This post deals with the results and conclusion of the user trial discussed earlier. The findings of the study can be divided into two main areas: the results of the drawing exercise and the success of developing the drawings into a 3D CAD model, and the results of the two CAD modelling exercises. It’s important to stress that in both cases the objective was not to judge or analyse the quality of the design, but rather to gain subjective feedback from participants about which activities they enjoyed or disliked, and which approach resulted in the product they were most happy with.

Drawing exercise and 3D CAD model development

The table below shows an analysis of the drawings returned by the participants:

All drawings were analysed and coded according to the following criteria:

I(i). Number of sheets – How many sheets of paper were used in the exercise?
I(ii). Number of drawings – The total number of sketches made during the exercise, including sketches of ideas which were rejected.

II(i). Understanding of Safe Model concept – Did the participant understand and follow the instructions regarding the images of the safe model?
II(ii). Inconsistency between drawings – Did sketches exhibit inconsistent or contradictory information?
II(iii). Understanding of orthographic projection.
II(iv). Use of annotation.

III(i). Evidence of design iteration – Did the participant develop and test the validity of a design through sketches?
III(ii). Number of different designs drawn.
III(iii). Final design identified – Did the participant make obvious which was the final design?

IV(i). Functionality – Did the participant design a functional element in addition to the basic functionality of the USB memory stick?

Attach (A) – A method of attaching the product
Grip (G) – A feature which allows the product to be held more easily
Retain (R) – A method of keeping the cap in place
Other (O) – Any other form of functionality

IV(ii). Functional detailing – Did the participant include functional details such as screws or split lines in the design?
IV(iii). Cosmetic detailing – Did the participant include cosmetic details such as fillets or chamfers in the design?
IV(iv). Colour and Texture – Did the participant include details whose colour or texture were specified?
IV(v). Manufacturing constraints – Did the participant consider details imposed by manufacturing such as draft angles or material wall thicknesses?

V(i). Existing Designs – Did the participants look at the envelope of existing designs before, during or after the exercise?

VI(i). Degree of interpretation – a measure of the degree to which the CAD operator had to interpret the participant’s drawings in order to build the CAD model. Measured on a scale of 0-5, where:

0 = no interpretation needed, the drawings were accurate and fully resolved;
2 = some interpretation needed, the drawings were accurate but some details were unresolved
5 = significant interpretation needed, the basic idea was communicated but details were unconsidered or unresolved

The three most important findings, highlighted in orange in the table above, relate to design iteration, functionality and the degree of interpretation required to translate participants’ sketches into 3D models. The sketches showed that only four participants drew more than one design option. Even fewer (three) engaged in any form of design iteration, i.e. a process in which a design idea was modified. The most common form in which drawings were returned was a single idea, drawn from multiple viewpoints. As such, the ability of the participants to engage in design exploration through sketching was extremely limited.

This finding is supported by existing research into the manner in which designers use the activity of drawing. Designers tend to use drawing in two ways: firstly as a means of ‘exploration and manipulation,’ and secondly as a means of communication. The first is a creative activity in which multiple sketches are used to develop a design from the first idea to the ‘best’ idea. Such sketches do not need to be accurate or even realistic provided they offer an insight into the problem or possible solution. A communicative sketch, by contrast, is a method of explaining a (partial or full) design solution.

Drawings returned by participants appear to show an inability to utilise sketching as a method of exploration. Instead most participants attempted to draw the ‘correct’ design immediately, i.e. they tried to communicate a final design without testing whether it was, in fact, the best solution. There is a ‘randomness’ within design exploration which can be attributed to a lack of inhibition among designers to the act of drawing. Designers are often taught that mistakes when drawing have value and can lead a design in new directions; in contrast a number of participants’ drawings showed evidence of the use of an eraser to remove ‘wrong’ sketches. This inhibition or discomfort with drawing was further borne out by responses from participants, nine out of ten of whom preferred the process in Part II where drawing was not involved.

Sketch returned by one trial participant showing a lack of design iteration

Although their sketches showed a lack of design exploration, the need for design iterations was implicitly recognised by all participants in their reactions to the CAD model representation of their design. Initially all participants believed the CAD model to be an accurate interpretation of their drawings. However, all participants subsequently accepted the invitation to modify the CAD model, and all believed that the design was improved by this process of modification. Participants perceived the CAD model as a ‘sketch’ or work-in-progress which required development, and recognised that design iteration was necessary to arrive at a better design.

The results clearly demonstrate the value which participants attached to their self-designed products: a clear reason for this was the ability to introduce additional functionality to the product. All ten participants added additional functional elements to the USB memory stick, for example, details which enhanced grip, or methods for ensuring the cap was not lost. One participant shaped the device such that it could act as a bottle opener, whilst another attempted to decrease the possibility of the product being knocked and broken when plugged into a computer. This value placed on functionality rather than just aesthetics, together with a preference for a design which more closely fits the consumer’s needs, also coincides with findings from mass customisation literature.

Design with a method of retaining the cap when removed

The degree of interpretation required to translate a participant’s sketch to a 3D model is also a factor which needs to be highlighted. The drawing below shows a not-atypical sketch returned by one participant.

A ‘final’ design sketch from a trial participant

The drawing shows no indication of the preferred design, nor does it show design ‘refinements’ such as fillets or curved faces. Thus as the trial went on, it increasingly became obvious that one of the tasks, when translating a sketch to a 3D model, was to ‘read between the lines’ and second guess what the participant might want, rather than attempt to faithfully reproduce what was drawn. When presented back to the participant, the model which was built from the sketch showed a hook feature, as well as small fillets and slightly curved side surfaces. However the model was built and constrained in such a way that it could be updated to ‘close’ the hook, thus making the feature a loop. This was, in fact, what the participant had intended, and after modifying the model the final design is much more rounded than the original sketch.

The 3D CAD model produced form the sketch above

The final design after reconsideration and manipulation by the participant

3D CAD Model Modification

Results in this area refer to the tasks within both Part I and Part II of the trial which involved modifying the CAD model. The results largely consist of a comparison between the design process of Part I and Part II, and which process yielded the most favoured design. Opinions of participants were recorded during and immediately after the trial, and are summarised in the table below.

Discussion of Results

The most significant finding from the trial comes from the paradox highlighted in the table above. As previously mentioned, nine out of ten participants felt uncomfortable with the drawing exercise, preferring to modify a CAD model representation of a design. However every participant believed the drawing exercise ultimately led to the best design. When questioned, the main reason given was, as might be expected, that the design more closely matched their needs and wishes than the pre-existing model. Three participants stated that they would like to imagine their design was unique, and did not feel certain a pre-existing model would not be modified in similar ways by others. One participant said he would be proud to show the product to friends and explain to them why he had designed it in the way that he had. Thus the trial shows that the best results, in the participants’ own opinions, came from the less enjoyable process.

Conclusions and Future Research

The trial clearly shows that participants placed significant value on the ability to design their own USB memory stick. Products which were self designed were valued more highly than those which were customised from pre-existing designs, despite the fact that most participants felt uncomfortable with the process of self design and preferred the process of customisation. Participants were generally unable to engage in design iteration through sketching, and used drawing as a method of recording and communicating a design rather than exploring it. However, when presented with a CAD model representation of their own design, participants recognised the value of developing that design through iteration in order to arrive at a better solution. Participants placed a high priority on the ability to incorporate additional functionality into the basic usage of the memory stick.

The trial raises a number of questions which would benefit from further research. Of most interest to me is the question of how to resolve the apparent paradox between the preferred design process and the preferred outcome. Participants unanimously favour self designed products over modified or customised pre-designed products, however a clear majority did not enjoy the drawing task required to initiate the self design process. In a setting outside of a user trial it might therefore be expected that consumers would not engage in self design at all, and thus never arrive at a point where they were able to assess the value of their self-designed product. Future research should therefore investigate ways of capturing consumers’ design intent without requiring the consumer to sketch or draw those ideas.

A further question stems from the issue of how to interpret a consumer’s design intent, particularly when that intent is not well explored or developed, or when it is physically impossible to meet all criteria. In the trial this was overcome by the use of a designer/CAD operator, who was able to use experience and intuition to ‘second guess’ what the participant wanted to achieve with their design. In a commercial setting this scenario would likely be impossible, as it would require the input of a professional designer for every consumer created design. This would suggest the need for an automated process which would replace the designer’s intuition, or more realistically, which applied certain rules to constrain and condition the consumer’s design. Such a system, whilst inevitably limiting creative freedom to some extent, would also give the consumer confidence that the self designed product would always be manufacturable. Such a system, therefore, could be considered an advanced form of customisation toolkit, one which enabled the consumer to move beyond configuration and engage in freeform design.

In general participants understood the need for design exploration and iteration, even though this was rarely displayed in their sketches. Within the CAD model manipulation tasks, some participants were helped by the use of Genoform, which was able to suggest new directions for exploration which the user was otherwise unable to see. It may be that an automated iteration would be of benefit to some users in improving their designs.

A final question arises from the value which participants placed on adding additional functionality to their design. The trial was able to recognise that a participant valued their design of, for instance, a grip detail. However it did not ask the participant to compare that grip detail with, for instance, a method of retaining the cap when removed. The results do not record whether the participant considered a cap retention method but rejected it as less important than a grip detail, or failed to consider a cap retention method at all. Thus the trial could not disclose whether participants saw value in added functionality in general, or only in the added functionality that they had designed. Such knowledge would be valuable, particularly if a future trial were based on a more complex product.

From Configuration to Design: Capturing the Intent of User Designers is the title of a paper I recently presented at MCPC 2009 in Helsinki. It details a user trial conducted as part of my PhD research, which sought to understand the extent to which non-professional user-designers are able to engage in design exploration and to communicate design intent. The paper itself, together with the presentation given at the conference, can be downloaded from the Papers and Presentations page of this site. Much of the background argumentation to the study has been made in previous posts, therefore what follows is an edited version of the paper, focusing on the design, conduct and conclusions of the user trial. This first post deals with the design and conduct of the study, a follow-up post will concentrate on the results and conclusions.

Design of the Study

The focus of the trial was the design of a USB memory stick. This was chosen as a relatively simple product whose functionality was easily recognised by those who took part in the study. The trial was intended to investigate two main research questions:
What is the best method for consumers to conduct design exploration?
How well are consumers able to communicate design intent?

It built on the observations of a number of researchers with regard to the way designers and architects use drawing as a way to generate and evaluate design solutions, but sought to place such observations more specifically within a mass customisation scenario. It also sought to understand the practical difficulties of expecting non-designers to use drawing in the same way that trained designers do. The intended outcome was to better understand what future tools will best enable consumer-design, which will form a major part of my future PhD research.

I should make clear from the beginning that within the user trial, neither modelling exercise (in Part I or Part II of the trial) was intended to test or replicate a co-design exercise. Within design research, co-design can be described as a subset of user-centred design (also called participatory design), in which the user takes part in the actual design of the object in question as part of a design team. This contrasts to user-centred design itself, in which the user contributes experience or opinions, but the designer carries out the design task. In both user-centred design and co-design however, it is the designer who is perceived to hold ‘expert’ knowledge and who has the ultimate power of decision, and the user is relegated to the position of contributor. In contrast, this trial sought to investigate a situation in which the participant had the ultimate power of decision over his or her design. In all situations where the participant worked with the CAD operator (described below), care was taken to ensure the CAD operator did not offer opinions as to the value of any design or decision. Advice was given only on the capability of the CAD software to achieve a desired outcome, rather than the value of that outcome. Thus the role of the CAD operator was that of a facilitator between the participant as designer and the requirement to create a 3D CAD model.

Two Methods of Design Exploration

The study was divided into two parts. In part I, the participants were first required to undertake an unobserved drawing exercise, followed by a design modelling exercise with the assistance of a trained CAD software operator. In part II, they were required to choose one of six pre-existing designs which was then modified with the assistance of the CAD operator. Participants were placed in one of two groups; group one conducted part I of the exercise followed by part II, whilst group two conducted the exercise in reverse order.

The first method of design exploration, addressed in part I of the study, could be classified as unconstrained concepting. Participants were free to explore issues of functionality and aesthetics with no constraint other than that the design should be bigger than a minimum volume (the minimum size required for the electronics to fit inside). This meant that the first method was close in scope to the design process of a trained industrial designer. The second method of design exploration, addressed in part II of the study, can be classified as constrained concepting. Participants were able only to modify a pre-existing design within the constraints allowed by the CAD model, the idea being that the task was closer in scope to a MC toolkit experience.

Part I – Sketching Exercise

Participants were briefed as to the task and requirements of the exercise, but conducted the exercise unobserved so that they were in a more natural environment and worked in a less time-constrained manner. Participants reported spending one-and-a-half hours on average on the task, though most reported thinking about the task over a period of days before beginning. Participants were required to complete the sketching exercise within one week of having been briefed.

When being briefed, participants were told to create drawings on an A4 marker pad supplied to them. A number of images were supplied of a ‘minimum volume’ USB memory stick (see the section headed “Concept of the Safe Model” below), and participants were shown how to use these images as underlays over which their own designs could be drawn. Participants were instructed only to use the drawings pads and pens, pencils, markers etc, and specifically not to create designs using a computer. It was also made clear that the purpose of the study was not to judge drawing skill.

Sketch design by one participant in the trial

Participants were instructed to design the body and the cap of the memory stick, and to imagine they were designing a personal product, i.e. not to consider the needs of other consumers. It was stated that participants should not copy an existing design, and that the more personal the design (in terms of either function or aesthetic) the more useful it would be to the research. Participants were also supplied with a sealed envelope of existing USB memory stick images, and told they could open the envelope at any time during the exercise.

Sketch design by a second participant in the trial

Part I – Modelling Exercise

Participants were required to return their drawings by mail such that no verbal explanation could be given about the design. This made sure that their ability to communicate through sketching only was tested. The drawings were used as the basis for construction of a 3D CAD model by a CAD software operator experienced in making industrial design models; the CAD operator was therefore required to ‘read’ the drawings, ‘interpret’ the participant’s design intent, and develop the 2D drawings into a 3D model

Finally, participants were told that whilst they could work on any number of designs, at the end of the exercise they should have one final, favourite design. Participants were instructed to return all drawings, even those of discarded ideas. It was also emphasised that when submitting the final design, participants should consider how well it could be understood by someone looking only at their drawings.

In some instances what was drawn was not physically realisable in 3D. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘failure of reinterpretation’ – where the person making a drawing has failed to reinterpret and understand the logical implication of their own drawing. The image below shows such a failure of reinterpretation: the indentation in the top surface is shown as breaking the side surface in one view but not in another. In these cases the 3D modeller’s task became one of intuitively judging the participant’s intent, rather than trying to faithfully reproduce was what drawn.

Sketch design showing a failure of reinterpretation

3D CAD model from the sketch above

3D models were built using Solidworks 2007 (Service Pack 2.0) CAD software. Solidworks is a hybrid (it allows the use of both solid and surface modelling techniques) parametric CAD modeller, in which features are primarily created from constrained, dimensioned sketches. One of the skills of the CAD operator lies in understanding how to constrain sketches such that dimensions can be altered and the model will update. Sketches which are not appropriately constrained will cause the update to fail, which can then result in significant time spent “debugging” the problems. The software and version were determined specifically by the use of Genoform, an automatic iterative design program that formed part of the study (see the section headed Genoform below).

Participants were invited back to conduct the modelling exercise approximately one week after having submitted their design. They were asked to review the model and to comment specifically on how well it captured their design intent (i.e. did it look the way they expected). Attention was drawn to specific aspects of the model, particularly where the CAD operator had interpreted a difficult-to-understand drawing or feature. Participants were then asked whether there was anything they would wish to change about the model either to improve the design or to correct mistakes in the interpretation of their drawings.

When the CAD model had been modified to a state the participant felt reflected their aspirations for the design, the Genoform software program was used to generate alternative design options. Initially ten options were generated but participants were free to generate more if they wished. Options which were liked or perceived as interesting were imported back into Solidworks; these reimported options were then compared to the originator model. In a majority of cases the participant requested changes to the originator model, based on ideas stimulated by the Genoform options, however in no instance was a Genoform option chosen as a ‘most favoured’ design.

Part II – Modelling Exercise

In this part of the study, participants were shown six pre-designed CAD models. The reasoning behind each design, e.g. why it was a certain size or contained certain features, was explained; the extent to which it might be modified was also made clear. Participants were then asked to choose one of the six models as the basis for the rest of the exercise.

6 pre-designed models presented to the trial participants

Having chosen a model, participants were asked which aspects of its design they wished to change. Where it was possible to modify the model by changing a feature’s dimensions or parameters this change was accepted. However any request which involved adding new features was not accepted. For example: with the ‘grip’ feature on model 1, the number of grip details could be modified, however a similar grip feature could not be transferred to any other model. In such a way participants were deliberately constrained in their ability to influence a given design. The CAD model was again modified by the CAD operator in front of the participant according to his/her instructions.

When the chosen model had been modified to reflect the participant’s intent, the Genoform program was again used to generate alternative designs. Ten options were generated initially but participants were able to request more options. Again, those options felt to be interesting were imported back into Solidworks and compared to the participant’s own modified model. In this exercise Genoform was less able to suggest new ideas or directions, and a majority of participants preferred their own modified model to the Genoform derived options. In those who found the Genoform options useful, none chose a Genoform option as the ‘most favoured’ design, preferring instead to modify their own model further.

Concept of the Safe Model

Most industrial designers understand the safe model (sometimes also called a ‘keep away’ model) concept. It’s used to understand and visualise the minimum possible size of a product, whilst taking account of internal mechanisms and electronics, thickness of materials, tolerances, etc. A safe model of an MP3 player for example, would be created by ‘expanding’ the dimensions of the internal electronics by an amount equal to the thickness of the materials used in the outer casing, plus the distance required between the electronic components and the inside of the casing. It can also incorporate considerations of safety, ergonomics, marketing, etc; thus the safe model for a family car would be affected by the need for crash crumple zones, headroom in the passenger compartment and size of boot. A safe model does not dictate the final design of the product (though it does influence the final design), rather it indicates the absolute minimum volume a product can be when all other requirements are met.

Safe model of a touch-screen mobile phone

Example of a safe model highlighting a potential problem. In such a case the designer would need to redesign the product in this area, or ascertain whether the internal components could be moved

The concept of the safe model was used in two ways in the user trials. Firstly, having calculated a safe model for the USB memory stick, images of this safe model were given to participants during briefing of the drawing exercise. Participants were shown how to use these images as underlays which acted as guides during design. Provided the participant’s drawings were not smaller than the images of the safe model, their design would be realistically manufacturable. The safe model was also used in the two modelling exercises. By modelling the safe model inside Solidworks, any design could be superimposed to check if it satisfied the minimum volume requirements (Figure 4). Furthermore, when setting up the parameters for the operation of the Genoform software, the safe model placed lower limits on the extent to which Genoform could modify the design.

A participant’s ‘final’ design, with the safe model also shown

Genoform

Genoform is an iterative design exploration tool which operates as a plug-in module to Solidworks. It is produced by Genometri, a design technology company which develops specialised software, which was created as a spin-out company from the National University of Singapore. Genoform works by varying the dimensions of a Solidworks sketch; the designer can assign which sketches Genoform can manipulate, which dimensions within those sketches, and the degree to which the dimension can be varied. Thus it is possible (for example) to instruct Genoform to vary a dimension of 10mm by plus or minus 25% (i.e. a range of 7.5mm – 12.5mm). It is also possible to set maximum or minimum values, thus the designer may decide that the 10mm dimension can never be reduced, but can be increased by 45% (i.e. a range of 10mm – 14.5mm). In this way Genoform will run through the structure of a Solidworks CAD model, altering dimensions by a random factor within limits decided by the designer, and creating new iterations of the original CAD model. Genoform will create between one and one thousand variants, as the designer decides. The image below shows variants of a single design created by Genoform. My earlier post goes into more detail about how Genoform works, and you can download a trial copy here.

Design iterations created by Genoform. The original model is in the top left

Trial Participants

Ten participants were recruited from within the postgraduate student body of Loughborough University in the age ranges as shown in the table below. Participants were required to be computer literate as defined by daily engagement with five out of seven of the following activities: web browsing, e-mail, social networking, chat, VOIP (e.g. Skype), Microsoft Office software, other software. Participants were also required to self identify as “being interested in design and new technology”. As such, the profile of participants fitted with the findings of e.g. Bauer et al. (2007) and Füller and Bartl (2007) regarding the types of consumer most likely to engage in mass customisation. Furthermore, the trial excluded participants who had trained or were working as industrial designers.

The results and conclusions of the trial are discussed in the following post.

Customised fruit © Sarah King

Sarah King is a graphic designer living in London and a member of the graphic design collective Evening Tweed. I can’t really explain why I like these so much, it’s partly to do with the graphic style but also I think it’s to do with the incongruity – why bother customising something that’s cheap and will naturally degrade in a short space of time? Actually I could imagine a commercial version of this in the future: logos of suppliers laser marked on the fruit instead of those stupid little stickers they use today. But I’m sure the result won’t be something as beautiful as these.

Customised Nitto and Campagnolo bike components © Kosuke Masuda

I suspect these will divide the opinions of cycling enthusiasts, there’ll be some purists who hate the idea of messing with high quality components, while others will appreciate the time and skill involved. They’re not to my taste, but I like the way these intricate and decorative patterns mess with the ‘normal’ paradigm of sleek, serious engineering.

Customised shirt © Jody Barton

I can remember customising schoolbags by writing the names of favourite bands on them, and I can remember friends signing their names over each other shirts when we left school. Neither looked as accomplished as this though.

Customised Adidas tracksuit © Kasper Strömman

Kasper Strömman created this tracksuit for an exhibition, and draws on the colours and patterns of traditional Sami costume. It was hand-coloured using felt-tip pens and took a week to complete. My first reaction to this was that it’s somewhat insulting of a minority culture’s traditions, but as I considered it more I started to think that actually this is far better than non-Sami people dressing up for tourists, for example. Sami culture doesn’t exist only in a museum, it’s people are part of the modern world and maybe there are some who would think an artistic collaboration with Adidas would be kind of cool. But it’s difficult for me to know, I wonder what others think?

Customised Vans © Yuko Kondo

Customised Adidas © Atypyk

Sports shoes are maybe the one product which offers consumers more customisation possibilities than any other. Yuko Kondo’s customised trainers wouldn’t look out of place on sale by Ryz, but Atypyk’s customised sports shoes would be certain to attract the attention of both Nike and Adidas. I wonder if this counts as a pro-Nike or an anti-Nike statement (or pro- or anti-Adidas for that matter). I once worked in a studio which only allowed its designers to use PC’s, a number of them indicated their feelings by customising their laptops with vinyl stickers of Apple’s logo.

Customised body hair © Eduard Xandri

Finally, I don’t think there’s many people who could look at this without smiling. Less permanent than a tattoo, and admittedly not an option for everyone.

These are just a few examples from Customise This, there are many more from the designers shown as well as others I haven’t mentioned. If you’re looking for an overview of commercial customisation examples, this book isn’t for you. However as an introduction to the creative opportunities which customisation makes possible, it’s a great place to start.

This entry recently appeared on the FluidForms blog; many thanks to Andreas Jaritz for the opportunity…

In 2006, Fast Company published a debate article entitled Can Anyone be a Designer? Andrew Keen and Joe Duffy argued the pros and cons and in the end neither one managed to convince the other (the title of this piece was one of Keen’s closing arguments), but the article raised some interesting questions which services such as those offered by FluidForms are increasingly bringing to the attention of professional designers. Questions not only about who has the right to call themselves a ‘designer’, but also about how design itself is defined.

Joe Duffy began the debate by claiming that

“…everyone plays the part of a designer. Design decisions are made by most everyone, everyday – what should I wear today? What kind of car should I buy? What color? Which options? What about the new sofa for the family room? What design style? Which color and fabric? These actually are design decisions…”

This is an argument I used in an essay early in my design studies. I thought it was insightful at the time, but then I was only 17. Of course, it’s totally wrong. These aren’t design decisions, they’re consumer choices. As Douglas Coupland said in Generation X, shopping is not creating. Arguing that choosing what car to buy is a design decision is like arguing that taking an aspirin is a medical decision, and that therefore I’m playing the part of a doctor, as one CSven argued on ProductDesignForums recently.

Fiat 500 customisation toolkit © Fiat

Even if there might be a philosophical debate to be had about whether these are design decisions, it doesn’t really help in deciding whether anyone can be a designer. But I don’t believe most consumers see these as design decisions anyway; in my experience most people think of design in terms of taste and aesthetics, and believe that in our post-modern world, everyone is entitled to an opinion on what constitutes good or bad design. In one sense they are right: one of the things that distinguishes design from art is that design is primarily about solving problems. And so to know whether a particular design is good or bad, you have to ask the people who have used it. But expecting consumers to have an opinion on whether a design is ‘good’, on whether one design solves a problem better than another, is a long way from claiming those consumers are themselves designers.

In Duffy’s definition though, design isn’t about problem solving, it’s about consumer choice, and in his opinion this is a good thing.

“As Americans act more like designers, they learn more about the design process, and in exploring it on their own terms, they gain a greater appreciation for the talent that it takes to practice it at the highest levels. They also achieve a better understanding of its importance in their lives.”

If people really were to act more like designers, they might indeed come to a better understanding of why design is important, both aesthetically and functionally. But this is where FluidForms, and other companies which offer customisation of products, raise some interesting questions. By offering tools to consumers which make the unique design of products easier does this raise the consumer’s appreciation of the designer’s skill?  After all, people don’t usually come to appreciate things that are easy, they appreciate the skills involved in doing something they themselves find difficult.

Customised PC by Katsuya Matsumura

This opinion, that design isn’t actually that difficult, is one that understandably raises the hackles of design professionals. On a recent thread on Core77, a website and forum for industrial designers, one poster insisted that most design is much, much simpler than gourmet cooking. That sparked off a whole debate, much of it quite disparaging, about consumers who ‘self-design’ products. Some of the comments included:

“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 prototyping machine in many ways is no different than the hot glue gun, it allows crafters to exercise their wimsy and their perspective, some of which 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.”

“It comes down to this, 75% of people are herd beasts, and buy what others in their social groups have/want.”

The way these comments are so dismissive of consumers-as-designers to a large extent demonstrates the degree to which professional designers feel their work is misunderstood. In the field of mass customisation this is also very common, sites such as NikeID (‘toolkits’ in the mass customisation jargon), are regularly referred to as offering consumers the opportunity to design their own products. Andrew Keen picks up on this in his arguments in the Fast Company article:

“The consequence of this design democracy is an ugly spectacle of deep purples and electric oranges. It’s a culture of me-me-me: my hideously personalized car, my hideously personalized sofa, my hideously personalized house. It’s that fat woman in the tight dress that only exaggerates her obesity. It’s that loud pick-up truck with the tinted windows and the tastelessly sexualized exhaust pipe.”

Phantasy Landscape, 1970 © Verner Panton

I sense some faux outrage here. But anyway, the question is, whose ugliness? If Wallpaper magazine was insisting deep purple and electric orange were cool, would Keen pick another example? What’s being described here is quite clearly taste, not design. And those who are most disturbed by consumers exhibiting their own choices are always those who consider themselves arbiters of ‘good’ taste, the people who see their own influence waning as consumers increasingly make decisions for themselves.

In the end, the question of whether anyone can be a designer comes down to the way in which design is defined. Professional designers think of it as a process which encompasses everything from consumer research and blue-sky concepting to the constraints imposed by manufacturing. In contrast, consumers tend to understand design as a noun, rather than a verb – something which is added to a product rather than something which fundamentally decides it. New manufacturing technologies, and the companies which are giving consumers access to them, will not turn consumers into designers. But they will allow consumers to act creatively to interact with a product and make decisions about its form and function. For me, that’s better than just shopping.

Note: since this article was written another discussion has taken place on Core77 which covers similar issues, you can read it here.

If all goes to plan it should be about five weeks until the frame and forks are ready, which is why I set today as the deadline by which I had to decide what colour the frame will be painted. Because I’ve gone for a lugless construction there’s no possibility of accent colours, so this should have been a relatively easy decision. On the other hand it’s a bike that I hope will last me a long time, and since this is a bespoke item it’s one which I want to reflect my personality to some extent, certainly more than an off-the-shelf model.

Although it might seem a bit backwards, one of the things driving my decision was that I’d already ordered a set of Velocity Deep V rims in orange. I’d seen these rims on a Surly Steamroller in NYC Velo last year, and my first thoughts were to copy the colour scheme but with orange rims instead of red.

Surly Steamroller in NYC Velo

When I made a rendering it just didn’t seem right though:

So the next thought was to try the complete reverse, ie a totally white frame:

Mercian offer two types of white paint: white enamel and white pearl; I’ve gone for the pearl. For this to work, it relies on sourcing black components rather than silver for the hubs, spokes, headset, seat post etc. As you can see from the rendering I’ve not made any choice about the type of bars yet. Although I’ve not ordered it yet, the seat will be a Fizik Arione Wing Flex. Fizik allow the customer to customise the colours of the saddle, and this model offers the most customisation opportunities. With the white colour scheme, my saddle will look like this:

I tried out one other colour scheme before I made the decision, which was suggested by a friend as well as being one I’d noticed on Fixed Gear Gallery.

To be honest though, even though I like it as a colour scheme I can’t really see myself riding it. So it’s the white that I’ve gone for. Next stage of the project will be ordering the hubs and building up the wheels…

According to Alison Black of the UK Design Council,

“The central premise of user-centred design is that the best designed products and services result from understanding the needs of the people who will use them”

Rather than relying on market research or simply gut feeling, a user-centred design approach requires the designer to engage directly with the consumer, interviewing them about their specific requirements and observing them in situations where a proposed product would likely be used. Other designers have taken this even further, advocating the inclusion of users in the design process, critiquing designs and adding ideas of their own in a sub-category of user-centred design often referred to as consumer co-design.

Direct consumer involvement in the design process takes many forms, and is the subject of a significant amount of academic research (Google Scholar finds 3660 unique references for consumer co-design). In my own experience I ran a design project for Nokia in which we worked with the Team Finland adventure racing team to design a product suitable for outdoor enthusiasts, watching the athletes train and compete, asking them to describe their preparation and what they valued in the equipment they used, and inviting them to review specifications and concepts for the product. In mass customisation, co-design generally refers to the use of toolkits or configurators, which allow consumers to specify certain elements of a product such that the end result more closely matches their requirements. But what all approaches to co-design assume, along with user-centred design itself, is that the industrial design should essentially remain unchanged.

In an idealised user-centred design process, the brief will be written in the full understanding of what the user believes to be important. The designer will work to, or perhaps challenge, the brief based on observations and discussions with consumers, who will be invited to comment on concepts and designs. In itself this is challenging to some designers, who feel that part of their expertise lies in knowing what consumers want, or that consumers have no taste, or even that consumers don’t know what they want until they see it. But in the end it’s still the same process, one in which designers have the expertise, designers control the tools and designers make the final decisions. What I’m suggesting is that as rapid manufacturing technologies become more visible, consumers are going to take the design process into their own hands whether professional designers like it or not. And we should start looking at the tools and processes which will enable this.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that everyone will be able to do this or even that everyone will want to. But enough will want to do it that the design process will have to change. Professional designers will continue to be the experts, but that won’t stop amateurs having a go. It’s true that most consumers have no taste, but it doesn’t stop them buying and it won’t prevent them designing once they have the opportunity. The question is whether industrial designers themselves will lead this change, or whether they will be dragged into it kicking and screaming, all the while protesting that change is unnecessary, in the same way that the music industry has been.

Trendwatching.com is a research network which aims to spot emerging trends worldwide. Along with its sister network Springwise, it’s one of my favourite sources of what’s-going-on information, mainly because unlike most trend research agencies it gives most of it’s findings away for free. Today I saw they have published their annual report of important trends for the coming year, one of which is ‘Make it Yourself,’ or MIY.

The report itself doesn’t contain that much new information, highlighting Ponoko, Fab Lab BCN (the Barcelona manifestation of Neil Gershenfeld’s Fab Lab), and Front’s Sketch Furniture as evidence of the trend having gone mainstream,

“with millions of consumers uploading their creative endeavors online, and tens of millions of others enjoying the fruits of their creativity”

The end quote is interesting though:

“we’re not saying every consumer is going to design and manufacture his or her own furniture or appliances. Rather, MIY is yet another piece of the participation puzzle: enabling those consumers who feel like it to call the shots, bypassing traditional players.”

I’ve read some research papers which suggest what kind of consumers are interested in customising or designing their own products, but I’ve not yet come across any data which quantifies these consumers. One of the most interesting things about Ponoko is that it allows consumers to not only design but also sell products, such that consumers who perhaps do not have the creative skills to design their own products can nonetheless support those who do. Most interesting of all though, in my opinion, is the Threadless community, where consumers similarly limited in skills are often invited to comment and make suggestions as to how a design might be improved.

Yesterday I took the first step in a project that I’ve been thinking about for a year or so now, which is to custom build a bike. Although this won’t strictly be part of my PhD, I’m hoping the process will tell me a lot about the differences between bespoke design and mass customisation, with the advantage of course of ending up with a really nice (and unique) machine at the end of it.

Whilst most of the parts will be standard or mass customised components, the frame will be hand-built. It’s being made by Mercian Cycles in Derby, and yesterday I met with John Eley, who went through my requirements, measured me up, and explained the options I was unsure about (such as the difference in ride characteristics between straight and curved forks). One of the things that interests me about this project is how much I’m required to learn in order to make the right decisions – on a personal level it interests me because I love bikes and cycling, but in terms of my research I hope to find out how a consumer’s level of expertise might dictate the customisation experience they are offered.

John Eley setting up the jig

There were certain things I knew I wanted before I even began looking for a frame-builder. The first was that I’m aiming to build a fixed gear road bike – I’ve been lusting after one ever since the European Cycle Messenger Championships were held in Helsinki (this is the article I wrote about it for Pingmag). That means provision for a front brake and horizontal rear drop-outs so I can put a fixed-free flip-flop hub on the back.

Image © Mercian

Then I want the bike to be as clean as possible – no bottle cage bosses, no mudguard mount points, and lugless fillets (although I appreciate the craftsmanship involved in some custom lugs, they’re a bit too fancy for me). Finally it was important that I could have the bike supplied with no graphics, just a pure paint finish (more on this later).

Image © Mercian

Having established the features I knew I wanted, John then explained the different grades of steel that Mercian build from (Reynolds 631, 725, 853 and 853 Pro) and what these mean in terms of ride quality. Since I already have an aluminium road bike and I expect this new one to be used mainly for shorter trips, I opted for 631 tubing, which is the ‘least stiff’ option. John then measured both me and my existing bike (a Specialized Allez) which he reckoned was a pretty good fit although the frame is maybe half an inch too small. Another difference between my Specialized and the new bike is that fixed gear bikes, which before cycle couriers made them trendy were used mainly for track racing, often have a higher bottom bracket (275mm from the ground rather than 270mm) and shorter cranks (165mm rather than 170mm) so they can be ridden upright on a banked track. Although I’m probably never going to do this, it’s a touch of authenticity I want to retain and which will add to the bike’s character. With this in mind the measurements were used to set up Mercian’s jig for me to sit on and try out for comfort, the jig was then adjusted to get the fit just right.

Me sitting on the fitting jig

The frame and forks will take about 12 weeks to build and paint, during which time I’ll begin to spec the other components. But before that I need to decide on a colour scheme – I’ll be trying out some alternatives soon. There is also a possibility to include some custom graphics, either as varnish finish transfers if I can find a supplier, or vinyl stickers. If it’s the latter Mercian won’t apply them (the quality isn’t good enough) so I’ll have to put them on after the frame is delivered.