Compass, 4(6), pp. 660–675. Mouffe, C. (2013) Agonistics: Thinking the world politically, Verso. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press. Reimer, M. H. (2011) Christiania Copenhagen: a common out of the ordinary, in A. Jorgensen & R. Keenan (eds.), Urban Wildscapes, pp. 120–130, Routledge. Saldana, J. (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage. Seravalli, A. (2014) 6 While Waiting for the Third Industrial Revolution: Attempts at Commoning Production, in Making Futures: Marginal Notes on Innovation, Design, and Democracy, pp. 99– 129, MIT Press. Stavrides, S. (2016) Common Space: The City as Commons, Zed Books. Surwitto-Hahn, A., & Schwegmann. (2015) Actors of Urban Change Program Documentation 2013– 2015. Stuttgart, http://www.bosch-stiftung.de, (Accessed 20 August, 2015). Thorpe, A. (2012) Architecture & Design versus Consumerism: How Design Activism Confronts Growth, Earthscan.
About the Authors: Janaina Teles Barbosa is a Phd candidate in design developing research about the aesthetics in processes of commoning. With a
4060
Designing participation for commoning in temporary spaces: A case study in Aveiro, Portugal
background in anthropology and arts, her interests are placed in the political sense of design and artistic practices building alternative ways of living. Maria Hellström Reimer, Professor in Design Theory, School of Arts and Communication, Malmö University, Sweden. Conducts research in the field of aesthetics, politics, and urbanism, currently within the network Architecture in Effect – Rethinking the Social in Architecture. João Almeida Mota, PhD in Design. Founding member of the Portuguese Research Institute of Design, Media and Culture (ID+). Coordinates the research group: Strategy and Sustainability. Tenured professor at University of Aveiro.
4061
This page is left intentionally blank
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use – Commoning and Infrastructuring Practices in an Open Cultural Movement Sanna Marttila Aalto University sanna.marttila@aalto.fi DOI: 10.21606/drs.2016.454
Abstract: This paper explores how design and commoning practices can contribute to sustaining open cultural commons and guarding against enclosure. Based on a longterm engagement with a cultural movement, the author examines how design activities can strengthen interaction and participation in commons-like frameworks, and describes commoning and instrastructuring practices that can support commons culture. By critically reflecting on the development of a local Finnish chapter of the OpenGLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) movement, the paper contributes to the ongoing discussion of design as infrastructuring in complex and open-ended socio-technical settings. Keywords: Commons, Commoning, Culture, Infrastructuring
Introduction Digitalization has affected nearly all aspects of our society, albeit in different ways. For cultural and memory institutions, it has created enormous potential to expand public access to their (digital) holdings and establish and renew collaborative relationships with visitors. Along with the digitizing of cultural heritage, new digital tools are also creating novel ways for people to access, appropriate and reinvent culture. Despite these developments, cultural and memory institutions are not providing as much access as they could to their digitized collections (Bellini, et al. 2014), nor are they creating good conditions for people’s creative re-use activities (Terras, 2015). For some commentators, this situation is turning into the enclosing of important parts of our cultural heritage (cf. Boyle, 2009; Hyde, 2010). This enclosing has been viewed as stemming from reasons that range from conflicting intellectual property rights, a lack of resources and knowledge inside organizations, to an unwillingness
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
Sanna Marttila
to share authority or control over their digital cultural heritage and even the fear of losing possible revenue opportunities (Verwayen, et al. 2011). The international OpenGLAM movement aims to assist galleries, libraries, archives and museums in identifying these challenges, raising awareness and finding ways to provide open access to their digital cultural heritage. In this article, I study the case of a local chapter of the OpenGLAM movement (AvoinGLAM) and its journey toward fostering the emergence of a more diverse cultural commons in Finland, by documenting and reflecting upon some of the commoning attempts of this network and related design practices. The work presented here builds on traditions that see design as an open and collective process of designing practices together – in particular, recent thinking that draws on conceptual tools surrounding the concept of the commons – to better understand new modes of participation, production and designing. The relationship between commons and design has been used to investigate collaborative creation and production (Elzenbaumer, 2014; Björgvisson, 2014; Seravalli, 2014) and has been used as a useful device for informing new discourses of participation in contemporary settings (Marttila, et al. 2014; Teli, 2015). The work is also linked to insights from community-based participatory design research that has identified a need for understanding the implications of new forms of politics and practices (DiSalvo, et al. 2012; Le Dantec & DiSalvo, 2013; Björgvisson, et al. 2010/2012; Hillgren, et al. 2011) that see design as concerned with infrastructuring. This paper thus contributes to the discussion on commoning and infrastructuring in Participatory Design by bringing insights and findings from the experiences of a value-driven cultural movement. The paper highlights the complexity of infrastructuring cultural commoning activities and shows how questions of ownership and the use of common resources are not only impacted by rules and regulations but also by cultures surrounding the infrastructures. It looks into the strategies of ongoing infrastructuring and how they aim to support and nurture cultural commoning activities, as well as the process of becoming of the open cultural commons in Finland. The empirical material is based on long-term engagement (four years), action research (e.g., interviews with key actors/organizations, designing and organizing workshops, hackathons and other activities of the network) and personal reflections on these experiences. In analyzing the materials, I ask: What kinds of design principles, practices and commoning activities contribute to the co-designing, building and sustaining of open cultural commons? The article begins by briefly introducing the concept of cultural commons and commoning, followed by a description of the case. Thereafter, I analyze the everyday commoning practices of the movement and the design as infrastructuring activities as they occurred within the movement. I conclude with a discussion on the importance of culture to creating commons.
Cultural Commons and Commoning Commons-related research has a long and established interdisciplinary tradition, and it has branched out in many directions from its roots in the study of shared natural resources and
4064
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
the communities around them (see e.g., Ostrom, 1990; Hess, 2008). Commons are often simply described as shared resources in which all parties have an equal interest and that are vulnerable to social dilemmas (Ostrom, 1990; Hess & Ostrom, 2007). Potential problems are located often in the use and especially in the over-use of shared resources, and in issues of free riding and vandalism (Hardin, 1968). In a seminal study, Ostrom (1990) analyzed more than 80 case studies of small- or medium-scale natural resource commons and identified eight “design principles” that were present in cases of long-enduring and robust commons. These principles included aspects of monitoring and collective-choice agreement (Ostrom, 1990). One of the key findings of this research tradition is that a rich and very specific set of rules has been in use in resilient commons over a long period of time, and the rules were well matched to local needs and conditions, as well as respected by surrounding authorities (Hess & Ostrom, 2007, p.7). Since scholars began to study the “information commons“ and the “knowledge commons” in the digital age, there has been increasing interest in understanding what commons could mean in other environments, such as that of cultural production (cf. Hess, 2008; Hess 2012; Madison, et al. 2010; Bertacchini, et al. 2012; Björgvinsson, 2014). Such “new commons” refer often to intangible and cumulative resources, such as knowledge pools and digital resources, which are not depleted by rivalry or overconsumption, and commons arrangements to overcome social dilemmas (Hess & Ostrom, 2007). Knowledge commons are sometimes used to refer to “institutionalized community governance of the sharing, in some cases, creation, of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of intellectual and cultural resources” (Frischmann, et al. 2014). The renewed interest in commons among scholars and practitioners emerged due to an increased threat of the commodification of culture and knowledge resources, as well as social problems and conflicts related to online resources and networks (Hess, 2012). In general, cultural commons have been referred to as cultures expressed and shared by a community, and as evolutions of cultures as a form of shared resources (Bertacchini, et al. 2012.) Cultural commons have also become a favored concept for discussing the phenomena of everyday people taking part in the processes and practices of culture institutions (e.g., crowdsourcing practices, see, e.g., Ridge, 2014) and as a device for pursuing change (Edson, 2015). While culture commons are indeed quite broad, in this paper, I will mostly focus on the cultural resources that cultural and memory institutions are responsible for preserving and creating access to, and the practices related to them. Nevertheless, I understand “cultural commons” to be evolving commons, cumulative in nature, where various positioned groups and individuals negotiate the value, creation, use and governance of diverse cultural resources. These participatory cultures not only shape our common cultural heritage and memory but also create knowledge commons and common-pool resources. It is important to notice that the discussion on cultural commons that are tangible (e.g., collections of museums) has mostly revolved around the moral and legal ownership(s) of cultural heritage artifacts (Bruncevic, 2014; Bertacchini, et al. 2012), focusing on the appropriation and enclosure of cultural sites. In relation to digital cultural commons, a threat
4065
Sanna Marttila
of enclosure arises not from the overconsumption of tangible cultural heritage artifacts but rather from debates over who has the rights – moral and legal – to access and use these resources (cf. Boyle, 2009; Hyde, 2010; Benkler, 2013). The questions of ownership in connection to digital cultural commons have spawned debates on two fronts: (a) What should be preserved in digital form, and (b) who can access and use it, and under which terms (i.e., copyrights, Digital Rights Management systems) (e.g., Marttila & Hyyppä, 2014b). These two questions are at the heart of the work of AvoinGLAM, to which I will return later. The people managing commons or being part of a commons movement are often addressed as “commoners”, recently described through the act of “commoning” – a term used to point to contemporary efforts to create a “commons culture” sustained by partnerships between actors (Pór, 2012). In short, commoning can be described as an ongoing collective action for meeting shared goals and needs (Bollier & Helfrich, 2015). It emphasizes the active nature of commons and the presence of active commoners who are taking part in the creation and maintaining of local and global commons. Initially, the term was coined as an attempt to highlight people’s activities connected to commons, rather than addressing commons only as a resource (Linebaugh, 2009). Hence, the concept of commoning highlights the idea that commons can be governed only through active social relationships; it foregrounds the social practices, traditions and rituals linked to commons (Bollier, 2014; Bollier & Helfrich, 2012). Bollier and Helfrich (2015) even stipulated that in order to understand or build any theoretical frameworks on commons, one has to “enter into a deep and ongoing engagement with the everyday practices and experiences of commoning.” I will follow this invitation through a personal reflection on the AvoinGLAM movement, which I present next.
Open Culture and AvoinGLAM The term “free culture” is a key element of Lawrence Lessig’s (2004) thinking on the rise of the digital information society and the digitalization of our everyday life. It describes how people increasingly create new, collaboratively produced cultural artifacts by building upon found content online. One of the key arguments of Lessig’s books (2001/2004) was that current intellectual property laws threaten to suffocate creativity and make people’s everyday media remix and sharing practices illegal. Instead of free culture, Lessig contends that we live in a “permission culture,” in which people can only design and create new cultural artifacts with permission from authors from the past. The Creative Commons initiative was built on this insight; it offers a design infrastructure in the form of a licensing framework and tools that can enable people to share their works with more flexible terms than that of the existing copyright regime. Creative Commons introduced a set of predefined rules for global cultural commons, which are now applied to more than 1 billion works (Creative Commons, 2015). Coinciding with this development, large digitalization and conservation projects run by cultural and memory institutions have formed and made large digital collections of our shared culture and history available. Unfortunately, in most cases, these digital vaults are not made available or accessible to the general public, even when the copyrights of the
4066
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
original artworks and cultural artifacts have expired. The idea of the OpenGLAM was born against this backdrop (December 2011) (see also Baltussen, et al. 2013). It later became an initiative of the Open Knowledge Foundation (now Open Knowledge, OK), which “promotes free and open access to digital cultural heritage held by Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums.”1 Soon after, actors in different countries founded local chapters focusing on local stakeholders and institutions. One of these is AvoinGLAM, which was founded in Finland in the spring of 2012. The mission of AvoinGLAM is to support cultural and memory institutions to open up data and content, and develop more open and transparent work practices and organizational cultures. Furthermore, AvoinGLAM promotes meaningful public access to open cultural content and stimulates the re-use of these digital cultural heritage artifacts.2 During the past four years, the AvoinGLAM initiative and network has evolved and organized different activities, events and projects. By now, the participants of the network are impossible to count, as, e.g., we do not have a membership policy, nor do we track the people who have participated in our events.3 The following schema presents selected commoning key efforts in a linear continuum: foundation building, creating a shared knowledge base and resources, framing conditions for creative re-use, and fostering and sustaining cultural commons. At the same time, while delivering a descriptive account of the case, I aim to draw attention to some of the design activities undertaken in this process of co-designing commons.
Building Foundations AvoinGLAM was officially launched in an event titled “Towards Open Culture and Art” targeted to Finnish culture and memory institutions in August 2012. In addition to the launch of the initiative, the event served as a platform by which to collectively map and understand the current state of activities and projects related to open culture in Finland, and for institutions to bring forward their challenges and obstacles in opening their digital holdings for a wider public. The event was designed by me and the core team in two parts: first, introductory presentations on what could be understood as open culture and open cultural data, and second, a co-design workshop for the network, in which participants would go through five different assignments in groups, – e.g., mapping the "levels of openness and 1
OpenGLAM is also a global network (not limited to its institutionalization in OK) of people and organizations aiming to open up content and data held by GLAM institutions. In addition, OpenGLAM has a working group that is advised by an international group of experts. The publicly most known and visible parts of the movement are the active OpenGLAM mailing list and openglam.org. 2 At the beginning, AvoinGLAM was a project of Aalto ARTS, Media Lab that branched out to a small group of likeminded people working with the same themes (Salgado & Marttila 2013; Marttila & Sillanpää 2014). Later, when the Open Knowledge Finland association was founded in 2013, AvoinGLAM became a thematic working group of the association. Yet close ties to the university have remained. Initiating AvoinGLAM in the university was a conscious choice for ideological and practical reasons: universities, as organizations, (should) represent the idea of free and open knowledge; for me, as the founder, it was important that the initiative not be tied only to a person but also to an institution. On the practical side, since I worked in the university, I was able to secure some seed funding to establish the initial social and technical infrastructure upon which to build the group. 3 Some indication of the Finnish network is the amount of members in the AvoinGLAM Facebook group. In March 2016, there were over 320 people in the public group.
4067
Sanna Marttila
participation” of the organization they represented, or discussing the practical application of "principles of openness.” These five assignments included diagrams (framework drawings) and a set of step-by-step written guidance questions.
Picture 1 Participants of the Towards Open Culture and Art workshop thinking together about how to build an accessible and open cultural heritage institution.
After this event, similar workshops were organized in six different cities in Finland that brought together representatives from local libraries, archives and museums. Workshops were organized in collaboration with a local cultural institution, and often by invitation from the local partner. Several findings were made by staging workshops and seminars to co-construct shared language and understanding, and lay the foundations for open cultural commons in Finland: Actors across the cultural domains (e.g., libraries and archives) identified similar challenges and obstacles. Firstly, there was a lack of awareness and strategies for intellectual property rights. Most organizations do not hold the copyrights to their collections, and obtaining the rights is laborious and expensive. Secondly, there is a lack of knowledge, skills and experiences related to digital technologies and open data. Many organizations lacked inhouse competences, and often the digital platforms, tools and services in use had been outsourced to a third party, preventing small-scale pilots and experiments from taking place within the organization and inhibiting organizational learning. Thirdly, the organizational support and organizational cultures that are conductive for open cultural practices were lacking. The workshop participants felt that their organizations’ current work practices and processes did not support openness and/or opening content and data. Change would be needed, both in the organizations’ practices and in their employees’ work roles and tasks
4068
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
(see Salgado & Marttila, 2013, for a more elaborated account of the findings). Fourthly, there was surprisingly little collaboration between actors and sectors – even if the involved cultural institutions were physically located next to each other. This led to the conclusions collaboration needs to be strengthened in the Finnish cultural sector and that a network that is not domain specific (e.g., for libraries or for archives) but reaches across existing domains and their specialized professional organizations will be able to build a platform for commoning that would enable collective learning and sharing. These findings became a cornerstone of the AvoinGLAM work and guided my personal design and commoning activities in the working group, projects and movement.
Creating a Shared Knowledge Base and Common Resources Since there was a great need to increase the level of knowledge and skills regarding open cultural data and content, as well as to gain more experience with novel digital technologies and services, the network decided to train itself. Inspired by a Dutch master class concept,1 AvoinGLAM organized a 5-month course on mastering issues surrounding open culture and data, and on learning and exploring, in practice, how to open-up a portion of their collection for a broader public. Over 20 participants from different GLAM institutions throughout Finland took part in the course. The participating organizations released cultural data and/or content, and made it available either under a Creative Commons license or under Public Domain Mark. This project also produced an online course on P2P University2 and a guidebook (Marttila & Sillanpää, 2014) on how to open up cultural data and content. The main focus, however, was to provide a structured means for sharing principles and knowledge about how a GLAM institution can be more open, a checklist for opening data and for mapping an organization’s current and future activities.
1
The Open Cultuur Data network was established in September 2011, and the first master class followed the next year. More information can be found on www.opencultuurdata.nl. 2 The course can be accessed at https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/2641/content/5710/.
4069
Sanna Marttila
Picture 2 The Open Cultural Data Master Class participants met once a month for contact teaching and collaborative work. In addition, the master class had a field trip to London to learn from pioneering OpenGLAM organizations. Here, the participants are imagining creative re-use scenarios in the British Library.
Producing a master class, as a funded project of AvoinGLAM, changed the dynamics of the movement and required careful consideration about how to govern and manage different activities. It was also the first time that people were hired for AvoinGLAM and for the Open Knowledge Finland (OKFFI) association. As the person responsible for the project’s design, I also became accountable for its execution. The key challenges here were how to balance the paid work and the so-called voluntary activist work and determining what kind of mechanisms to implement to ensure a fair and sustainable movement. Some structures were implemented: OKFFI adopted a policy of open/public budgets and plans for its projects; also, a same-salary principle was implemented for the AvoinGLAM projects to ensure and communicate to the movement that all skills and work efforts are appreciated and valued equally.
Framing Conditions for Creative Re-Use The master class was a success by many accounts, as the participants and their organizations produced common pools of open cultural data and content. They also gained know-how and shared knowledge in the process. Yet the AvoinGLAM movement still lacked good local examples of the benefits of opening data, or of how people could use the new resources. To produce these examples, we developed an initiative, Hack4FI, to increase the creative re-use of open digital cultural data. Hack4FI – Hack your heritage! branched out from the Danish initiative Hack4DK and followed the same guiding principles as the original one, but adapted
4070
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
them to the local conditions. The Hack4FI – Hack your heritage! hackathon was organized in February 2015, and more than 50 people engaged in appropriating Finnish open digital cultural heritage over a weekend. This diverse group of coders, designers, artists and representatives from cultural heritage institutions produced more than 20 concepts, mockups and prototypes – both digital and tangible ones – and had six weeks to finalize their works and submit them the Hack4FI competition. The process ended with a gala, during which the final works were presented to the public and awarded by a jury of experts.
Picture 3 The first Hack4FI – Hack your heritage! hackathon brought together a diverse group of creative minds to design and develop new cultural works by re-using open digital cultural heritage.
From my perspective as a designer, the hackathon was aimed at creating conditions for fruitful collaboration, exchange of ideas, knowledge and networking. To aid this, the collaborative infrastructural design repertoire included an analogue people’s wall, collaborative documents for shared notes, project documentation and presentations. These commonly created and cumulative resources were made publicly available online. The hackathon was designed to have multiple tracks, with each track having a preselected facilitator who could freely organize its work and schedule. However, the participants also had the freedom to organize themselves around a question, theme or project. Most of the participants did not choose a track but instead formed groups organically that were guided by a shared interest. The overall frame of the hackathon was intentionally designed to be loose and open, giving the participants the freedom to familiarize themselves with the
4071
Sanna Marttila
themes, the open data and content made available and the other members, as well as to form groups and develop ideas together.
Sustaining and Scaling Commons The AvoinGLAM movement has grown in size and contributed its share, to the point that today a majority of Finnish cultural heritage institutions have some initiative aimed at opening up their digital collections to the public or are planning to do so (OpenGLAM Benchmark Study, 2015; Sillanpää, 2015). Importantly, the movement has scaled from being a working group toward becoming a vibrant and distributed movement, with multiple actors that have various objectives and motivations. We have moved from a collection of institutional arrangements for common-pool resources to a cultural commons with recognition and acknowledgement in Finland.1 However, needless to say, the AvoinGLAM movement has faced many similar social dilemmas as other many initiatives operating in similar settings. Issues such as voluntary/paid efforts are recurring, especially in the context of contributions that require a long-term commitment or are considered dull and laborious (e.g., reports, surveys), resulting in the same people often doing the heavy lifting. Another problem is commercial appropriation, where third parties republish the open content released by GLAM institutions and claim rights to them. Currently, the sustainability strategy of AvoinGLAM is to advocate for a national open-culture policy for cultural heritage institutions in Finland that would give guidelines and recommendations for a licensing framework, accessibility and so forth (Sillanpää, 2015).
Design as Infrastructuring Information infrastructures have a fundamental role in our contemporary life (Star & Ruhleder, 1996) and naturally also affect how commons can be managed and used. These infrastructures include the multiple layers of social, material, technical and political structures in our societies. Seeing design as infrastructuring (Karasti & Syrjänen, 2004; Karasti & Baker, 2004) has stemmed from the importance of drawing attention not to what an infrastructure is but when and how infrastructures become and for whom (Star & Ruhleder 1995, see also Star & Bowker, 2006; Ehn 2008; Karasti 2014). Design as infrastructuring has been used as a strategy for forming publics (DiSalvo, 2009; Le Dantec & DiSalvo, 2013; Lindstöm & Ståhl, 2014) and supporting movements through participatory design (Björgvinsson, et al. 2010/2012; DiSalvo, et al. 2012;). Björgvinsson connects infrastructuring and cultural commons, and points out that the approaches share the relationship between local needs and global or shared needs, as well as the issues of governance and negotiating agreements (Björgvinsson, 2014, p.191). This body of scholarly work provides a good point of departure for understanding the need for infrastructuring in commons-like frameworks. Due to the limits of the article format, these debates are not 1
For example, the Open Cultural Data Master Class received the honorary prize “Archive Act of the Year” 2014, and AvoinGLAM has received funding from the Finnish Ministry of Culture and Education.
4072
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
closely reviewed or elaborated here; for an excellent overview grounded in Participatory Design, see Karasti (2014). The concept of “infrastucturing commons” has been linked to collaborative and open modes of design and cultural production, and to how infrastructuring in explorative socio-technical environments requires new ways of thinking, designing and commoning (Marttila, et al. 2014; Björgvinsson, 2014; Seravalli, 2014). Informed by my experiences with AvoinGlam, I will now illustrate what kind of commoning and infrastructuring activities happened and contributed to the open cultural commons. Commons in the cultural realm naturally consist of diverse interrelated infrastructures: everything from IT infrastructures to legal frameworks, cultural heritage systems, social practices and shared resources. For the purposes of the paper, I will focus on commoning practices and efforts of infrastructuring these in relation to three different types of shared and collaboratively produced commonpool resources (CPRs).
From Common-Pool Resources to Commons Three common-pool resources (CPRs) – digital collections, shared knowledge and networks – are especially interesting in connection with building an open cultural commons in Finland. The commoning practices associated with these CPRs became sites where co-design activities took place, allowing me to reflect on the co-designing of open cultural commons, the role of designers in the infrastructuring activities and the tensions that arise in commoning activities and that foreground social dilemmas and power relations. T HE OPEN DIGITAL COLLECTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE AND DATA . This common-pool resource, a digitized inventory, can be seen as a distributed repository of content and data that is released by cultural and memory institutions. These resources are managed and governed by many different stakeholders, e.g., the institutions themselves, the so-called users (e.g., designers, developers, researchers, artists and educators) of the digital content and the administrators of the platforms upon which these commons and commoning activities rely. These collaborative commoning activities vary from management to use and to creative activities, e.g., the social enrichment of metadata, which can be voluntary (rating, adding comments, descriptions) or involuntary (e.g., use statistics, system data), or the “creative re-use” of content (Marttila & Hyyppä 2014a) (cf. also Botero, et al. 2010). Each of the digital repositories and social platforms has its own rules in place (e.g., licenses, terms-of-use, community guidelines) in addition to laws and regulations (e.g., copyrights, privacy laws). Often, people in cultural digital commons engage in so-called “everyday resistance” (an original term coined by Scott (1985) to describe forms of cultural resistance and non-cooperation), e.g., ignoring copyright and license requirements, or providing the wrong personal information. These acts seem to stem from people’s moral and political considerations; although they are actively engaged in the digital cultural commons, they have not been allowed to take part in producing the rules according to which, e.g., copyrights or digital platforms function.
4073
Sanna Marttila
T HE RESERVOIR OF SHARED , COLLABORATIVELY PRODUCED KNOWLEDGE . Engaged people with a shared interest in the cultural commons form a knowledge base through, e.g., sharing stories, experiences, examples, tools and ways of addressing recurring problems. In the beginning of AvoinGLAM, people from the cultural and memory institutions often asked for “good examples” and cases of re-use of open content/data, or scenarios describing what value opening up would bring to the institutions, its user groups and to society at large. Two online groups were set up to nurture the sharing practices (the public AvoinGLAM Facebook group and the closed Google+ group for the Open Cultural Data Master Class). These groups quickly developed practices for sharing and accumulating knowledge among the participants, replacing help requests to a central node by a shared pool of knowledge. Shared guidelines, principles and good practices rapidly became a backbone for the local and international movement, and extended into the public as discussions marked as #AvoinGLAM/#OpenGLAM on social media. Commoning activities in the digital open cultural commons are not always as simple as nurturing the sharing of posts on social networking sites. In AvoinGLAM, participation often required skills and practices that were foreign to many of the actors involved, such as the collaborative asynchronous writing/editing of online documents (through, e.g., Etherpad or shared Google documents) and the practice of sharing unfinished outputs publicly with peers and professional networks, which was often very different from organizational practices. In order to participate in the co-construction of the cultural commons and benefit from the common-pool resources, some people had to quickly adopt an entirely new working culture, adopt new technological tools and be convinced that an attitude of openness could benefit their work. In the international OpenGLAM working group, we initiated a process to share our ideas, visions and knowledge by collectively producing OpenGLAM’s principles. Our aim was to provide a statement describing the OpenGLAM organization and, at the same time, provide criteria against which organizations could map their activities. Even if commoning activities could be guided by commoners’ moral compasses, our experience was that both organizations and commoners needed principles and definitions to align their activities with others in the movement, as well as a shared vocabulary and knowledge base to talk about the directions of their moral compass. In addition, shared resources for various projects and open collections were compiled and maintained on the openglam.org website. As cultural practices become an element of open-ended design interventions, the use of language should not be overlooked in creating and sustaining commons-like frameworks. In both AvoinGLAM and OpenGLAM, we aimed to construct a shared language and create a set of shared understandings precisely through collectively defined terms that I thought to be relevant for the movement (e.g., What do we mean by openness? What is open cultural data/open content?) to build upon the Open Definition (opendefinition.org), which was developed in an open, collaborative process, published and maintained online by Open Knowledge.
4074
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
T HE COMMUNITY AS COMMONS . The knowledge, skills and practices of people in the movement form a dynamic resource that the movement lives from and can tap into. As an example, when a member of the network has a problem or needs help, she can pose the question on the public Facebook group to seek an answer or guidance. Even if tied to a specific time and people, such discussions are archived and can be accessed later. In a way, the network becomes a commons. In the feedback interviews with the participants of the Open Cultural Data Master Class, most of the interviewed participants (17/20) stated that the most influential and important part of the course was the community of people that was forming in the course. In parallel to the course, many of the participants self-organized Wikipedia courses in their organizations and held meet-ups with peers. Close community ties, friendships and tight collaborations, however, might also have a negative effect on the movement’s sustainability and scalability. Literature on “communities of practice” has shown that people who engage in a collective process of learning and knowledge exchange develop a shared language, shared procedures and conventions that make it difficult for people outside the community to join (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Language is the key to constructing network power relationships and is thus important for the nonhierarchical aims of open culture movements. Values, morals and attitudes are communicated through rhetoric and are embedded into people’s everyday practices. To give a mundane example, the working group chose not to have “leaders” but “contact persons” in order to communicate and institute flat hierarchy structures and to encourage spontaneous, self-organized groupings or clusters. This practice, however, became unsustainable when AvoinGLAM took on externally funded projects and was invited to take part in policy work or to represent the network in more formal settings (e.g., steering groups).
Conclusions Commons are often seen as governed and managed through a set of rules-in-use. Rather than explicitly defined and stated, these rules tend to arise from social practices and interactions among people – this is one of the key design principles of robust and sustainable commons (Ostrom, 1990). In the cultural environment, commoning activities and cultural practices increasingly rely on digital platforms and social networking sites governed by often commercially motivated rules and laws that commoners have not been able to negotiate themselves (cf. Marttila & Hyyppä, 2014b). Therefore, they are not always well matched to local needs and conditions, and are aimed at sustaining profits rather than sustaining viable commons. To give a concrete example, many Finnish cultural institutes released parts of their digital collections onto Flickr – the image and video hosting website – and often, if the copyrights permitted, on the Flickr Commons. After releasing this open/noknown-copyrights cultural heritage, some institutions1 realized that third actors were selling 1
For example The Society of Swedish Literature in Finland and Gallen-Kallela museum have reported on the public AvoinGLAM Facebook group that the photographs they have released on Flickr could be purchased on stock photo web services Alamy.com.
4075
Sanna Marttila
the released pictures on another Web service, illegally claiming rights to these images. Despite institutions’ requests for these pictures to be taken down from online shops, the practice of watermarking and selling photographs continues. Related to this, dilemmas occur when commoning takes place on commercial online platforms. Most of AvoinGLAM’s online activities happen on Google services and Facebook, which means that locally created and nurtured cultural commons are subjected to the commercial interests of these corporations. Furthermore, the practices of these corporations create tensions between commoning practices toward open cultural commons and corporations’ commodification of culture and citizen engagement (such as by generating use data) (Kitchin, 2016). This creates a dilemma when working to build robust open cultural commons: one of the key design principles – that those who are affected by the rules should be able to participate in modifying them – is thus beyond what commoners can influence, if they choose to use digital collaboration tools. This forces the actors in cultural commons to seek alternative measures for sharing and boundary setting. Blomley (2014) has argued that commons do not have to be governed through rules, but can be “a moral and political commons, justified and enacted through a language of rights and justice” (p.318, my emphasis). People’s moral compasses often guide their commoning activities, as described by the concepts of “matters of concern” (Latour, 2004) and “matters of care” (de la Bellacasa, 2011). This concern and care include, as we have seen, activities to circumvent or set aside rules and regulations. In this way, the legal commoning question is also a political and moral question, namely: who has the rights to our common culture? This question cannot only be answered in the abstract but needs to be answered in daily practice, including language practice. In the AvoinGLAM case study, it becomes evident that organizations and commoners need guiding principles and definitions, as well as common commoning language and practices, which they can use to align their current and future activities and negotiate the internal as well as external (legal and commercial) pressures that work toward enclosure. This paper has interrogated which commoning activities and infrastructuring design principles and practices played a role in creating a movement towards open cultural commons that seems to be sustainable. Based on my analysis of the AvoinGLAM case I propose that in co-design and commoning processes of open cultural commons, we should work through infrastructuring a “commons culture,” rather than mainly through designing legal and regulatory or technology infrastructures (e.g. licensing frameworks, Web hosting services). Building commoning principles, vocabularies and ideals that actors (organizations and individuals) can use to define their identities can be complementary to setting rules that external authorities would respect. As this paper has shown, an infrastructuring design approach that works toward open cultural commons can thus not only build upon the traditional commoning principles of rules-in-use but be extended to encompass culture-inuse.
4076
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
Acknowledgements: I want to extend warm thanks to the AvoinGLAM community and my collaborators Laura Sillanpää, Neea Laakso, Mariana Salgado and Leena Närekangas. Special thanks to Andrea Botero for unfailing collegial support.
References Baltussen, L. B., Oomen, J., Brinkerink, M., Zeinstra, M., & Timmermans, N. (2013, January). Open culture data: Opening GLAM data bottom-up. Museums and the Web. Retrieved 16.3.2016 from http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/open-culture-data-opening-glam-data-bottomup/. Botero, A., Kommonen, K. H., & Marttila, S. (2010). Expanding design space: Design-in-use activities and strategies. In Proceedings of the DRS Conference on Design and Complexity. de la Bellacasa, M. P. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85-106. Bellini, F., Passani, A., Spagnoli, F., Crombie, D., & Ioannidis, G. (2014). MAXICULTURE: Assessing the Impact of EU Projects in the Digital Cultural Heritage Domain. In Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection (pp. 364-373). Springer International Publishing. Benkler, Y. (2013). Commons and Growth: The Essential Role of Open Commons in Market Economies. U. Chi. L. Rev. , 80 , 1499–1499. Bertacchini, E. E. (Ed.). (2012). Cultural commons: a new perspective on the production and evolution of cultures. Edward Elgar Publishing. Blomley, N. (2008). Enclosure, common right and the property of the poor. Social & Legal Studies, 17(3), 311-331. Bollier, D. (2014). Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons . New Society Publishers. Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (Eds.). (2012). The Wealth of the Commons: A World Beyond Market and State. Levellers Press. Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (Eds.). (2015). The Patterns of Commoning. Commons Strategies Group. Boyle, J. (2009). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. Yale University Press. Bruncevic, M. (2014). Fixing the Shadows–Access to Art and the Legal Concept of the Cultural Commons. Doctoral Thesis. University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2010, November). Participatory design and democratizing innovation. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 41-50). ACM. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101-116. Björgvinsson, E. (2014). 10 The Making of Cultural Commons: Nasty Old Film Distribution and Funding. Making Futures: Marginal Notes on Innovation, Design, and Democracy, 187. Commons, C. (2014). State of the Commons. Retrieved March, 12, 2016. https://stateof.creativecommons.org/2015/ DiSalvo, C. 2009. Design and the Construction of Publics. Design Issues 25(1): 48-63. DiSalvo, C., Clement, A., & Pipek, V. (2012) Communities: Participatory Design For, With, and By Communities Disalvo. In Routledge handbook of participatory design. Edson, M. P., (2015) Fire and Frost: The Virtues of Treating Museums, Libraries and Archives as Commons. In Patterns of Commoning by David Bollier and Silke Helfrich. The Commons Strategies Group.
4077
Sanna Marttila
Ehn, P. (2008, October). Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (pp. 92-101). Indiana University. Elzenbaumer, B. (2013). Designing Economic Cultures: cultivating socially and politically engaged design practices against procedures of precarisation (Doctoral dissertation, Goldsmiths College (University of London). Frischmann, B. M., Madison, M. J., & Strandburg, K. J. (Eds.). (2014).Governing knowledge commons. Oxford University Press on Demand. Hardin, G., (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243—1248. Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the New Commons. In Governing Shared Resources: Connecting Local Experience to Global Challenges. 12th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons. Hess, C. (2012). Constructing a new research agenda for cultural commons. Cultural Commons. A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures. Hess, C. and E. Ostrom (Eds.) (2007). Understanding Knowledge as Commons. Cambridge, Ma: The MIT Press. Hyde, L. (2010). Common as air: Revolution, art, and ownership. Macmillan. Latour, B. (2004). Why has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry 30 (2): 225–248 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press. Le Dantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 241-264. Lindström, K., & Ståhl, Å. (2014). Patchworking publics-in-the-making : design, media and public engagement. Doctoral thesis, Malmö Univerisity. Retrieved 12.3.2016 from http://dspace.mah.se/handle/2043/16093 Hillgren, P.-A., Seravalli, A., & Emilson, A. (2011). Prototyping and Infrastructuring in Design for Social Innovation. CoDesign, 7(3-4), 169–183. Karasti, H., & Syrjänen, A.-L. (2004). Artful infrastructuring in two cases of community PD. Proc. PDC 2004, 20–30. Karasti, H. and K.S. Baker (2004) Infrastructuring for the Long-Term: Ecological Information Management. Proc. HICSS’37 , p. 10. Karasti, H. (2014, October). Infrastructuring in participatory design. InProceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers-Volume 1 (pp. 141-150). ACM. Kitchin, R. (2016). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, Published online: 25 Feb 2016 Linebaugh, P. (2009). The Magna Carta manifesto: liberties and commons for all. University of California Press. Le Dantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43 (2), 241-264. Lessig, L. (2001) The Furure of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected world. New York. Random House. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Penguin. Madison, M. J., Frischmann, B. M., & Strandburg, K. J. (2010). Constructing commons in the cultural environment. Cornell Law Review, 95, 657.
4078
From Rules in Use to Culture in Use
Marttila, S. & Hyyppä, K. (2014, May). Practices and Challenges in Creative Re-Use of Audio-visual Media. In Proc of the CUMULUS conference. Marttila, S., & Hyyppä, K. (2014, October). Rights to remember?: how copyrights complicate media design. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 481-490). ACM. Marttila, S., Botero, A., & Saad-Sulonen, J. (2014, October). Towards commons design in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts-Volume 2 (pp. 9-12). ACM. Marttila, S. & Sillanpää, L. (2014). Kohti avointa kulttuuria. Open Knowledge Finland. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. OpenGLAM Benchmark Survey (2015). Retrieved March, 12, 2016. https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/OpenGLAM_Benchmark_Survey. Pór, G. (2012) School of Commoning. In The Wealth of the Commons: A world beyond market and State. Eds. Bollier & Helfrich. Levellers Press. Ridge, M. M. (Ed.). (2014). Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Salgado, M., Marttila, S.: Discussions on inclusive, participative and open museums. In: NODEM 2013 Conference Proceedings. Interactive Institute Swedish ICT, Sweden. Scot, J. C (1985/2008). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press. Seravalli, A. (2014) Making Commons: attempts at composing prospects in the opening of production. 2014. Doctoral Thesis. Malmö University Faculty of Culture and Society. Sillanpää, L. (Ed.). (2015) Perässä luovijoita vai avoimuuden airueita? Suomalaiset kulttuuriperintöorganisaatiot digitaalisessa maailmassa. Open Knowledge Finland. http://avoinglam.fi/raportti-2015/ Retrieved March, 12, 2016. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces. Information systems research, 7(1), 111–134. Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2006). How to infrastructure. Handbook of new media: Social shaping and social consequences of ICTs, 230-245. Teli, M. (2015). Computing and the Common. Hints of a new utopia in Participatory Design. Aarhus Series on Human Centered Computing, 1(1), 4. Terras, M. (2015). Opening Access to collections: the making and using of open digitised cultural content, Online Information Review, Vol. 39 Iss: 5, pp.733 – 752. Verwayen, H., Arnoldus, M., & Kaufman, P. B. (2011). The problem of the yellow milkmaid. A business model perspective on open metadata. Den Haag: Europeana. Retrieved March, 12, 2016..
About the Author: Sanna Marttila works as a project leader in Aalto University, Media Lab. As a designer Sanna’s interest includes open and collaborative design and creative re-use of digital cultural heritage. She is the founder of the AvoinGLAM initiative in Finland.
4079
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
“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.� - Professor Nigel Cross PRESIDENT OF THE DRS
drs2016.org I SSN 2398-3132
ISSN2 398-3132
9 772398
31300 0