Reflection Balanced & Integrated Reflection and Evaluation
13-03-2014 Manon Barendse s119828 - M1.2
“ Designing with ViP is like conducting scientific research; there is no way of knowing beforehand what the outcome will be ” - P. Hekkert, ViP
prof. Gilbert Cockton
This report is a reflection on action. A reflection on my design process and insights during the module ‘Balanced and Integrative Design reflection and Evaluation’ in which we have learned to put the BIG and W2C approaches/models into practice. As I see Reflection on action as moment of looking back (and forward) on a process, rather than the concept/outcome, I will focus on the ‘why’ behind the activities we have done and the decisions we have made were useful. All in relation to the BIG approach and de W2C framework. Though, as a student who has been taught how to design from out another model (RTDP), I will start critically reflect on their position and role within my design practice. THREE DIFFERENT DESIGN MODELS AND PRACTICES Within RTDP, the development of an own identity and vision are highly valued and therefore a ‘purpose’ within every design process. In a way this is similar to applied arts – in my humble opinion our educational model is centred on the designer, rather than on human beneficiaties, or the artifact itself. Though, the outcome (‘the envisioned designer’) is not an artist, but a designer who is an expert in integrating various approached to her design process (arts and crafts, engineering and social science) and who knows when to reflect on steps and when to trust her senses. Personally, I feel that RTDP and BIG/W2C are striving towards the same general goal: a designer who knows when to give room for her feeling and intuition to be able to take a step forwards (design confidence), but who can also simultaneously develop a sound argument, in order to justify and explain where every decision comes from and what its consequences are. For the last sentence I stole some words from Paul Hekkert (Delft University), who created Vision in Product Design. ViP is the label of a method (yep, they are talking about a methodology..) that first and foremost supports innovators of any kind to ‘design’ the vision – the raison d’etre – underlying their design. I stole these words because ViP reflects (and explains) very important aspects that are also part of RTDP and BIG: freedom, responsibility and authenticity. Where RTDP mostly provides a framework to develop myself as a designer, BIG/W2C gives me the support where to find design opportunities and the guidance on the development & use of local resources . At the same time, ViP helps me to articulate the appropriate questions at the right time. I feel quite comfortable of picking the parts I find useful and valuable out of all models/frameworks/ methods/approaches and combine them in a process that suits my personality and identity as designer. As Gilbert Cockton has explained in the module: design work should be conceived as primarly identifying options and strengthening and testing these until some can be choses. It is like the search for the perfect lasagna; using and combining ingredients from several recipes to eventually find my preferred mixture – and of course this does not say that everybody loves chicken, humus and mozzarella lasagna the most! For example - let’s walk out of the kitchen and into the design education domain again - I can imagine that I would like to use the worthmap activity in combination with the context structure of ViP in a competence driven personal framework.
Reflection Balanced & Integrated Reflection and Evaluation
THE ART OF REFLECTION The creation of the perfect lasagna makes me think of reflection in action or in other words: reflective iterations. By combining cooking and eating the mixtures of different ingredients (with different tastes and structures) , I will receive immediate feedback on my process and skills in relation to the perfect dish creation. A concept will evolve almost naturally during iterations. This content of this module has taught me to be more aware of the – sometimes surprising - design choices I make during these iterations and to take ‘snapshots’ at the right moments. This forced me to overthink very quickly what the origins and the influences of the design decision are, what becomes useful when I have to justify the concept. In a way reflection in action is like doing speed concept evaluations after every ‘reshape’ of the concept. During the making of the DPO, we simultaneously developed the interface of our application. It was reflection in action: the other areas of the BAPE gave a nice ‘feedback structure’ (“WEMS talk back”), to shape the application. While reflection in action is in my opinion more focused on concept building, reflection on action is more process-minded and moments to deliberately stop the process, stand still, look back, and into the future. For me, reflection on action were sessions in which we shaped the process by checking which actions we have done, what the outcome was and defining the actions we still have to do where to we stand now and what do we have to do to reach the end goal. I also perceive(d) the reflection on action as events in which we could give feedback on each other’s activities and decisions from out/on the different roles we had. Sharing our opinions and knowledge regularly was essential to ensure that we were all moving into the same direction. Because of its parallel and homogeneous structure (roles & BAPE), BIG/W2C model kind of stimulated/forced us to have a lot of reflection on action – this gave structure and direction to our process. The most precious evaluation moment for me was on the second day. The first day, we all went home ‘in different roles and mindsets’ and on that particular moment we were able to give input about the rest of the project/process out of the our roles. We created the foundation for the rest of the week. INFLUENCE OF ROLES AND BAPE ‘Help to understand and justify gut feelings’ Repeatedly ensuring that we were moving into the same direction was one of the most important things in our design process. Not only to head for the same process outcome, but also to maintain motivated and energetic as a team. Like Gilbert Cockton perfectly argues in his article “Design isn’t a Shape and it Hasn’t Got a Centre: Thinking BIG about Post-Centric Interaction Design”, excellent design work requires complex commitments that balance and integrate a broad range of design inputs and activities. I think that this ‘generosity of spirits’ can only be reached by an understanding of each other’s feeling, thinking and skills. The strive for excellence can only start with the knowledge in which position which people flourish and where/when to complement each other. That’s also why modules and groupwork in university usually have a slow start - we first have to find out what each other’s personality and talents are, before the ‘real’ work can begin. Modules, which are short in time, oblige us students to make decisions that are not fully researched or grounded. This asks to learn to trust your own ánd your team members design intuition/confidence. One of our team members found this very hard to do and we have tried intensely to support her: I believe strongly that only when all team members are on the same track, the team can reach the next level. The challenge is to translate the different talents and skills in different input and activities that provide resources for ‘BIG’ design.
Reflection Balanced & Integrated Reflection and Evaluation
While writing this reflection I noticed how I like the dual focus in the beginning of a teamwork process, that counts as the kickstart for a successful project : context and designers as persons – somehow related to thinking & feeling/confidence. A final design is appropriate when it optimally fits in with or is adapted to the context for which it is designed. But only generous when there is added something extra from the designer.. BIG is reflected in the reaction of the user on the design outcome: “it feels good” & “I did not even know that I wanted this”. ACTIVITIES The context of our project this module was to design a different and better experience between students and (university) surveys. I have had the role of UCD specialist and Market strategist, which was a nice interplay between needs and values from different perspectives. As a UCD specialist, I have executed two user test, which had multiple functions. They were informative, ideative, directive and invigorative. As a market strategist, I could use the input of the user to match it with the worth and value we wanted our concept to achieve. The worth-map was a very useful tool to do so, it kind of brought everything together, ánd showed us the missing connections and gaps. Personally, it felt good to design with ‘different’ hats on. It forced me to think and design with a clear focus. Although it is inevitable that information that were obtained with different caps on unconsciously merge in my head, I think that can only make the concept stronger: information that contrasts too much gets deleted, extra useful things will be added and the concept evolves positively. WEMS/DPO As a DPO (Design Point Overview) for the final presentation, we have made a WEMS – a Worth Embodiment of Manured Strawberries. The WEMS were visualizations of the scope for every area of the BAPE, in one poster. By using WEMS, we have tried to capture the interconnections between the area’s in a very simple and understandable manner. Basically, it has helped us to communicate the design point we were at the moment of the final presentations ánd making them was also a moment of reflection, creation and information. Before presenting the WEMS during the final presentation, we have done a userresearch with them, as if the app was really exisiting (we did them in the newspaper as if they were an advertisement in the newspaper. A sort of ‘proof of concept’ and we got very interesting feedback out of it. I noticed that making the WEMS was very energizing, because it brought together everything we had done in the module week. It made some research and thoughts that were still quite abstract in our heads concrete and tangible. I felt like we understood our concept, but when we were creating the WEMS, it made us really pierce it. Use of BIG/W2C in own project. I have used the worth map a couple of times after the module. I think the quality of this activity lies in the fact that it can be used for multiple purposes and in various stages of the process. For example, I have made a worth-map for my project about Innovative Dementia, to find the quality and features for my (at that time not existing) concept by mapping the benefits and costs in combination with my vision. Another time, inspired by Nicky Liebrechts, I have used the worth-map to get a better insight in my vision and identity in combination with the projects I have done. I discovered connections, I had never thought of before. In general, the enormous value of this module is that it has let me think and reflect on design practice and theory and that it has stimulated me to be more aware of the valuable structure it can give to my projects.
Sources used in this reflection: Cockton, G.(2013) Design isn’t a Shape and it Hasn’t Got a Centre: Thinking BIG about Post-Centric Interaction Design, Northumbria University. Hekkert, P. & van Dijk, M.B. (2011). Vision in design: A guidebook for innovators. Amsterdam: BIS publishers
Reflection Balanced & Integrated Reflection and Evaluation
WEMS & BAPE
See bigger versions at: https://weluisteren.wordpress.com or in real life at LUCID
Reflection Balanced & Integrated Reflection and Evaluation