John James Marshall thesis.pdf - OpenAIR @ RGU - Robert Gordon ...

Impact
References
New formal possibilities 9 (36%)
Transformation of practice 5 (20%)
Integration of traditional methods and 5 (20%)
computer-based technologies
Enhanced means of communication 2 (8%)
Developed own tools (through 2 (8%)
necessity)
Increased productivity 2 (8%)
Total Respondents 25
Skipped this question 2
Q9. What (for you) is the key benefit of using these technologies?
The practitioners considered the unique opportunities offered by these
technologies to create objects not possible to produce by other means as their
key benefit. This recalls Harrod’s ‘otherwise unobtainable’ – indeed 3
practitioners (11%) referenced or paraphrased this term. It should also be noted
the terms ‘complex’ or ‘complexity’ were used 11 times in the responses to this
question.
Benefit
References
Otherwise Unobtainable 12 (48%)
Productivity 9 (36%)
Collaborative 2 (8%)
Conceptual 2 (8%)
Total Respondents 25
Skipped this question 2
Q10. What (for you) is the key limitation of using these technologies?
The most prevalent answer pointed out by these practitioners was the expense
of using these technologies with 8 (29.6%) identifying cost as the key limitation.
Limit
References
Resources (access, cost, scale, training) 14 (56%)
Lack of haptic response 3 (12%)
Tool-derived aesthetics 3 (12%)
Non-intuitive software interfaces 2 (8%)
Range of RP materials 2 (8%)
None 1 (4%)
Total Respondents 25
Skipped this question 2
- 162 -