Right now I’m writing up the first year report for my PhD - good for organising my thoughts and getting some arguments into a coherent state, but not so good in terms of allowing time to write here. So in the absence of a proper post, here are some stories that have interested me in the last few weeks.

First of all, Spore has released it’s Creature Creator in advance of the full release of the game in early September, available as a trial version or for purchase. I’ve talked about Spore previously for the way it will introduce consumers to 3D design tools, as well as indicating a direction CAD software might take to simplify and guide the user through the creation of a product. But what’s also interesting is that the creatures being created by users now will be used in the game when it’s launched. In other words, the players of the game are creating the content of the game, and what’s more some of them (those who buy the full version of the Creature Creator) are paying for the privilege. It’s another example of the degree to which consumers are willing to engage with a brand’s product creation process if the experience is compelling. There’s a good discussion about the Creature Creator at Product Design Forums, plus a YouTube movie which shows how to design your own creature.

Second is an opinion piece entitled ‘Home Manufacturing in the Future‘ by Terry Wohlers, author of the annual Wohler’s Report into the state of the rapid prototyping / rapid manufacturing industry. Wohler’s view is that the future won’t see consumers printing products (or parts of products) at home because a) it’s cheaper to go buy a new product, b) the printer won’t be capable of using the right materials and c) the 3D data will be too complex to create or download. Instead, Wohlers believes, home manfacturing will see the rise of ‘mini factories’, in which start up businesses are able to build low-risk manufacturing plants in their basements or garages.

The example Wohlers uses is perhaps prejudicial to his argument: a toaster, which isn’t likely to be an item consumers see as highly desirable in terms of customisation, and which requires high performance plastics to withstand the heat. But primarily my problem with this viewpoint is that while it may actually be right, it’s for the wrong reasons. Home fabrication will fail to take off if the quality of product it’s possible to produce doesn’t match that of other manufacturing methods. That may be quality in a production sense, but also quality from a design, engineering or branding perspective. And even if that’s the case, it doesn’t exclude the possibility of consumers designing or customising based on existing products, and using these local factories purely as service providers to supply their bespoke parts.

Still on the theme of rapid manufacturing, July 9th and 10th sees the third International Rapid Manufacturing conference at Loughborough University. Speakers include Frank Piller on the theme of ‘Making Mass Customisation Work’; Dr Ian Campbell, who is my PhD supervisor, and whose presentation is entitled ‘Design for Rapid Manufacturing in an SME Environment’; and Lionel Dean of Future Factories, who’ll be discussing ‘the business issues surrounding the use of RM in design led consumer products.’

If you’re an industrial designer the chances are you’ll know of the Core77 website. A couple of weeks ago someone asked a question on the Core77 forum regarding ‘Personal fabrication and how it will impact ID‘, which sparked an interesting discussion. By which I mean the reaction of some of those posting was interesting: although the comments became a little less hostile as the discussion progressed, the overall tone was almost entirely negative. Here’s a few examples of the opinions expressed:

“A small percentage of consumers may want to choose colors on their sneakers, or push and pull a few points on a nurb surface for a cell phone, but you comment comes off as pretty ignorant as to what design actually is.”

“The rapid protoyping machine in many ways is no different than the hot glue gun, it allows crafters to excercise their wimsy and their perspective, some of wich is good, most horrid.”

“Myspace is a perfect example of what happens when you put design into the hands of everyone. A huge percentage of the pages on myspace are unusable/unreadable. Personal fabrication will be no different… on balance… a big, ugly mess.”

“you might be able to “design” a 1/2 decent product (brick, rock, ashtray) but can you spec, prototype, debug, and the rest of the whole list…nope didtn think so unless its in the ashtray world.”

It’s hardly surprising that practising designers believe themselves able to design better products that untrained consumers. But what I wasn’t necessarily expecting was the barely concealed contempt with which designers regarded those consumers’ attempts at creativity. These are, after all, the same consumers who are buying the results of those designers’ work; what does it say of a designer’s skill if products are selling to creatively illiterate users?

The other thing I found interesting was the refusal of some (though not all) to acknowledge that these technologies might change the way designers worked. I’ve always believed that it’s essential for designers to analyse and understand trends that will affect future society, but a number of posters seemed unwilling even to contemplate change in their own profession. Is the comment below a well considered opinion or just the hope that this is how things will be?

“Designers are not going anywhere and given the complexity of modern objects from footwear to gadgets, i don’t expect RP or other technology having any effect on democratizing design to a point where “everyone is a designer”.

Finally, on a somewhat lighter note, M&M’s have just launched an updated version of their custom candy service. It’s now possible to upload images, which a ‘graphic specialist’ will tweak in order to create an image which will print well on the small sweets. There’s not too many examples yet, but the My M&M’s service continues to be the best example I know of how customisation can add value to low cost items.