7uldo dqg (uuru edvhg ,qqrydwlrq - Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i ...

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N© Jan Capjon, 2004.ISSN 1502-217xISBN 82-547-0164-4CON-TEXTAvhandling 14Akademisk doktorgradsavhandlingavgitt vedArkitekthøgskolen i OsloUTGIVER:Arkitekthøgskolen i OsloBILDE OMSLAG:Jan CapjonTRYKK:Unipub ASDESIGN AV BASISMAL:Creuna

AbstractThis qualitative research project has explored how a collaborative designconceptualisation process can be effectively stimulated through productionof material representations of imagery – and how a basic understanding ofsuch a process can be comprehensively illustrated. The approach is basedupon the capabilities of Rapid Prototyping (RP) technology, which for thefirst time in history has made it possible to materialise complex humanimagination quickly, cheaply and exactly. Inherent properties of RP havebeen found very appropriate for catalysing sense-based understanding of thedesign problems among different design actors and for expanding RP usefrom finished concept production to several other applications. The resultingdesign strategy has an overall aim of uniting subjective and objectiverepresentations in iterative wholeness experience approximations – in a nondualisticphilosophical understanding which contains two aspects.Sensuous/formative and interpretative/adaptive modes of the process arethereby interactively and dynamically integrated through the physicalrepresentations which are shared by all actors in both modes. Playful,creative experimentation with alternative physical possibilities will supportdiversity and specificity simultaneously. The concept is here seen as sharedmeaning emerging between flexible poles of mentality and materiality – andphysically represented. Alienation in the computer interface is overcomethrough scanning and manipulating manually remade concept models. Thisstrategy has a potential for embracing diverging field-based approaches todesign action through maintaining but chopping up abstraction and mixingin perception. New illuminating terminology for development stages issuggested: Visiotyping in the Fuzzy Front End, Negotiotyping inConceptualisation, Prototyping (as established) in Concept Evaluation andSeriotyping in User Feedback. The design approach is metaphoricallydepicted in a model called the Plant of Emerging Materiality (PoEM).i

Abstract in NorwegianDette kvalitative forskningsprosjektet har undersøkt hvordan en tverrfagligkonseptualiseringsprosess innen design kan stimuleres effektivt gjennomfremstilling av materielle representasjoner av indre forestillinger – oghvordan en slik prosess kan illustreres forståelig. Analysen er basert påRapid Prototyping (RP) teknologi, som for første gang i historien harmuliggjort materialisering av komplekse menneskelige forestillinger raskt,billig og eksakt. Denne teknologiens egenskaper er funnet meget velegnet tilå katalysere sansebasert forståelse av designproblemene blant ulike designaktører– og til å utvide benyttelse av RP fra produksjon av ferdigutvikledekonsepter til mange andre anvendelser. Den resulterende designstrategienhar som overordnet målsetning å forene subjektive og objektiverepresentasjoner i iterative tilnærmelser til helhetsopplevelser – i en ikkedualistiskfilosofisk forståelse som inneholder to aspekter. Det skillesmellom et formfølsomt skapermodus og et tolkende anvendelsesmodus iprosessen. Disse forenes interaktivt og dynamisk gjennom de fysiskerepresentasjonene som oppleves samtidig av alle aktørene i begge modi.Lekende, kreativ eksperimentering med alternative fysiske muligheter vilunderstøtte diversitet og spesifisitet samtidig. Konseptet forstås her somfelles forståelse som oppstår mellom fleksible poler av mentalitet ogmaterialitet – og som blir fysisk representert. Fremmedgjøring i computerensbrukergrensesnitt løses ved hjelp av scanning og manipulasjon av manueltbearbeidede konsept-modeller. Denne strategien har potensial for å foreneulike profesjoners måte å angripe designprosessen på ved å opprettholdeabstraksjon, men å blande inn persepsjon. Ny illustrerende engelskterminologi er forslått: Visiotyping i den ustrukturerte oppstartingsfasen,Negotiotyping i konseptualiseringsfasen, Prototyping (som innarbeidet) ievalueringsfasen og Seriotyping når brukererfaring skal avgjøre konseptetsskjebne. En oppsummerende metaforisk prosessmodell er kalt ’Plant ofEmerging Materiality’ (PoEM).ii

AcknowledgementsThe project has been financed through the Norwegian Research Council(NFR) with part-contributions from four manufacturing companies:Luxo a.s, Hamax a.s, Polimoon a.s and Jordan a.s. Its realisation has takenplace at Institute of Industrial Design (IDE) at Oslo School of Architecture(AHO). I want to thank my collaborators from all these institutions.Sven Samuelsen and Kirsten Klaveness of NFR have supported this projectfrom day one and they have contributed with vital help and advice each timewe approached new milestones. Bjørn Hugo Smaastuen of Luxo has beenencouraging in his view of project potential and in leadership of formalities.Dag Høidal has participated in developments, and Asbjørn Eskild has beenengaged in the experiments we have carried out at Hamax – and has evenjoined the board of AHO in the process. Einar Sveian of Polimoon has beenparticularly supportive of the Rapid Tooling experiments. Geir Hellerud hasused very much of his valuable time in close collaboration in several studentprojects for Jordan.Ola Stave of AHO has supported my visions from 1997 onward, and hehelped in establishing the formalities – as well as the connections to the restof the school. He also initiated a television presentation and activelysupported an initiative of participation in Akerselva Innovation Park. All thestaff and students of IFID have similarly been enthusiastic about theimplementation of this technology in teaching and project approaches fromthe beginning to this day. In particular must be mentioned Steinar Killi, whoimmediately caught on, fronted acquisition of equipment and led theestablishment of the RP laboratory – as well as the marketing companyBerkano a.s. Steinar was in charge of the research on Rapid Toolingtechnology – and he will expand on the results of this project through hisown established PhD. Geir Øxseth has generously contributed with projectsuggestions and professional design knowledge. Tank you also to thestudents who have devotedly participated in the first phase projects:Christian Abry, Dan Sevaldson, Christian Sinding-Larsen, Monica Hestad,Inger Løvstad, Magnus Petterson and in the final research team: MortenKildahl, Øyvar Svendsen, Merete Nes, Heidi Ekstrøm, Anne Lise Bergem,Andreas Ram Bugge, Lars K. Bjerke, Agata Surdziel and Anne Dreher.Many people have helped in trying to form an old stubborn practitioner intoa researcher. Halina Dunin-Woyseth has enthusiastically been leading thedoctoral program from the beginning, and she has with impressive patienceallowed us to develop as individuals. Bjørn Sandaker has been my officialadvisor, and from a basis in the natural sciences it has in no way been aneasy task to witness my wild leaps to camps of the humanities; thanks forallowing them. Judy Gregory has given comfort and help – which was not ofiii

the depressive ‘general’ kind. Her insight into diverging methodologicalapproaches and her openness to peculiar interpretations often made merecover my track. Svein Enart has come up with exactly the literature whichwas needed each time despair threatened a continuation. Erik Lerdahl hasbeen an inspiring cooperation partner in student projects. Eva Brandt hasgiven supportive advice from related experience. David Durling generouslycontributed with reading the draft – and from his highly red comments andcommand of the ‘British Standard’ many a shortcoming could be spottedand changed. Several others have also contributed with diverse assignmentsof practical and data-based character.Wholehearted thanks go to my family and friends for supporting methroughout this project – and for bearing over with otherwise intolerableneglects. The consequences on a farm from years of focus on books and laptopare hard to imagine for the uninvolved. And finally a particular thanks tomy wife Inger, who has contributed so much to it all.Oslo School of ArchitectureInstitute of Industrial DesignAugust 2004Jan Capjoniv

Contents:CH 1 INTRODUCTION1.1 Background, framing and object of study 21.2 Research strategy and questions 41.3 Developments of a project approach 51.4 Chronological contents of the thesis 71.5 Summary of contributions 9CH 2 TECHNOLOGY, INITIAL CONCEPTS AND THEORY2.1 Rapid Prototyping, Rapid Tooling and scanning technology 122.2 Some central concepts 142.3 Engineering design 152.4 Architectural / industrial design 162.5 Reconciliation attempts 182.6 Collaborative design 192.7 Theory related to creativity 212.8 Theory related to physical representation in design 252.9 Theory related to mental representation and processing 292.10 Preliminary reflection on theoretical aspects 32CH 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SCIENTIFIC FRAMING3.1 A transdisciplinary approach 383.2 Principles of qualitative research 383.3 Strategies and methods of inquiry 423.4 Verification through credibility 513.5 Application to the research project 53CH 4EMPIRICAL CASES4.1 Tool performance and case objectives 584.2 Action phase A case projects 604.3 Initial in-depth interviews 694.4 Reflections on the initial empirical inquiries 804.5 Acquisition of a Concept Modeller RP machine 834.6 Action Phase B case projects 834.7 Concluding sessions 984.8 Challenges emerging from the empirical findings 104v

Ch 1: INTRODUCTION_______________________________________________________In this chapter the background for the research project is described,a research problematic is sketched, the research questions areformulated, some critical research proceedings are reviewed, thethesis is broadly outlined, and the contributions are summarised.

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N1.1 Background, framing and object of studyMy background for writing this thesis is praxis within the productdevelopment field; as mechanical engineer, industrial designer, inventor andlecturer. For close to twenty years I have led a consultancy company andbeen in charge of some sixty design and product development projects forNorwegian industry. I have in this work, and through rapidly changingsupportive technology, experienced many different ways of approaching thetask of designing and of collaboration between individuals and professionalactors. Let me begin with a short description of two challenging issues, basedin this praxis, which through their negative impact actually became thesources of inspiration for this research project.Like most designers of my generation I ‘grew up’ behind a drawing boardwith pencil and paper and the approach to forming action was largely basedupon a combination of drawing and manual forming of for example foam,wood and plastic materials like clay. When computer design became popularin the early 1990s I had a hard time trying to adjust to making form byclicking a mouse, observing a two-dimensional picture on a screen andeventually perceiving form as curves on a paper print-out – althoughefficiency was magnified. Alienation in the act of forming was experiencedby design actors of the old school who had learnt to design in close contactwith their materials, and for my own part trying to bend my way of designingto the computer’s way was quite unsuccessful. One seemed to lose contactwith proportion, orientation, scale and relations to a degree which wasexperienced as highly frustrating, particularly in terms of aesthetics. Andsimultaneously it was almost hopeless to escape this situation because of thesuperior capacity of computerised design and the ‘devastating’ efficiency ofour (young) competitors who quickly caught on.Another praxis-based challenge was that when dissimilar design actors ofdifferent backgrounds, schooling and individualities tried to collaborate, theshared design problem to be solved was basically experienced differently byall. To the degree that the different views are supposed to be represented inthe final solution, this must be seen as a preferable point of departure. Butto the degree that collaborative design can be seen as an art of mixingperspectives, it should nevertheless be possible to distinguish between addingthem and integrating them. If the latter is our objective, our challengebecomes one of how interaction between different values, norms, traditions,practices and objectives should be executed. Such variables are deeply rootedin individuals and traditions and are experienced as very hard to integrate ifopposed – which often results in delegation of developmental responsibility2

C H A P T E R 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O Nand separation of basic approaches instead of integration. These tendenciescan for example be observed in ‘shell designs’ with engineering internals anddesigner externals, fundamental differences between market oriented andcreativity oriented thinking and in basically opposed views in different fieldson the question of taking risks in innovative projects.For many years I had been involved in these seemingly divergent andproblematic aspects of new trends in product development. In 1994 I wasengaged as project leader of a Craft research project organised by theEuropean Commission, where the objective was to integrate engineering anddesign in reinforced polymer laminate constructions. In collaboration withtwo German institutions I was here introduced to Rapid Prototyping (RP) andRapid Tooling (RT) technology, which rapidly and cheaply could materialisevirtual 3D CAD models in different materials. If polymers were used, theresulting models could be employed for prototyping, and if metal-likecomposites were used, negative tool inserts could be built and used formoulding. Overnight this exploration changed my attitude towards computerbaseddesign. I became engaged by the possibilities this technology seemedto offer in terms of easy creation of physicality. There also seemed to be aninteresting option to use this kind of materiality for design applications otherthan production of finished concepts, or prototypes. In particular it seemed tobe an opportunity to challenge the problems described above, because thesetools were capable of producing fast and cheap physical interfaces whichcould facilitate understanding of creative design problems from the basis ofperception. The tools might also support communication between designactors based upon real-world experiences.These challenges were presented to Oslo School of Architecture (AHO),where I was engaged at the Institute of Industrial Design. An application tothe Norwegian Research Council for funding for acquisition of a combinedRapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling machine was granted. A subsequentapplication to the Council for this research project in collaboration with fourNorwegian manufacturers of finished goods – Luxo a.s, Hamax a.s, I-plasta.s (later exchanged with Jordan a.s) and Polimoon a.s – was eventuallygranted as well. A basis for exploration of the tool’s capabilities was therebyestablished. The original formulations of the project’s objectives were:Main objective: to improve the design and product developmentprocess through employment of new development technology.Sub-objectives: (1) to develop a methodological strategy forinteraction between design and engineering for achieving integratedproduct concepts, (2) to employ the trial-and-error principle3

C H A P T E R 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O Npossibilities for supporting human abilities. This would involve how it couldbe used in practical design cases, what the involved actors learned from suchpractical employment of the tool, which characteristic properties of the toolthey and I in collaboration found to be useful or undesirable and eventuallywhat such data could reveal when related to theory concerned with humanperception of the involved materiality. In addition to these basic RP-basedaspects came the exploration of the potentials of how RT could be employedto improve a development process (Capjon 2002).As the principle of exploration is gradually to mature an understanding, Ichose a strategy of gradual advancement, where action studies and reflectiveintegration with theoretical aspects along the way form the working pattern.These research questions were formulated:Q1Q2Q3Q4How can employment of RP produced materiality in theconceptualisation phase of product development processes becharacterised?How can a humanly based conceptualisation process supportedthrough evolving physical representation be theoretically described?How can RP based action and a theoretical understanding of designconceptualisation be integrated?How can RP and RT be applied in other phases of the developmentprocess?How should these questions be approached?1.3 Developments of a project approachI was going to study presumed positive effects of active employment ofphysical representation in conceptualisation in the sense how such physicalitycan elicit basic understanding of the design problem among one or moredesign actors. And I had an explorative strategy of proceeding gradually inbalance between practice and theory. This seemed like a straightforward wayto start out, which could be adapted to well established research methodologyand practice. The results of the first stage case studies, a list of negotiatedanswers to research question Q1, were based upon directly observable designaction involving physical modelling. But closer reflection on these resultsrevealed that the modelling action represented only one side of the coin. The5

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nother side was ‘hidden’ in the designers’ minds. It quite early appeared asessential for a proper understanding of a design process to get a grasp of thisinvisible but integral part of design action, where design ideas seem tooriginate and which cannot be observed in studies of design action. To studymaterial modelling and leaving out the mental side seemed like just touchingthe surface of things. This realisation eventually brought the researchproceedings into a dilemma.Research question Q2 concerning an analysis of human preconditions forconceptualisation turned out to be difficult to answer consistently. Atheoretical study of the human mind should be approached from manydifferent fields. But one soon finds that controversies and competingpositions within and between central fields make a description of a humanlybased conceptualisation process problematic – both in terms of actualdescription and in research methodological terms. It therefore appears asunderstandable why design researchers, and in particular PhD candidates, aregenerally advised to avoid such ‘moor-lands’ of contradicting tracks which inall probability will lead into superficial analyses of overwhelming theory. Mychoice of nevertheless trying to include some access to this landscapetherefore needs some initial justification.My motivation for writing this thesis was not to prepare for a future inresearch (like young academics usually do), but to try to contribute fromexperience to an improvement of the design process. I wanted to explore howcommon process weaknesses can be improved through action which is inaccordance with what I had often experienced in well functioningdevelopment projects. The research problematic and questions resulted in twoseparate tracks to follow. In the first track a theoretical description of ahumanly based conceptualisation process was attempted. The other wasconcerned with analyses of ways in which the RP and the RT tools can beapplied in order to effectively support such a process. These inquiries and theway they are analysed are of different nature.The latter track is approached through case studies, interviews, discussionsand analyses of the data according to well established procedures ofqualitative research 1 . This strategy is applied to all issues of practical designaction and maintained all through the thesis – which represents its maincontents. The theoretical track eventually led into a landscape which I foundto have high relevance for design action in general and this project inparticular, and therefore no way could be found to proceed other than through1 See section 3.2.6

C H A P T E R 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O Nit – with a hope of identifying some simplified understanding. But in facingthe enigmas of human consciousness from a professional background inengineering and design plus an amateur interest of philosophy, the onlyapplicable way I could find to work was through trying to establish anoverview. The argument that adaptation of human capabilities to designshould be left for philosophers and neurobiologists I did not find convincingsince their insight of how designers design apparently leaves much to bedesired. In choosing the overview or holistic approach to human capabilities,but in acknowledgement of its dangers, I have tried to avoid the gravestpitfalls of ‘overkill’ through some intentional measures. (a) I have tried tobalance related views from cognitive psychology, philosophy andneurobiology. (b) I have tried to focus theoretical issues which to me appearas being basic to an understanding of design action (e.g. imagery processingin cognitive psychology, dualism/monism in phenomenology and synapticclosures in neurobiology). (c) I have based my selected summaries on wellestablished positions. It has not been my intention to present any concludedtheoretical views of human preconditions for design action. Rather, it hasbeen my intention to search for some basic theoretical understanding which ispossible to communicate to visually oriented and ‘theory-allergic’ designers– and which could facilitate further exploration. The opening I finally foundfor escaping the moor-lands was through illustrating patterns which werefound to be characteristic of action.The research project is structured according to the general principles ofgrounded theory 2 , where the basic principle is that hypotheses and theoryemerge as one proceeds. To the degree that it is practical, the thesis is alsoarranged in this way, where its general outline more or less portrays thelandscape which is covered. It can accordingly be read as a slowlyprogressing narrative. For the less patient explorers, reading the summary ofchapter 10 first could be a possible approach, since it emphasises thetheoretical parts in a condensed form – which may produce an early access.The patterns and interpretations I have suggested are the results of myjourney. They are presented to the design community as basis for futurediscourse without any claim of truth value.1.4 Chronological contents of the thesisChapter 2 summarily describes Rapid Prototyping, Rapid Tooling andscanning technology and defines some central concepts. Engineering designis compared with architectural/industrial design methodologically and some2 See sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5.7

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nreconciliation attempts are described. Finally several theoretical perspectivesfrom the cognitive sciences are presented as a grounding for followingassessments of human perception.In chapter 3 the transdisciplinary character of the project is described and thenature of Qualitative Research is reviewed. Strategies and methods of inquiryare presented. The preferred Participatory Action Research and Reflexivityregimes are emphasised as well as the way they are applied.Chapter 4 reviews two initial action phases, where several RapidPrototyping-supported individual and collaborative design cases arepresented. In-depth interviews with the design actors, questionnaires andvideo-taped action scenarios form a basis for reflective discussions. Theseeventually result in a list of negotiated observations of central behaviouralaspects of design conceptualisation supported through Rapid Prototyping.In chapter 5 the empirical foundation is extended to a theoretical andphilosophical level. From the observations a ‘design cycle’ was negotiated,which models an internalisation/externalisation pattern. From this followsreflection and theoretical analysis of the subject/object problem. In search ofanswers to this problem, human perception and consciousness are approachedfrom divergent positions of phenomenology and neurobiology andreconciliation is eventually found through a ‘dual-aspect’ theory. Summaryreflections on a dual-aspectual monistic framework provide a basis forassessing the perceptual aspects of design action. Finally the concepts ofintuition and engagement are related to the same framework.In chapter 6 a dual-aspectual understanding is applied to the design cyclemodel. Through reflective comparison with a theory on experiential learningtwo modes of design action are suggested, one formative and one adaptive,with the material representation shared. To this pattern is added the observeddynamic structure of a converging process and similar patterns are applied forcollaborating actors. A resulting model of a dynamic, iterative, playful andphysically catalysed design process is synthesised – where flexible mentalityand flexible materiality will merge.Chapter 7 relates the suggested theoretical understanding and models to thepractical question of how materiality is used for perceptual support of designaction in diverse design-related field-based approaches. Large differences inemployment of physical concept modelling are found. To embrace all thefields and integrate value-laden and rational thought-patterns, a strategy ofchopping up and mixing abstract and concrete approaches throughout is8

C H A P T E R 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O Nsuggested – to elicit perceptual experiences of theoretical possibilities formaking. Practical strategies integrating diversity and specificity throughplayful experimentation with alternatives are proposed.In chapter 8 all suggested process models and practical aspects are related tothe capabilities of the Rapid Prototyping tool. Criteria for appropriatemodelling and experimentation procedures are established and the performedcase projects are evaluated against these. Very good capabilities are foundfor all but rough up-front models and remodelling, where remodelling isfound to be problematic. Scanning and advanced surface software isproposed as a solution to the problem, acquired and tested in a final actionphase study – which eventually gave very good results. Rapid Prototypingand scanning with surface correction is concluded to be a very good toolcombination for the suggested strategy.Chapter 9 evaluates the employment of rapid modelling in early and latedevelopment phases. Studies of selected case projects indicate very goodcapabilities of the Rapid Prototyping tool for generative modelling of earlyvisions and for specialised series production. Studies of the capabilities ofRapid Tooling indicate that producing test-series of radical concepts cansubstantially reduce their high market risk.Chapter 10 summarises all empirical findings, theoretical analyses and theresulting proposed design process models – with an emphasis on thetheoretical issues. Approaches to how the theoretical models could beimplemented in practical life are suggested. New terminology for theapplications of RP-produced models in different phases is suggested asVisiotypes, Negotiotypes, Prototypes (as established) and Seriotypes. Oneconcluding metaphorical model of a physically catalysed developmentprocess according to the findings is generated and called the Plant ofEmerging Materiality (PoEM ). This model summarises all aspectualrelations of embodied and disembodied nature and includes the newterminology in a Rapid Multityping framework. The proceedings andlimitations of the research process are finally critically evaluated and futurechallenges resulting from the research are indicated.1.5 Summary of contributions.The contributions of this research project, as summarised in section 10.8, are:1. A metaphorical model of collaborative design processes in complexitycontexts, where conceptualisation is catalysed through iterative9

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nnegotiated material approximations of gradually emerging sharedmeaning (the Plant of Emerging Materiality or PoEM).2. Praxis-, philosophy- and neurobiology-based elaborations of this modelwhich build an understanding of dynamically changing patterns offocused individual attention between mental and material conceptualrepresentations – and a state of being between these where wholenesscan and should intentionally be immediately experienced.3. A suggested understanding of such conceptualisation patterns where onecan distinguish between a formative and an adaptive mode – which areinteractively connected through a shared physical representation servingas perceptual catalyser for all involved actors in each stage.4. Exemplified cases and analyses which display how Rapid Prototypingtechnology can be employed as a tool for generative and very effectivesupport of such processes.5. Suggestion of practical Rapid Prototyping-based intentional approacheseliciting shared experiences, which for long can maintain both diversityand specificity of solution through alternative experiments.6. Exemplified analyses of how Rapid Prototyping technology can be usedgeneratively to elicit perceptual understanding of idea potential ofvisionary concepts, and how Rapid Tooling technology can be employedfor test series production with a high potential of risk reduction.7. Suggestion of new terminology which understandably explains howRapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling technology can be applied tocatalyse collaborative interaction in different development phases:Visiotyping, Negotiotyping, Prototyping (as established) and Seriotyping– and to embrace them all Rapid Multiyping (RM).8. Suggestion of how differentiated field-based approaches to design actioncan be integrated if traditional abstracted theoretical approaches aremaintained, but chopped up and mixed with Negotiotyping.9. An analysis which concludes that inferior computer interfaces informative action can be substantially improved through manualreforming of Rapid Prototyping-produced concept models supplementedwith scanning technology and software for correction of imperfections.10

Ch. 2: TECHNOLOGY, INITIAL CONCEPTS AND THEORY______________________________________________________This chapter summarily describes Rapid Prototyping, Rapid Toolingand scanning technology and defines some central concepts.Engineering design is compared with architectural/industrial designmethodologically and some reconciliation attempts are described.Finally several theoretical perspectives from cognitive science arepresented as a grounding for following assessments of humanperception.11

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N2.1 Rapid Prototyping, Rapid Tooling and scanning technologyThe new efficient materialisation technology has been intensively developedover a period of approximately ten years. What characterises our new tools?The Wohlers Report (2001:11) describes Rapid Prototyping (RP) as thephysical modelling of a design using a special class of machine technology.RP systems quickly produce models and prototype parts from 3D computeraideddesign (CAD) model data, scan data and data created from 3Ddigitising systems. Using an additive approach to building shapes, RPsystems join liquid, powder or sheet materials to form physical objects. Layerby layer RP machines fabricate plastic, wood, ceramic and metal parts usingthin, horizontal cross sections of the computer model. For this researchproject two types of technology have been used: SLS and CM (see below).The Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) technology uses a laser beam whichmelts powder on top of a tank and allows the model to grow downwards inthe tank (supported by the unactivated powder) as new 0,1 to 0,2 mm thicklayers are repeatedly added and melted on top. AHO possesses three suchmachines from DTM (later bought by and renamed 3D Systems). The mostupdated is a type 2500+ machine. This technology produces stronghomogeneous models from different kinds of powder: polyamide with orwithout glass (DuraForm), a copper-polyamide composite, an elastomer forelastic parts (Somos 2019), silica sand for metal moulding forms, polystyrenefor investment casting patterns (CastForm) and steel/wax for steel parts (seeRT below).Figure 1-2: SLS Rapid Prototyping machines withresulting elastomer, polyamide and sand parts12

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R YRapid Tooling (RT) refers to negative moulding tools or tool inserts producedby SLS in materials suited for moulding procedures. For this project firstcopper-polyamide and later LaserForm ST-100 made from steel powder(often referred to as Rapid Steel) was employed for such production. Forproduction of steel tool inserts a LaserForm oven was used for infiltration ofbronze at high temperature into ‘green parts’ produced by SLS in steelpowder with a wax binder.Figure 2-2: Oven for bronze infiltration of steel partsand produced Rapid Steel injection moulding toolAs a direct result of the findings of action phase A 1 , a Concept Modeller(CM) machine from Z-Corp was bought in addition. This technology usesplaster or cellulose powder in a similar tank as SLS, where the part isproduced through gluing and strengthened through a following glue or waxtreatment. This production is cheaper and faster than SLS, but the parts areweaker and less accurate. They are, however, easy to adjust through manualgrinding.Figure 3-2: Concept Modeller machine and produced plaster partsRemodelling of earlier models was performed through support from aMicroScribe manually operated robot arm during action phase A, whichsupplied a number of 3D coordinates of surface points. During action phasesB and C an optical scanning device, type Minolta Vivid 900 was acquired,1 Action phases A, B and C are described in sections 3.5 and chapter 4.13

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nwhich through own and Easyscan software could supply point-cloudsapplicable for building corrected and straightened polygon or Nurbs surfacesthrough Rapid Form software. 2Figure 4-2: MicroScribe digitalisation arm and Minolta scanningequipment with turning table for remodelling in the action phases2.2 Some central conceptsThe scope of this thesis is design aimed at industrial application – not craft.The thesis contains many concepts which in principle will be defined as theyappear in the text. But many concepts within engineering and industrialdesign are often used ambiguously and in contradicting ways. These basicconcepts, which in part build on each other, will be employed as follows:CreativityDesignDesign actionDesign methodologyElaborationEngineering designFormThe activity of developing novel ideas.is both a noun (referring to aesthetics, functionalityand rationality of an end product) and a verb(referring to the process of designing).This thesis addresses both aspects.Individual or shared activity in a process ofdesigning.The study of the principles, practices andprocedures of design in a rather broad and generalsense (Cross et al. 1984).The verb to elaborate has two meanings:(a) to make things more complicated or ornate or(b) to execute something with care. This textemploys the latter meaning.Design with particular emphasis on the technicalaspects of a product, including both analytical andsynthetic activities*.Shape including e.g. geometry, dimension, surfacetexture, structure and configuration.2 See section 8.8.3.14

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R YIndustrial designInnovationInventionMaking professionsModelPerceptionProductProduct designProduct developmentSystemTechnical systemDesign with particular emphasis on the relationbetween product and man, e.g. semiotic,ergonomic and aesthetic aspects of the product*.The development of novel ideas and inventionsinto producible products.The translation of the creative act into reality(King et al. 1997).The fields of art production, object design,industrial design, architecture, landscapearchitecture, urban design and spatial planning.The word making is in this context written initalics. (Dunin-Woyseth and Michl 2001).A system which depicts another system.Sense-based experience of objects, situations etc.A system, object or service made to satisfy theneeds of a customer*.The activities involving the design of products,including the activities of engineering design,industrial design and contributions from manyother fields and future users.A very complex activity which invites todifferentiation into: a) market, product andproduction activities, b) current activities, projectorientedactivities and strategic activities,c) administration, project administration andexecutive tasks, d) multiple simultaneous projectsand e) simultaneous activities of which productdevelopment is one (Andreasen and Hein 1985).A part of reality to be investigated.A man-made system that is capable of performinga task for a purpose*.2.3 Engineering designTwo fundamentally different approaches to the design process havetraditionally been influential within design methodology; the engineeringdesign and the architectural/industrial design frameworks. Models of theengineering design process, which is the oldest, have been under constantdevelopment since early 1960s and have eventually converged to what isgenerally called the consensus engineering design model, as described inVDI-Richtlinie 2221 (1977) and 2222 (1985) 3 and in Hubka (1989).Particularly in Scandinavia this approach to design action has been expandedinto what is known as the WDK-school 4 , which is described in section 7.6.Roozenburg and Cross (1991:187) describe the development and essences of3 VDI (Verein Deutsche Ingenieure).* ENDREA 2001 definitions: The Swedish Design Research and Education Agenda. www.endrea.se.4 The WDK school (Workshop Design Konstruktion) is a society for the science of engineering design.15

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nthe consensus framework from a systems engineering approach, where“design problems should proceed from the general and abstract to theparticular and concrete, in order to keep solution space as large as possible”.This is basically an atomistic reductionist approach involving splitting ofcomplex problems into sub-problems with sub-solutions, and the basicpattern they describe in traditional terms as analysis-synthesis-evaluation.Activities are assigned to four phases; clarification of the task, conceptualdesign, embodiment design and detail design. In this framework functionalbehaviour of a technical system is fully determined by physical principlesand can be described by physical laws (Hubka and Eder 1992).The engineering design principles and models readily result in formulationsof linearly structured development patterns which are formulated asprescribed guidelines seen as generic and thereby generalised principles ofdesign action – independent of the explicit design context or of designerindividuality. Typical representatives for such approaches are Roozenburgand Eekels (1995) and Ulrich and Eppinger (2000), where the latter define aproduct development process as “the sequence of steps or activities that anenterprise employs to conceive, design and commercialise a product” 5 .Figure 5-2: A linear engineering design process(Ulrich and Eppinger 2000)General characteristics of such ‘rational’ patterns are that the same step bystep procedure is supposed to be followed in all design processes (regardlessof values of the company or the designers), that this procedure is repeated inconsecutive iterations and that product specifications are defined up fronttogether with abstract functions to be realised by the finished product.Roozenburg and Cross (1991:187) state that like all true methods, theconsensus model “does not restrict designers to just one way of working (thatis to say, it is not a recipe). Instead it tries to organise the problem-solvingbehaviour of designers to such an extent that it is more effective and efficientthan intuitive, unaided, unsystematic ways of working”.2.4 Architectural / industrial designArchitectural/industrial design grew up as a movement with its own identityduring the 1970s very much as a reaction to the engineering design model.Early proponents of architectural and industrial design presented modelsclosely related to the engineering approach (Jones 1984, Archer 1984), butarchitectural methodologists began criticising this shared view. Hillier et al.(1984) held that instead of suppressing own ideas in generalised analysis likeengineers do, what designers actually do is to propose preconceptions as a5 Ulrich and Eppimger (2000) p.14.16

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R Yprior knowledge representation of solution types, and that the engineeringapproach is based upon a fallacious view of the inductive logic in science.They instead suggested, inspired from Popper (1963), a design approachbased upon solution conjectures subjected to analysis and evaluation; aconjecture-analysis model. Darke (1984) extended this model by suggestingthat ‘primary generators’ or ‘prestructures’ are suggested by the designervery early in a design process with a limited set of design objectives – agenerator-conjecture-analysis model – which opposes the view that solutionsmust be synthesised from exhaustive problem specifications. Rittel (1984)has argued that design problems in architecture are ill-defined. He calls them‘wicked problems’ and holds that they should be approached as‘argumentative’ instead of through analysis.Cross (1984) describes the design process in architectural and industrialdesign as rejecting any linear, sequential, analysis-synthesis-evaluationscheme. He asserts that there is no well formulated ‘consensus’ model inthese fields, but that a ‘type-model’ has emerged with essentially a ‘spiral’structure. This model recognises the importance of prestructures andemphasises a conjecture-analysis cycle where designer(s) and other actorsrefine their understanding of solution and problem in parallel and assumedesign problems to be ill-defined.Young (1997) presents a comparison between the two design approaches asdichotomies:Engineering designAchitectural/industrial design(deterministic/mechanistic) (practical)- prescriptive - descriptive- rational - intuitive- linear - cyclic- algorithmic - heuristic- theoretical - empirical- problem focused - solution focusedBased on scientific methodDetermined by experience of designerExplicit knowledge, organised rules Tacit knowledge which can’t be told“Know that” “Know how”Roozenburg and Cross (1991) refer to critique of the consensus model whichis seen as being too centred on early stage problems instead of on detaileddesign where refinement of concept by jumping from one sub-problem toanother is focused – and as having too few restrictions on ‘explosion’ ofpossible solution alternatives. Their view is that these problems are bettertaken care of in the architectural/industrial design model, but that theconsensus model’s intention is structuring and not predicting and that there islittle empirical evidence in favour or against one way or the other. Otherwriters have raised similar objections towards prescriptive, linear models. Itis interesting to note that a proponent of the consensus approach, Eder17

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N(1998), holds that it is little used in industry – a view also supported byHandenhoven and Trassaert (1999). Blessing (1994) describes how the phasestructure of prescriptive models is exceeded in realistic development projects.2.5 Reconciliation attemptsAttempts of reconciliation between rational, linear and intuitive, cyclic actionand thought patterns within design methodology have been approached frommany directions towards the millennium turn. Basically this developmentmust be seen in conjunction with the parallel developments within academiaand society as a whole 6 , where a reductionist approach inherited from thenatural sciences of splitting reality into bits and pieces to make itresearchable was gradually exchanged with a view of understanding reality –and indeed design problems – in terms of real-world complexity. In such aframing it is no more a question of humanly based rationality or intuition, butof rationality and intuition, a problematic which inherently can be bothindividual and collaborative and entails a holistic approach.Roozenburg and Cross (1991:190-191) suggest an integration of linear,sequential procedures (concept-embodiment-detail) of well defined problemsand cyclic procedures (productive-deductive-inductive thinking) of illdefinedproblems. They describe the vertical dimension of a design problemas corresponding to sequential phases (engineering) and the horizontal tosynthesising solutions (design), and if these are faced simultaneously bothanalysis/ specification and innovative solution generation can be approached.There are symmetrical relations between problem and solution, and betweensub-problems and sub-solutions. There are hierarchical relations betweenproblem and sub-problem, and between solution and sub-solution. Designthinking should oscillate to-and-fro horizontally and up-and-down verticallybetween these aspects, and be supplemented through a set of designactivities.Figure 6-2: Integrationmodel between engineeringdesign and industrial design.(Roozenburg and Cross1991)6 See chapter 3.18

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R YYoung (1997) sees rational and intuitive methods as conflicting processes inthe designer’s mind, but with reference to Akin (1993) he holds thatempirical evidence suggests that designers from both traditions tend to adoptsimilar strategies in solving design problems, and that intuitive and rationallystructured thought can be and often is utilised at most every part of the designprocess. He refers to Hickling (1982) whose model for reconciliation ofrational and intuitive thought is in agreement with this view.Figure 6-2: Model of anextended whirling designprocess (Hickling 1982).Systematic that is a linear process (over simplified and with no meansof later corrections to earlier ill-judged decisions)moving to a linear iterative process (allows checking back andreferring forward whenever necessary)through to a cyclic iterative process (continuity and learningfrom recycling as a natural part of the process)and on to a cyclic whirling process (creative leaps forward andselective back-tracking becomes the main feature)Intuitive that is an extended whirling process (the relationship withineach of the four or more stages of the process isconsidered, in addition to the usual relationshipbetween each phase)2.6 Collaborative designAnother way of approaching a unification of dissimilar working and thinkingpatterns in design action (involving actors other than engineers anddesigners) is frequently termed collaborative design or participatory design.There is broad agreement in the design community that understanding designaction as collaboration between stakeholders of diverging professional andindividual backgrounds including future users has great potential in theassessment of the challenges involved in facing real-world complexity. Thisis exemplified by Scrivener et al. (2000:v) in the introduction to theCoDesign 2000 proceedings:In recent years, the view of design as an essentially individualcreative activity has come under increasing question. Instead, for a19

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nvariety of reasons, design is being viewed, studied, and developed asa collective, collaborative, even community process.But in search of some shared view in conference proceedings and designliterature on the issue of what collaborative design means in terms of updatedmethods or models, one finds that this way of conceptualising design actionis confusing. It is generally presented and researched from diversifiedspecific positions and framings – which indicates that collaborative design ishighly contextual and accordingly difficult to model in generalised ways.Also, the basically collective nature of designing has been recognised formany years as part of the methodological agenda, primarily in engineeringdesign, as for instance reflected in the frameworks of Integrated ProductDevelopment (Andreasen and Hein 1987) and of Roozenburg and Eekels(1995). Industrial design here comes in as an integrated activity, but then onthe premises of the basic thought pattern of engineering design.Nevertheless there is a distinctive cross-disciplinary trend in updatedassessments of design thinking to approach it in terms of collaborationbetween stakeholders. Being contextual, in accordance with postmodernthought patterns 7 one should search for the content of collaborative design asa concept in different camps or research communities rather than traditionallyas contributions of influential individuals. That landscape is highly complex,but this researcher has visited three such camps during this research project,which approach design collaboration from diverging theoretical frameworksother than what is usual in the industrial design camp. The ParticipatoryDesign movement, with strong influence in Scandinavia 8 , sees design as acollaborative undertaking with influential political aspects in real life and hasa strong focus on participation from future users, but builds on divergingtheory. The International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory 9builds on the theoretical framework of Activity Theory, which originated inmaterialist Russian psychology and has eventually developed into an updatedworld-wide framework for approaching collaborative activity of all kinds –and has a strong inclination towards design thinking. Finally the InteractionDesign community 10 builds on collaboration between actors. Havingoriginated in the framework of human-computer interaction (HCI) anddeveloped towards computer supported interaction, this camp is highlyoriented towards data-based interactive technologies such as the Web,mobiles and wearables, and less towards the human basis for suchinteraction.To elaborate on these diverging strategies is beyond the scope of this thesis,but all frameworks are influential in the conglomerate of updated approachesto interactive design. Instead I have chosen a representative of the7 See section 3.2.2.8 See Participatory Design Conference proceedings PDC 2002.9 See proceedings of the 5 th ISCRAT Congress 2002; Dealing with Diversity.10 See e.g. Preece et al. 2002.20

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R Yparticipatory design tradition who pulls in the direction of externalisedstimulation of collaboration, Brandt (2000, 2001), to exemplify the newtrend. She is influenced by Ehn (1989,1991), who prompted design seen ascollaborative language-games stimulated by physicality in ‘hands-onexperience’(understandable, cheap and fun), ‘design-by-doing’ and ‘designby-playing’contexts and by Blessing (1994), who describes design activitiesin patterns of repeated cycles. She expands on diversified employment ofmaterial objects and framings to enhance actor understanding andengagement of the design problem. In such a context old phase structures arebroken up, drama and props involving all actors can be actively used todissolve barriers and create shared languages, and ‘boundary objects’ (Star1991), which give different meanings to different participants, can serve as“things to think with” and “things to act with”. Such activities are particularlygenerative in terms of “bringing more voices into the design process”involving in particular future users who often understand technical languagesbadly. 11Figure 7-2: Model of an eventdriven,iterative, collaborativedesign process – inspired fromBlessing 1994. (Brandt 2001).These methodological approaches see creative design action as indirectlystimulated through tools, helping aids and staging more than through staticprescriptive models – both individually and collaboratively. To follow up onthe trace of indirect stimulation, the continued theoretical search is directedtowards theory from fields other than design, at this stage basically from thecognitive sciences. These are concerned with giving some further backing forunderstanding creativity, the employment of physical representation forfacilitation of experiences – and eventually the issue of human mentalrepresentation which is seen as fundamental to how we design products.2.7 Theory related to creativityHandbook of creativity (ed. Sternberg 1999), with the goal of providing themost comprehensive, definitive, and authoritative single volume reviewavailable in the field covers a wide range of approaches to creativity, which isdefined as “the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e. original,unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. useful, adaptive concerning taskconstraints)”. Sternberg and Lubart distinguish between seven differentapproaches to the study of creativity. In mystical approaches they ironically11 Brandt (2001) p.11.21

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nrefer to the creative person “as an empty vessel that a divine being would fillwith inspiration”. Pragmatic approaches to creativity are seen as “equallydamaging to the scientific study of creativity”, and have been developed bypeople concerned primarily with developing creativity, secondarily withunderstanding it and not with testing validity of their ideas about it. Theseinclude De Bono (1992) and the work on lateral thinking, Osborn (1953) andhis work with brainstorming and Gordon (1961) and his synectics approach,not because they cannot be useful, but because Sternberg and Lubart holdthem to lack a basis in “serious psychological theory”. Psychodynamicapproaches, however, they see as a major study based on the idea thatcreativity arises from the tension between conscious reality and unconsciousdrives. This field was based in early twentieth century schools of psychologysuch as structuralism, functionalism, behaviourism and Gestalt theory –relying on studies of eminent creators, which has been criticized fordifficulties in measuring proposed theoretical constructs. Theoretically andmethodologically the field was eventually isolated from mainstreampsychology. Psychometric approaches proposed that creativity could bestudied in everyday subjects using paper-and-pencil tasks and measuring‘divergent-thinking’ on a ‘creativity scale’(Guilford 1950). This was an easyand efficient way of creativity evaluation, but it was criticised for beingtrivial and inadequate and some held that fluency, flexibility, originality andelaboration scores failed to capture the concept of creativity (Amabile 1983).Cognitive approaches to creativity seek to understand the mentalrepresentations and processes which underlie creative thought and are basedupon studies of human subjects or computer simulation. The Geneploremodel (Finke, Ward and Smith 1992) suggests that human creativity works ingenerative and exploratory phases and is based upon elaboration ofpreinventive structures. Langley et al. (1987) use computers with theobjective to produce creative thought in a manner which simulates whatpeople do. Social-personality approaches which are developed in parallelwith cognitive approaches, have focused on personality variables,motivational variables and the sociocultural environment as sources ofcreativity. Studies of manipulation and generation of motivation have shownimprovements in creativity and academic performances (Amabile 1983,Sternberg et al. 1996). Studies of differences in social environments andcross-cultural comparisons have further revealed cultural variability in theexpression of creativity. Finally confluence approaches to creativityhypothesise that multiple components must converge for creativity to occur –a position supported by a large number of researchers. A combination ofcognitive and personality elements are frequently contained in these theories,such as “connects ideas”, “sees similarities and differences”, “has flexibility”,“has aesthetic taste”, “is motivated”, “is inquisitive” and “questions socialnorms”. Amabile (1983) sees creativity as confluence of intrinsic motivation,domain-relevant knowledge and abilities and creativity-relevant skills.Gruber (1988) and colleagues have proposed a developmental evolvingsystemsmodel where “a person’s purpose, knowledge and affect grow overtime, amplify deviations that an individual encounters, and lead to creative22

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R Yproducts”. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) highlights interaction betweenindividuals, domains and fields and holds that individuals draw uponinformation in a field and transform and extend it via cognitive processes,personality and motivation. Sternberg and Lubart (1996) have proposed an“investment theory of creativity” where creative persons are seen to “buy lowand sell high”, in the sense pursuing an ‘unfavourable’ idea with growthpotential and persisting resistance it meets until it can be ‘sold high’. Theinvestment theory illuminates the need for confluence between six personalresources: In terms of intellectual abilities both synthetic ability to seeproblems in new ways, analytic ability to evaluate alternatives and practicalcontextualabilities to persuade others are important. Regarding fieldknowledge it is seen as relevant, but it should not block abilities to search inother directions. The question of thinking styles relates to a preference ofthinking in novel ways, for instance simultaneously globally and locally.Certain personality attributes are similarly seen as important for instance selfefficacyand willingness to overcome obstacles, take sensible risks andtolerate ambiguity. Regarding motivation, research has shown that peopleseldom do creative work unless they love what they are doing. And finallyone needs an environment which is supportive and rewarding of creativeideation and elaboration. 12Ward, Smith and Finke (1999) see creative cognition as a natural extension ofcognitive psychology, and in contrast to the traditional belief that creativity islimited to specially gifted or talented people they hold creative capacity to bean essential property of normative human cognition. Generative cognitiveprocesses are behind our ability to construct abstract and concrete conceptsand language and underlie creativity in all its different forms. Rather than anexplanatory theory of creativity, they recognise the Geneplore model as adescriptive, heuristic model of creative activities, where initial ideasdescribed as “preinventive” or untested proposals are seen to precedeextensive exploration of those suggestions, and that alternation betweengenerative and exploratory processes will eventually refine structuresaccording to contextual constraints.Generation Preinventiveof preinventiveexploration andstructures interpretationFocus or expandconceptProductconstraintsFigure 8-2: TheGeneplore model,Ward, Smith andFinke (1999)Examples of generative processes include retrieval of existing structures frommemory, formation of simple associations among those structures, mentalsynthesis of new structures, mental transformation of existing structures into12 Sternberg (1999) p.3-10.23

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nnew forms, analogical transformation from one domain to another andcategorical reduction. Explorative processes can include searching for novelattributes in the mental structures, searching for metaphorical implications ofthe structures, searching for potential functions of the structures, evaluatingstructures from different perspectives or within different contexts,interpreting structures representing problem solutions and searching forconceptual limitations suggested by the structures. Preinventive structurescan be thought of as precursors to externalised products of a creative act –generated for a particular goal or simply as a vehicle for open-end discovery,complex and focused or simple and ambiguous. They avoid definingcreativity in any absolute way and consider creative thinking to involvevarious subsets of generative and exploratory processes where no oneparticular process must be present, and no sharp boundaries between creativeand non-creative thinking can thereby be drawn, nor between generation andexploration. In comparing goal-oriented (with problem or goal in mind)versus exploratory (ideas before considering implications) approaches tocreativity they find that there is much evidence in favour of both methods.They accordingly advise application of studies in creative cognition to decidewhich strategy is best in the actual case. A similar conclusion is found if onecontrasts domain-specific and universal creativity skills, where studies ofcreative cognition suggest that both positions are partly right. In comparisonbetween structured and unstructured creativity they find that this is not aneither/or question either. Rather, methods of creative cognition can assist indetermination of the relative roles of randomness or structure. Allapproaches, however, can be conceived as belonging to the framework of theGeneplore model – in alternations between idea generation and ideaexploration. Another approach to human creativity is what Ward et al. (1997)refer to as conceptual expansion, where even highly creative ideas can bedeveloped as minor extensions to familiar concepts. Their findings indicatethat people’s knowledge about typical features of familiar categoriesstructures their imaginative creations even for unfamiliar or unusualcategories, for instance through influence of the structuring principle ofcorrelated attributes. The principle of accessing knowledge at very abstractlevels can also lead to a greater potential for innovation. In addition to basingcreativity on long-term existing knowledge structures, focus has also beenput on recently activated knowledge (Smith et al. 1993), where newlyacquired perceptions are seen as important aids in overcoming design fixationand mental blocking associated with old examples and solutions. Anintegration of these studies can be observed in creativity research focused onsynthesis and merging of previously separate concepts into new ones – orconceptual combination. Hampton (1997) has found that emergent propertiesand attributes are most likely to be found in combinations that result inimaginary objects. In combining durable furniture and perishable fruit aconflict results which “forces the comprehender to reason from aspects ofworld knowledge that go well beyond the boundaries of the individual24

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R Yconcepts”, and hence emergence of new attributes can result 13 . Finke (1990)has studied effects of creative imagery under laboratory conditions, wheresubjects were asked to imagine new forms obtained from three basic formsselected from fifteen possibilities – and to interpret the created forms asrepresenting practical designs. The findings indicated that if the search forcreative interpretations was delayed until after completion of preinventivestructures, this may enhance creative discovery.Schooler and Melcher (1995) have addressed the problem of insight, soheavily emphasised in anecdotal accounts of creative explorations. Incontrolled experiments they found that if subjects engage in concurrentverbalisations, it would disrupt performance on insight problems, whereasperformance on analytic non-insight problems was not disrupted. Thisindicates that there seems to be a decrease in the ability to solve problemsthrough leaps of insight if one engages in conscious verbalisation. Thestudies suggest evidence for various unconscious elements of insight.2.8 Theory related to physical representation in designTraditionally the physical helping aids of design processes have not beenparticularly emphasised in theory building, but during the past few yearsphysical artefacts seen as externalised representations have been increasinglyfocused in research on design action, especially in the proceedings of DesignStudies.Perry and Sanderson (1998:273) hold that “design and engineering isconstructed through the interactions of multiple actors, and artefacts andrepresentations of the design process have a key function in the organisationof this work“. They have performed empirical studies and analyses ofapplication of multiple artefacts in pump and building design. Theseexternalise and represent objectives, constraints, form, function, assembly,and materials and have included both design artefacts (plans, models,prototypes, visualisations) and procedural artefacts (forms, change requests,office memos, letters, schedules and Gantt charts). They refer to “a surprisingnumber and range of artefacts that were ‘participants’ in the designprocess” 14 . They oppose the view that design can be seen as individualactivity or as a linear activity with a set of design stages. Instead they proposeseeing a design process as “a situation in which joint, coordinated learningand work practices evolve, and in which artefacts help to mediate andorganise communication” 15 . Artefacts in this framing are subjected todiscussion, negotiation and alternation.13 Ward, Smith and Finke (1999) p.203.14 Ibid. p.279.15 Ibid. p.286.25

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NRømer, Weisshahn and Hacker (2001:473) find that “external representationsdo not only serve as external information storages but as important aids for,for example, solution development, testing and communication”. They arepreoccupied with the gap which exists between computer interfaces andcognitive abilities and limitations of individual designers – and have analysedquestionnaire answers from 106 designers within different fields ofengineering design mainly related to employment of sketches, simplephysical models, complex physical models and CAD data in early conceptgeneratingstages of design processes. Many references to cognitive theoryreveal that in creative design the ‘bottleneck’ is not lack of solution ideas, butthe limitation of capacity of the designer’s consciousness, often called‘working memory’ – a problem which can be overcome through physical‘external storage’ in the ‘research space’ of solutions. Their findings displaythat designers develop many alternative solutions to choose from initially,and they prefer to rapidly reduce alternatives to a few. Sketches seemed to bethe favourite communication media in early phases and CAD was found to beused regularly for formalisation of data. Physical models were much used butless than drawings and CAD, expected to be due to the relative difficulty ofbuilding them. All kinds of representations were reported to supportcommunication and to a slightly lesser extent solution development andtesting. Physical models were used for a variety of different functions. Theyfound sketches to be mainly used for solution development and memorysupport, complex models best for checking requirements and CAD best fordocumentation and development/testing, and they emphasised the need forsupplementing CAD with other forms of representation. Main difficulties inearly design stages were reported to be difficult communication betweendesigners and customers. As to the use of physical models they hold thatdesigners are aware of their ‘multi-functionality’ and effectiveness, but thatthe reason for often preferring other means early on is the effort needed formaking them.Boujut and Laureillard (2002:497) see a need for a co-operative frameworkand integration between product and process in design action. Theyemphasise how design actors from different fields have diverging“conceptual worlds made of representations, languages and tools” and howthey lack appropriate tools for supporting cross-discipline developments.Through empirical studies of a collaborative engineering design project of aforged steering knuckle of a truck front axle they approach a crossdisciplinaryco-operative framework from three different conceptual levelswhich must be addressed simultaneously: (a) object, (b) actor and (c)organisation. On the object level they find that shared representations are ofprimal importance, situated at the interfaces between collaborating domainsas elements of design discourse or as co-operating features which are notstatic or pre-defined and established as interface knowledge for co-operationto take place. They suggest calling all kinds of physical or virtual artefactsused on the object level intermediary objects. They found that “themateriality of the product through its various representations is fundamental26

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R Yas a means for co-ordinating activities and can be particularly applied in cooperativeprocesses” 16 . On the actor level they find it impossible to define apriori a sequence of predefined tasks. Instead they suggest a concept ofinternal regulation which involves dynamic negotiation and re-definition ofdesign goals. They also found that internal regulation procedures of cooperativeprocesses are deeply linked to dynamic changes in the actors’attitudes. On the organisation level they found a need for a processcoordination function which is not a manager or a supervisor, but has aninterface role, with the purpose of facilitating the reflective process and basicprinciples of co-operation.Bucciarelli (2002) in a philosophical framing sees individual design efforts torepresent diverging “object worlds” and collaborating actors of differentfields to “inhabit different worlds” because they see a shared object of designdifferently. In these worlds specific scientific/instrumental paradigms fixmeaning and ordinary language, concepts and relationships are used inparticular ways which require specific learning. In this sense different actorscan be seen to speak different proper languages and he suggests that fieldbasedelements like instruments, special hardware, tools, graphicalrepresentations etc. could be termed linguistic artefacts because they functionas such. Since translation of one proper language into another is impossiblebecause actors see (interpret) the object of design differently, linguisticartefacts can be seen to have an important function. They can be put on thetable and become part of the exchange of ideas across worlds with abroadening meaning. But some artefacts can also integrate different properlanguages like process diagrams, milestone charts, concept matrices etc, andthey can be seen as linguistic elements along with sketches, mock-ups, testmodels and last year’s product line. The object of design is not a real objectbecause it does not exist yet, and all that exists are the linguistic artefactswhich stand in for this object, but what meaning is abstracted from themdepends upon who is doing the reading. In such contexts a physical mock-upenters the language of design as a sketch. A modelled hand-held device forremote control provokes different readings, for instance aestheticalappearance, efficiency of mechanics and circuitry, ergonomic functionalityand ease of production, as a vehicle for meaningful exchange. Beyond objectworlds these artefacts enable negotiations between participants, which woulddry up in analytical exactness without them. “The analytic character of aproper language hardly allows for the kind of experimentation and innovativethinking that designing requires” 17 .Kroes (2002) approaches design methodology from a philosophical positionand initially contrasts it with methodology of science, where he holds theformer to be strongly process oriented and to take a normative point of view,and the latter to be product oriented and descriptive. Accordingly they bearlittle resemblance to each other. But in spite of its process orientation, design16 Ibid. p.509.17 Ibid. p.231.27

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nmethodology is deeply involved in the product which is being designed fortwo reasons. Firstly the design process and the designed product are sointimately related to each other that understanding the nature of the processmeans that one has to understand the nature of the kind of product beingdesigned as well, and vice versa. Secondly, if design methodology has anormative stance towards the design process, it will have to include thequality of the product being designed. These views illuminate a need tounderstand the nature of technical artefacts which result from a designprocess – and Kroes sees them as having a dual nature. They are on the onehand physical objects performing certain functions and on the other handthey are intentional objects since their function has meaning only within acontext of intentional human action. This distinction is related to HerbertSimon 18 who sees artificial things or artefacts to involve three aspects;goal/purpose, character and environment. An “inner” environment (character)realises a goal in the “outer” environment where it operates, and the scienceof the artificial thereby focuses their interface, since the “artificial world iscentred precisely on this interface between the inner and the outerenvironment; it is concerned with attaining goals by adapting the former tothe latter” – which can be seen as another way to express the dual nature ofthe artefact. From one view we see artefacts as physical objects interactingthrough causal connections (physical/structural conceptualisation). Fromanother perspective we see human beings intentionally representing andacting in the world through reason (intentional conceptualisation), which canattribute goals and functions to objects. These two conceptualisations canoffer competing explanations to the same kind of phenomenon (raising ahand to vote). A technical artefact is not seen purely as physical because italso has a function, but neither is it purely intentional because its functionmust be realised through physicality. Hence it has a dual nature.Goal/PurposeFunctionArtefactTechnicalArtefactIntentionCharacterEnvironmentPhysicalstructureContext ofhuman actionFigure 9-2: Simon’s artefact model and a dual nature model (Kroes 2002)Then how can we account for the fact that designers can bridge the gapbetween a functional and a structural description of a technical artefact?Kroes holds that from a philosophical point of view it is not clear how thesetwo are related and how it is possible to go from one conceptualisation toanother.18 Herbert Simon (3 rd edn, 1996) p.113.28

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R YDretske (1995) describes how we can perceive an object without knowingwhat it is, for instance a poisonous mushroom. He distinguishes between onone side perceiving objects without realising (knowing or believing) whatthey are, which he calls sense perception, and on another recognising oridentifying objects and seeing facts about them, which he calls meaningful orcognitive perception. Perceiving an object as something he sees to be ahybrid form, between sense perception and meaningful perception.Directness of perception has historically been characterised from threepositions. In the view of direct realism there is a real physical world out therewhose existence is independent of our perception of it, and observers are in adirect unmediated way perceptually aware of its objects and facts. Objectshere exist outside our awareness. Representative realism (also called thecausal theory of perception) shares the view of an independently existingreality, but sees our perception of objects to be indirect and mediated by amore direct apprehension of internal representations of external objects –called e.g. sensations, ideas, impressions, percepts, sense data andexperiences. In this view, then, “our knowledge of objective (physical) fact,all meaningful perception, rests on a knowledge of subjective (mental) factbecause the only objects directly perceived are mental: the appearances(percepts, sense data)” 19 . Finally various forms of idealism (orphenomenalism) theories deny an objective physical reality and hold that theexistence of something is dependent upon someone’s awareness of it – aposition held by very few. When it comes to the difficult question of how weperceive and produce representations, one has to refer to diverging theories.Dretske refers e.g. to constructivist theories of perceptual processing whichstresses the visual system’s effort at constructing reasonable interpretationfrom information reaching the eye’s receptor surfaces. He also refers to adirect theory of perceptual processing (Gibson 1979) which, in opposingconstructivism’s view of receptor surface energy distribution, holds thatstimulus properly understood contains all information needed; “why suppose,as constructivists do, that perceptual systems are smart detectives when allthey really have to be (given reliable informants, i.e. information-rich stimuli)is good listeners, good extractors of the information signals reaching thereceptors?” 20 .2.9 Theory related to mental representation and processingPashler (1995) gives a basic account of attention with high relevance to thisresearch project. Attention is an active area of experimental research withincognitive science, but it is also part of what is often referred to as a folkpsychologicaltheory, which is considered as an informal set of propositionsthat people rely on in order to explain their daily experience and behaviour.“Everyone knows what attention is” is a famous saying by James (1890) whomeans consciousness focused on stimuli, memories, activities and otherthings. If one does not attend to a stimulus as in conscious awareness, one19 Ibid. p.339.20 Ibid. p.342.29

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nremains oblivious to it, but if one gives full attention to a task, it can beaccomplished more quickly and efficiently – apart from some automaticactivities. Focused attention is ordinarily under control of the will, althoughexternal stimuli or intruding thoughts can derail our intentions. Present-dayresearch, for instance the tradition of information-processing psychology,seeks to avoid an introspective approach to characterisation of consciousexperience per se, but traces flows of information in representational systemsof mind/brain in observations of human behaviour in laboratory settings –often involving subjects’ own reports. Even though modern attentionresearchers try to avoid introspection, “they often seem to assume that thefolk-psychological theory of attention is at least partly right” 21 . For examplewhen subjects perform experiments which involve divided attention, oneinvolved task can be considered to consume attention.Kavakli and Gero (2001) change focus from artefacts as perceived to seeing(physical) sketching as mental processing. They hold that characterisations ofimagery rest on its resemblance to perception and that they share manysimilar neural mechanisms. Imagery is used to identify properties ofimagined objects through activating memory, for instance in reasoning aboutthe appearance of an object when it is transformed in spatial contexts;“looking at objects in images shares many properties of actual perception” 22 .The notion that imagined objects and forms often can function in equivalentways to real objects and forms is supported by several studies within thecognitive sciences, and they retain the view that individual synthesis can beperformed at least as effectively mentally as physically, but that there is acapacity limitation to mental processing compared to physical.They have analysed similarities and differences in a conceptual designprocess between novice and expert designers through protocol analysismethods by means of cognitive coding of observed actions. In physicalactions they distinguish between new drawings, old drawings andmovements. In perceptual actions they identify visual features, spatialrelations, organisation and comparison. Functional actions refer toassociations of visuo-spatial features. Conceptual actions refer to preferentialor aesthetical evaluations. Time consumption and number of generated ideasare also evaluated. Through their studies they found substantial differences inthe accomplishments between experts and novices in designconceptualisation referred to these imagery processing actions.The findings were related to Kosslyn (1995) who has specified four types ofimagery processing. In image generation two ways can be identified; we canretain a perceptual image or we can activate information stored in long termmemory. A designer can be poor at one process, but not necessarily poor atanother. Only with effort can images be retained, often with relatively littleinformation at once and often not long enough to be reorganised. But ifimages are simple, subjects can discover new patterns. In image inspection21 Ibid. p.74.22 Ibid. p.348.30

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R Yimages can be formed by activating visual memories of global patterns andindividual parts and then arranging them, or by selectively allocatingattention. Narrowly focused attention highlights the strongest associations tothe exclusion of the weaker ones. But in defocused attention (where thenovice scored higher than the expert) remote associations are made moreaccessible, which has been thought to stimulate creative insight, also in linewith Mednick (1962) who sees creative thinking to be forming of associativeelements into new combinations, a framing where also divergent thinkingreferring to unusual associations fits in. In image transformation thechanging of information stored in long-term memory is focused; how wetransform information into images and how we transform the object in animage. The study showed that the expert spent more time in evaluation thanthe novice and theory shows that experts’ rich multiple level models cansupport simulations, a capability which can be termed representationalrichness. The expert’s sketches were found to be more structured, offeringmore for perceptual and cognitive inference. Another aspect influencing thisissue is called pattern goodness, and it refers to the quality of a pattern and itscorrespondence to perceptual actions. Perceptual processes can also interferewith imagery causing representational mismatch when there is notcorrespondence between the mental imagery and the depicted model on thepaper. The speed of imagery processing is also influenced by the size ofimages and drawings, where smaller drawings of novices gave longerprocessing times. A last registered feature of the study was the ability tomentally rotate imagined objects and thereby inspect them from many angles,where the expert was also found to be superior to the novice. Kosslyn alsospecifies those processes that are necessary for information retrieval fromlong-term memory.In conclusion Kavakli and Gero state that the differences in cognitiveactivities may cause the differences in performance, and in citing Kosslynthey maintain that imagery is seeing in the absence of the appropriate sensoryinput. Use of mental imagery is associated with an array of relatedpsychological phenomena and cannot be understood as an independent facetof human cognition. Poor accomplishments in certain types of imageryprocesses have to do with ineffectiveness of one or more subsystems, butother types can generate good performances. Defocused attention may beable to trigger remote associations, whereas focused attention may increasefunctional thinking. Ambiguity in sketches may support discovery of implicitspaces, while structure in sketches tends to recall the thought of function andsupports the occurrence of discovery of associations. Pattern goodness maypositively affect the rate of perceptual actions, but perceptual actions shouldcorrespond to knowledge structures to positively affect the rate of cognitiveactions, and structured sketches may offer more perceptual and cognitiveinferences. They end their presentation by stating that “higher performance incognitive activity may be dependent on richness of representational structures31

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nand pattern goodness, while poorer performance may be due to arepresentational mismatch between imagined and perceived stimuli” 23 .Finke, Ward and Smith (1992) refer to considerable evidence that much ofeveryday thinking is based on formation and transformation of visual images.Several famous inventions have been reported to result from imagery, forinstance Einstein’s concept of special relativity, Faraday’s conception ofelectromagnetic fields and Tesla’s AC generators. Mental images can beinspected in much the same way as an actual object or pattern, and theyconsist of more than verbal descriptions and propositions. Severalexperiments show that it is possible for a person to “anticipate changes in amoving object and to mentally test dynamic models of physical systems andprocesses” 24 and synthesising and transforming mental images often end upas creative solutions. An image displays emergence when its parts or featuresare combined such that additional, unexpected features result – making itpossible to detect new patterns and relations in the images that were notcreated intentionally. Experiments with simple figures show that emergentpatterns cannot be guessed up front and that the perceived pattern goodnessaffects how easily the parts can be detected. In experiments with creativevisual discoveries they also found that creative discoveries themselves are forthe most part unpredictable; “the particular pathways of creative explorationare often opportunistic and unforeseeable” 25 . In comparison betweenapproaches they further found that there were no significant differences in thenumber of patterns generated in mental or physical synthesis, but because ofcapacity limitations physical synthesis was seen as easier relative to mentalsynthesis.2.10 Preliminary reflection on theoretical aspectsFrom the low status of prescribed linear design process methods and modelsin the product design community which is summarily described above(Blessing 1994, Eder 1998, Brandt 2001), certain general trends can bereflected:When a high degree of real-world complexity is approached in designaction, the design process as such becomes vague and unspecific.When the design process becomes less formally defined and modelled, italso becomes more difficult to relate to.When many individual actors participate in design action, theirindividual contributions and how they are interacting in collaboration ispoorly understood.As linear design methods have gradually lost impetus, attempts atmodelling more flexible approaches have been very diverse.23 Kavakli and Gero (2001) p.364.24 Ibid. p.48.25 Ibid. p.58.32

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R YTo approach an objective of trying to model a process of flexible anddynamic design action meaningfully, it seems viable to address it first as seenfrom the position of how one human being (who is not necessarily adesigner) conceptualises the world, and then from how many humans can doit together in design action. How could a creative design process beunderstood in a framing of basic human conceptualisation patterns incontextual complexity?As can be observed from the presentation in section 2.4, the study ofcreativity can be approached from a multitude of partly consistent and partlydiverging positions which initially seem to represent several relevant views.As creativity is heavily involved in all design action, I for a long timeconsidered it as an appropriate starting point for a theoretical elaboration, butas time passed I found the landscape to be so diversified that it was finallyconsidered as problematic for a theoretical analysis. Instead, and in line withthe confluence view of Sternberg and Lubart (1999) and the conclusions ofdivergent approaches by Ward, Smith and Finke (1999), I eventually chose tosee creativity as an ability of human consciousness which penetrates andinterweaves all design action and processes, and which has a multi-aspectualnature strongly influenced by the mentality of each individual design actor.Creativity will, according to this view, be treated in this work as an importantbackground landscape and a premise for design action more than a topic ofparticular focus, but references to the above referred theories will be madethroughout the thesis.Through the presented theory we find considerable support for the view thatphysical representations (writings, drawings, mock-ups or models), in linewith my early assumptions, play a very important role in collaborative designprocesses, whether we call such representations boundary objects (Star1991), design artefacts (Perry and Sanderson 1998), intermediary objects(Boujut and Laureillard 2002), things to think with (Brandt 2001) or linguisticartefacts (Bucciarelli 2002). And all the authors hold that the physicality ofthe representations supports and enhances development of meaning throughsensual perception by the participating subjects. This aspect is illuminated byDretske (1995), who also emphasises how we do not perceive physicality‘directly’, but ‘indirectly’ and mediated through sensations, ideas,impressions, percepts, sense data and experiences – which are mentalconstructs of the perceiving subject created by means of the perceivedobjects.In moving focus from the supportive physical boundary objects to the mentalrepresentations, which bodily perceptions of them produce within theparticipating actors, we find through the presentation of Kavakli and Gero(2001) that what results from the perceptions and possible intentional effortsof transformation by the subject can be termed imagery, which signifiesimages of imagined objects in the subject’s mind. According to Kosslyn(1995) such imagery can be ‘processed’ in many ways through intentional33

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nactivity by the subject, and he distinguishes between image generation wherelong-term memory is central, image inspection which involves selectiveallocation of attention to visual memories where narrow focus highlightsstrong associations and defocused attention accesses remote associations, andimage transformation where the intentional changing of information stored inmemory is focused. The conclusions by Kavakli and Gero that patterngoodness and richness of representational structures may influence cognitiveactivity positively are seen as important issues to this project – in order toavoid “mismatch between imagined and perceived stimuli”.What can be observed from these theories is that they partially describe thefocused attention of a designing subject, which alternates between internalrepresentation of external reality and external representation of internalimagination. But we can also observe how the intentions of the designingsubject can be represented in the emerging artefact, which exemplifies howthe design process and the designed product are intimately related, the wayKroes (2001) describes it, and how a resulting technical artefact thereby willhave a dual nature; as a physical and an intentional object. But there is a longdevelopment process between representation of initial imagery in earlyintermediary objects and representation of the imagery which will result fromall the understanding of the design problem acquired during a developmentproject. According to Kosslyn’s research dynamically evolving imagegeneration, image inspection and image transformation of the designingsubject must have been substantial during such a design process. It is myintention to try to disclose some of the contents and patterns involved in sucha process of maturing a design concept, which I will call a conceptualisationprocess. And in these attempts the role which materiality plays for theacquisition of understanding will be focused – materiality in general andRapid Prototyped materiality – where the latter is seen as an efficient way ofproducing the former.The reviewed theories related to creativity, physical representation andmental representation have their main foundations in the cognitive sciences,and in particular in cognitive psychology, which seeks to understand mentalrepresentations and processes underlying (creative and rational) thought.These fields study individual human beings from the perspective of externalobservation – or human behaviour the way it can be understood from theposition of a ‘neutral’ onlooker. As can be observed from the abovedescriptions, this perspective is indeed useful for framing and describingdesign action, what mental elements such action consists of, how activitiesare performed and how involved actors behave in such action. Thereby theobserver perspective is very well suited as a point of departure inapproaching design action, not the least because it conceptualises and defineshuman patterns of behaviour which can be observed by all. But it seems likea fairly obvious observation that what happens in my mind when I amdesigning material representations cannot be observed by an externalobserver. How I behave when I do design work can be observed, but what34

C H A P T E R 2 : T E C H N O L O G Y , I N I T I A L C O N C E P T S A N D T H E O R Yhappens inside me cannot. From close studies of my behaviour and thephysical representations I produce, however, can be inferred patterns like theones described in sections 2.5 and 2.6, but hardly unless the researchercompares his observations with what s/he understands from trying to observewhat happens inside him- or herself in similar situations. Whether suchstudies can be considered as ‘neutral’ must therefore be considered asquestionable. This observation indicates a drive towards a closer engagementof the researcher in the studies of design action, a view which I will return to.The issue of personal experience is central to the study of designing, but thequestion of how I experience a situation can according to the above viewhardly be answered through cognitive psychology because only I can knowhow I experience something. This aspect seems to be important inapproaching the issue of material representation, where two related questionscan serve as an example: (a) How do I experience materially representedform in contextual world? (b) How do I experience form in an act ofrepresenting my imagery materially? At this initial stage these questions andthe relationship between them seem to portray an ambiguity in the issue ofdesign experience perceived through material representation, where bothsituations involve my imagery (which only I can see), but where one situationis more intimately my own than the other. As information-rich stimuli(according to Gibson above) will enhance perceptual processing, the questionof how rich experiences can be created must also be addressed.Another aspect of the same issue is how the two above questions portray mysubjective experience of objectively represented form which also can beobserved by others (they can observe both the same contextual representationand the specific representation I am making). The question of subjectivityinvolving thought, emotion and intention contained in personal values whichare physically represented by the designer is seen as a highly relevantprecondition for design action. Thereby the question of how subjective viewsof collaborating actors meet in material representation becomes a central oneto this research project, as well as how the materiality of the ‘meeting point’can support a necessary process of adaptation and integration betweencolliding subjective views. Such a process of integration necessarily involveschanging one’s own and other’s subjective positions, which introduces thetopic of dynamics of a design process – an aspect of design action whichmust be addressed if illustration of the process is our objective.Aspects of design action focusing how subjects experience physical realityand how their experiences can change their individual views in interactionwith other subjects are not the concern of the cognitive sciences, which takethe onlooker’s perspective. Cognitive psychology thereby seems to representan appropriate point of departure for framing my research intentions in thesense that it can declare and describe behavioural bases for patterns ofinternalisation and externalisation. But if I want to further approach thesources of a humanly basis for designing – namely through personal35

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nengagement in rich experiences and interaction of subjective views andshared perceptual learning in dynamic patterns towards some unknownagreement – the principle of introspection can hardly be avoided. And I willobviously have to search for supplementing theoretical sources, which will beanalysed mainly through philosophy and neurobiology in chapter 5.But before this theoretical expansion and in order to appropriately ground myresearch work, I will in chapter 4 report performed case studies of designaction in which externalised representation was made through support ofRapid Prototyping produced materiality, but where the objective of thestudies was to approach the above described problematic with an open andpreferably unprejudiced mind based on ‘everyday understanding’ by thecollaborating team. The following methodological framing was applied tothis approach.36

Ch 3:RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SCIENTIFIC FRAMING_______________________________________________________In this chapter the transdisciplinary character of the project isdescribed and the nature of Qualitative Research is reviewed.Strategies and methods of inquiry are presented. The preferredParticipatory Action Research and Reflexivity regimes areemphasised as well as the way they are applied.

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N3.1 A transdisciplinary approachIn the establishment of a field of making material, social and basic humanaspects will be integral parts of an emerging epistemology – with bothproduct and process oriented implications. My object of study is employmentof physicality for support of perception in conceptualisation processes – aframing which involves all three aspects and which thereby will betransdisciplinary. I will employ a technology that can produce materialityaccording to technical specifications, capabilities and limitations, aproblematic firmly positioned within natural science. But I will study howsuch materiality can support human perception and how ‘external’ and‘internal’ representations interact in conceptualisation – an endeavourbasically involving human science. In applying such individual patterns ofmaking to team-based development processes involving concept adaptationto contextual environment, I finally enter a social science landscape. Thepractical research work is performed in study of groups of students andprofessional actors who are engaged in design action, and my field work anddata collection has taken place in such a traditional social science scenario ofacting human beings – all with individual ideas of what meaning this actionhas. The theoretical analyses are performed through studies of theory with abasis in human and physical sciences. How can these diverging butsimultaneously integrated aspects be assigned to a scientific framing – andhow can they be approached methodologically?Since my objective can be seen as one of trying to understand howtechnology can be applied to support a basically human way of acting and theresearch work was performed according to a social science researchapproach, the principles and proceedings of qualitative inquiry will constitutethe central core of the research and analyses.3.2 Principles of qualitative research3.2.1 Quantitative researchAccording to Schwandt (2000:196) the philosophies of logical positivism andlogical empiricism were founded on the principle of rational construction ofscientific knowledge through semantic and syntactic analysis of statementswhich explain (theories, hypotheses and descriptions, e.g. observations). Insuch a framing social, cultural and historical dimensions of understandingwere considered irrelevant for constitution of genuine scientific knowledgeand its justification. Language in this landscape describes the world‘objectively’ and an empiricist epistemology is one of pictorial description orconceptual, disengaged representation of an external reality. Acharacterisation of positivist inquiry is primarily one of quantification andquantitative research with an objective of measurement and analysis ofcausal, ‘value-free’ relationships springs from this paradigm, in which realitycan only be approximated and never fully apprehended. This approach to38

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N Gconstruction of knowledge, where physical objectivity is the main focus ofattention, has been extremely successful within the natural sciences. Butwithin the social sciences and the human sciences, where humanconsciousness plays a highly relevant and integral part, deductive reasoningand explanation will be of limited value. This realisation has gainedconsiderable leverage within most fields during the last part of the twentiethcentury. Stake (1995:37) says that “the distinction is not directly related tothe difference between quantitative and qualitative data, but a difference insearching for causes versus searching for happenings. Quantitativeresearchers have pressed for explanation and control; qualitative researchershave pressed for understanding the complex relationships among all thatexists”.3.2.2 Qualitative epistemologiesParticularly in the disciplines where reality can be described in contexts ofcomplexity, the old empiricist notion of knowledge being ‘true, objective anduniversal’ has been profoundly challenged. Here one has gradually adjustedto the idea that knowledge can arise from understanding of local contextsregardless of complexity settings, and of whether involved actors contributeto such understanding from subjective positions or not. And one hasexperienced that personal stories, internal perspectives and values may haveuseful and legitimate positions in research. Such qualitative issues are highlyimportant to research on design and touch upon the basic schism of themaking professions of whether such approaches can be characterised as‘scientific’ or not. It therefore seems reasonable to give a short account ofsome broadly described influences, tendencies and problems which have ledto this situation – before proceeding to the question of methodological tools.Qualitative Research (QR) dates back to the ‘Chicago school’ of sociologyand the fieldwork methods of anthropology early in the last century. Denzinand Lincoln (2000) have edited a comprehensive study of this field ofinquiry; Handbook of Qualitative Research. They describe the developmentof the field within seven historical ‘moments’ which characterise differenttypical periods. There was a profound development within the field duringthe twentieth century, where qualitative research had different meanings inthe different periods. The traditional period (1900-1950) to a very highdegree reflected the positivist science paradigm. Positivistic argumentationwas still influential during the modernist or golden age (1950-1970), whichwas also characterised through creative approaches to formalisation ofqualitative methods. Many diverging paradigms, methods and strategies wereapplied in parallel approaches to the field during the blurred genres period(1970-1986), where theories ranged from symbolic interactionism toconstructivism, naturalistic inquiry, positivism/postpositivism,phenomenology, ethnomethodology, critical theory, neo-Marxist theory,semiotics, structuralism, feminism and theories on race and ethnicity. Thiswas the historical period where positivist and behavioural approaches gave39

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nway to a more pluralistic, interpretive, open-ended perspective taking culturalrepresentations and their meanings as point of departure. The crisis ofrepresentation (1986-1990) represented a historical rupture, whereexperimental, narrative and reflexive writing called into question issues ofgender, class and race. The crises refer to field-based discourses onrepresentation, legitimation and relevance of texts. In the postmodern orexperimental period (1990-1995) one struggled to make sense of these crisesand new ways of ethnographical composition were explored through furtherfocus on local, small-scale contexts of particular situations. In thepostexperimental inquiry period (1995-2000) traditional approaches werefurther liberated and fictional ethnography, ethnographic poetry andmultimedia texts became accepted strategies. The future (from 2000 onward)will involve all the described periods, either as practices to follow or to argueagainst; “there have never been so many paradigms, strategies of inquiry, ormethods of analysis for researchers to draw upon and utilize” 1 .Qualitative research, which is basically concerned with understanding whatpeople are doing or saying, has become a very popular field of inquiry duringthe 1990s, a development which Denzin and Lincoln term the “qualitativerevolution” 2 . It is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world,with practices that makes the world visible and transforms it; “qualitativeresearchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of,or to interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” 3 .But it is an interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary and counterdisciplinary field,multiparadigmatic in focus, with a multimethodological approach based uponinterpretive understanding of human experience.Schwandt (2000:189-215) tries to capture basic content and diversity ofqualitative inquiry in focusing interpretivist philosophies, philosophicalhermeneutics and social constructionism as typical of the qualitative researchfield. His views are referred in the following outline, where interpretivismand hermeneutics, characterised as the Geisteswissenscaft or Verstehentraditions in the human sciences, are seen as fundamentally different from thenatural sciences which offer causal explanations (Erklären) of social,behavioural and physical phenomena.Interpretivism distinguishes human action from the movement of physicalobjects by claiming the former as inherently meaningful (having intentionalcontent and belonging to a system of meaning; a smile can be wry or loving).Schwandt distinguishes between four different ways of defining interpretiveunderstanding. In empathic identification with the actor understanding themeaning of human action requires grasping subjective consciousness frominside. Phenomenological sociology analysis is intended “to reconstruct thegenesis of the objective meaning of action in the intersubjective1 Ibid. p.18.2 Ibid. p.ix.3 Ibid. p.3.40

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N Gcommunication of individuals in social life-worlds” (Outhwaite 1975:91).Through language games, inspired by Wittgenstein, human action ismeaningful by virtue of the system of meanings to which it belongs andunderstanding the game becomes the objective. In shared features whichshares the basics of the other three, Verstehen is both everyday interpretationof own actions (introspection) and a method of the social sciences. Theinterpretivist epistemologies can in one sense be characterised as traditionalhermeneutics through the familiar notion of the hermeneutical circle of thehuman sciences, in which the inquirer must grasp the whole in order tounderstand the parts and vice versa, but the interpreter remains unaffected bythe interpretive process (objectifies what is interpreted).Philosophical hermeneutics, established by Gadamer and Tyler and inspiredby Heidegger, takes another position, in which understanding is not seen as arule-governed procedure, but as the very condition of being human(understanding is interpretation). There is no use in believing meaning can beunbiased, on the contrary; understanding requires the engagement of one’sbiases. Only in dialogical encounter with what is not understood can we openourselves to risking and testing our preconceptions and prejudices. Therebyunderstanding is participative, conversational and dialogical; it is produced indialogue, not reproduced by interpretation through analysis. Meaning is thennegotiated mutually in the act of interpretation or constructed. This assigns anon-objectivist view of meaning to the philosophical hermeneutics position,whereby a final, correct interpretation will not be reached because it canalways be seen from new angles. Understanding in this sense is, according toGadamer, growth of inner awareness.Social constructionism aims to overcome representational epistemologies ofsocial science practice in many ways. Constructivism means that humans donot find or discover knowledge as much as they construct or make it – on thebasis of shared understandings. In this position, which is also calledperspectivism, all knowledge claims take place within a conceptual andcontextual framework through which the world is described and explained. Itrejects a naïve realist view of representation, but goes much further indenying interest in an ontology of the real. Real relations of a particularsociety can only be experienced within its cultural and ideological categoriesand meanings in this framing become fixed entities and exist independentlyof the interpreter. Therefore social constructionism is not as dependent onlanguage for disclosure of meaning as is philosophical hermeneutics. Weakforms of constructionism may interpret the role of social factors by rejectingdefinitions of knowledge, justification, objectivity and evidence, whereasstrong constructionism may interpret legitimate knowledge in a radicallysceptical and even nihilistic way.Interpretivism, philosophical hermeneutics and social constructionismprovide different ways of addressing the profound concern of qualitativeresearch: understanding what other human beings are doing or saying.41

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NQualitative inquiries are critical of scientism and reject anthropologies of adisengaged, controlling, instrumental self. Interpretivism, all variants ofsocial constructionism and Gadamerian philosophical hermeneutics all “insiston rejecting the very idea of any foundational, mind-independent, andpermanently fixed reality that could be grasped or even sensibly thought ofwithout the mediation of human structuring” (Schusterman 1991:103). Forjustification of understanding, two sets of consequences are emphasised.Strong holism argues that “from the fact that we always see (make sense of,know) everything through interpretation, we must conclude that everything infact is constituted by interpretation” 4 – from which the sceptical conclusionfollows that one interpretation cannot be considered more correct thananother. Weak holism (non sceptical) on the other hand argues that abackground of understanding (mediation of understanding) is “not strongenough to act as a fixed limit or to make it impossible to decide normativelybetween interpretations on the basis of evidence. Indeed such evaluation willalways be comparative, fallibilistic, and revisable, in that yet a betterinterpretation could come along, encompassing the strengths and overcomingthe weaknesses of previous interpretation” (Bohman 1991:146).Schwandt maintains that qualitative inquiry is a practice which involvesethical and political commitments, where moral issues arise from a theory ofknowledge assigned to a particular view of human agencies.This outline has given an overview of central thought patterns whichqualitative research methods are built from.3.3 Strategies and methods of inquiry3.3.1 Qualitative research designUnlike positivist research design agendas, which emphasise pre-conceptionof the problems, hypotheses of probable findings, specification of researchstrategies and methods of analysis, qualitative research designs should leavepossibilities open for discoveries in findings. This strategy introducesambiguity and flexibility into design proposals. As representative of thistendency, Janesick (2000:379-399) chooses the dance choreographymetaphor to depict a heart-of-the-matter oriented research design.The qualitative researcher is like the choreographer who creates adance to make a statement. For the researcher, the story told is like adance, in all its complexity, context, originality, and passion. Inaddition the researcher is, like the dancer, always a part of theresearch project and, like the choreographer, an intellectual criticthroughout the study. 54 Schwandt (2000) p.201.5 Ibid. p.395.42

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N GInfluenced by Dewey (1958) and Eisner (1991) she sees research design, notcomposed, but rather as an improvisational art – as a process, with differentphases connected to forms of problematic experience and their interpretationand representation. Where dance mirrors and creates life, research designsadapt, change and mould the phenomena to be examined. Like in dance, shesuggests four distinct phases: (a) warming up and preparation; designdecisions at the beginning of the study and elements of choreography,(b) exploration and exercises; design decisions throughout the course of thestudy and choreography as a work in progress, (c) cooling down; illuminationand formulation, design decisions made at the end of the study and (d) majorconsiderations in writing the narrative and other points. All phases involvedefined contents and flexible lists of recommended issues of focus.This approach to research design, where the road emerges as one walks it, didnot apply so well to my first attempt of identifying an appropriate strategy,case study research, but it fit well to those which followed.3.3.2 Case study researchYin (1994:13) defines case study research as “an empirical inquiry thatinvestigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are notevidently clear”. It should be distinguished from an experiment whichdivorces a phenomenon from its context through control. Case study inquirydeals with distinctive situations with many more variables than the focusedones. Therefore many sources of evidence are called for, which need toconverge in a triangulation fashion. Prior development of theoreticalpositions to guide data collection and analysis is required. One of itsstrengths is the ability to deal with a full variety of evidence; documents,artefacts, interviews and observations. It can be distinguished betweenexploratory, descriptive and explanatory case studies and experiments, butboundaries between the types are often blurred.Fundamental to case study research design is a precise formulation of theresearch questions (who-, what-, where-, how- and why- questions differ)and the study propositions should be clearly defined. Integrated in theorganisation is the decision on the unit of analysis, which is a central contentdefinition of the case and which should be related to the research questions.Finally the linking of data to propositions and the criteria for interpreting thefindings should be clarified. The relation to supportive established theories isalso important, where theories about individuals, groups, organisations andsocieties can be distinguished. Yin further distinguishes between embedded(many units of analysis) and holistic (global analysis) and between multipleand single case designs. Conducting case study research requires that theresearcher can ask good questions and be a good listener who avoidspreconceptions and his or her ideologies or biased notions. He or she musthave a firm grasp of the issues being studied.43

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe principles of case study research were used for the initial stage of thisresearch project. But its more detailed procedures were not found to be wellsuited for exploring my focused interaction process between mental andmaterial representation. And as its requirement of an unbiased researcherappeared to be difficult to match in an explorative context, methodologicalapproach was eventually shifted to grounded theory, action research andreflexive methodology. Accordingly further description of the data andevidence collection techniques is omitted here.3.3.3 Grounded TheoryAs a reaction to the positivist belief of research resulting in objectiveknowledge came the notion that knowledge cannot be separated from theknower (Steedman 1991:53), which implies that data and facts areconstructions or results of interpretation. Based primarily in the books TheDiscovery of Grounded Theory - Strategies for Qualitative Research (Glaserand Strauss 1967) and Basics of Qualitative Research (Strauss and Corbin1990), the framework of grounded theory (GT) was built upon this notion ofnon-existence of interpretation-free or theory-neutral facts. Strauss’sbackground in symbolic interactionism and Glaser’s in statistical positivismwere combined in this approach and adapted to the new qualitative framing.The main emphasis of grounded theory is that instead of focusingverification, one should focus discovery of theory. Research should primarilygenerate theory, and verification should serve such generation (Glaser andStrauss 1967:29). They are opposed to the ‘logical deductive’ approachwhich sees theory as separated from reality and instead suggest derivingtheory from empirical data inductively. Both quantitative and qualitative datacan be employed, but the latter are more appropriate in contexts ofcomplexity. Such theory can be created without ‘large scale’ ambitions, butshould be tested to determine correct areas of application. In fact, practicalapplication of the theory, which asks in what circumstances it works, canbecome an objective instead of asking whether it is true or false. A pragmaticapproach to basic principles and to collection of data includes all kinds ofsources which can reveal new kinds of understanding of the researchproblems.As a theory generating tool grounded theory involves coding of categoriesfrom the data (e.g. field notes, interviews etc), which are concepts or issues ofrelevance to the research objectives. Strauss (1987:27) suggests types ofcategory content: Conditions, Interaction among actors, Strategies and tacticsand Consequences. The categories in their turn contain properties, whichdetermine and characterise them. The technicality of theory discovery is thenbuilt upon repeated attempts of comparison of newly coded data of a categoryand earlier coded data of the same category – until theoretical saturation44

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N Goccurs. The principle of how data are collected is called theoretical samplingwhere the researcher from analysis decides what data should be collectednext, and where to find them. Through building upon earlier hypotheses, thisprinciple implicitly secures the gradual emergence of the new theory 6 .Through writing memos on emerging theoretical ideas, from data trying toidentify the core category, and drawing diagrams and models of the relationsbetween categories, one gradually should be able to achieve a network ofcategories and their properties with integration of the theory as result. Glaserand Strauss (1967:32-35) distinguish between substantive theory, which isdeveloped for a substantive or empirical area and formal theory, which is fora formal or conceptual area, and they suggest that both can be built directlyfrom data and that it is preferable to build formal from substantive theory, butwith care towards generalisations.Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000:18) remark that grounded theory turns thetraditional positivist thesis on its head by seeing qualitative methods andtheory generation as primal and quantitative methods and verification assecondary – instead of the other way around. Like most qualitativeresearchers they are positive to the employment of grounded theory, but warnthat unreflected focus on data processing can lead to trivial, common-sensethinking and that too much energy can be spent on coding operations. Theyemphasise grounded theory’s close relationship to phenomenology andindicate that the strategy could be used less rigorously than originallyintended through integration with genuine and fruitful grand theories.The qualitative research principle of discovery of theory has been adapted asthe basic strategic approach to this research project. Hypotheses andtheoretical understanding have been allowed to emerge through analysis asthe project proceeded. The Glaser and Strauss method of inductively derivingtheory from empirical data has been employed throughout. And in line withAlvesson and Sköldberg, application of a basic GT strategy, ‘wide reading’and explorative reflection has been found more appropriate than detailed dataprocessing – because of the wide scope of the research problematic.3.3.4 Participatory Action ResearchAccording to Reason (1994) there are three approaches to Action Research(AR): co-operative inquiry, participatory action research and action inquiry.They are all based upon the position that knowledge arises throughparticipation. Argyris and Schön (1991:86) write that AR “buildsdescriptions and theories within the practice context itself, and tests themthere through intervention with experiments – that is, through experimentsthat bear the double burden of testing hypotheses and effecting some(putatively) desirable change in the situation”. Stringer (1996:xvii) describesthe role of the action researcher: “the task of the practitioner researcher is to6 Ibid. p.38-39.45

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nprovide leadership and direction to other participants or stakeholders in theresearch process”, and he calls such a person a “research facilitator” –meaning that (s)he should behave more like a coach than as a disciplinaryexpert. Team-building and enhancement of an environment of self-awarenessand self-reflectiveness then become important issues. A main feature ofParticipatory Action Research (PAR) is that the researcher is not onlyallowed, but supposed to submerge in the material as an active participant –and simultaneously to arrange the premises for action and watch what isgoing on. This triple function of the researcher makes the approach verychallenging. Torbert (1991: 221) calls it “consciousness in the midst ofaction”.Kemmis and McTaggart (2000:567-605) have given a comprehensiveaccount of PAR with a thorough characterisation of basic principles and toolsfor its feasible realisation. PAR, they say,frequently emerges in situations where people want to make changesthoughtfully – that is after critical reflection. It emerges when peoplewant to think ‘realistically’ about where they are now, how thingscame to be that way, and from these starting points, how, in practice,things might be changed 7 .The process of participatory action research is generally depicted as repeatedself-reflective cycles (the Action Research Spiral) involving “planning achange, acting and observing the process and consequences of the change,reflecting on these consequences, and then replanning, acting and observing,reflecting, and so on” 8 . They characterise the process through seven keyfeatures: PAR is (1) social, (2) participatory, (3) practical and collaborative,(4) emancipatory, (5) critical, (6) recursive (reflective, dialectical) and (7)aims to transform both theory and practice – where theory cannot stand aboveand beyond practice. 9In their efforts to achieve these goals participatory researchers can providemultiple resources for their task, and they will differ from singularlyquantitative researchers in the way they collect and use quantified data. Butthey will also differ from solely qualitative approaches, for example throughclose clinical or phenomenological analysis of an individual’s view. Theparticipatory action researcher will explore how ‘objective’ circumstancesshape and are shaped by the ‘subjective’ conditions of participants’perspectives.This research approach differs considerably from traditional researchmethods and includes a number of trade-offs, which also reflect some of the7 Ibid. p.573.8 Ibid. p.595.9 Ibid. p. 597-98.46

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N Gmost common opposition against the method. Øritsland (1999:40) presentsthe following list:AR sacrifices an objective perspective for greater richness ofinformation. By being submerged in the action it is possible for theresearcher to observe phenomena and causal relationships that theparticipants are not aware of or do not consider important. Theresearcher experiences first hand the same phenomena that theparticipants report, and therefore has a greater likelihood ofunderstanding tacit knowledge, unspoken rules etc.AR makes the researcher a part in any argument. Due to an emotionalengagement with the material, unbiased observation becomes difficult.AR allows the researcher to influence the process that is being observed,both positively and negatively. If one wants to try out something new, itis possible for the researcher to assure that participants stay on track andremember or learn what is necessary for the successful completion ofe.g. a new method. On the negative side, participation of the researcherwill colour the participants’ reactions and may change a neutral course ofevents. In effect, the researcher may force the results to show theexpected.AR makes an experiment a single occurrence. The classical experimentgoals of repeatability and generalisation may not be achieved. Insteadone must base observation on their being acceptable and reasonable.Participatory action research (PAR) is thereby understood as a developmentof the more general action research (AR) with particular focus on theparticipative contribution from the researcher. That focus has been foundappropriate for this explorative research project, where participation by theresearcher in suggesting action and interpreting outcome is welcomed. Theconsequences of the features of qualitative and participatory action researchand verification criteria will be addressed in section 3.4.These approaches to qualitative research are to a large extent aimed at inquiryon the social aspects of action. To integrate such understandings with a morebasic understanding of human preconditions for such action, a widerapproach was needed in addition. How should such a reflective interaction beperformed?3.3.5 ReflexivityReflective research is based upon careful interpretation and reflection.Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) approach the need to put field research andinterpretations in perspective and confront favoured lines of interpretationsfrom an analysis of influential thought patterns during the twentieth century.They arrange their material somewhat differently from Denzin and Lincoln(2000) and Schwandt (2000). Their qualitative research methodology, calledReflexive Methodology (RM), is based on four categories referred in the47

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nfollowing: data-oriented methods, hermeneutics, critical theory and finallypoststructuralism and postmodernism.In data-oriented methods grounded theory is emphasised. Anotherinfluential field in social science has been ethnomethodology with its roots inphenomenology 10 . Three forms of reductions are central to this field.Phenomenological reduction is based upon immediate ‘lifeworld’experiences of the phenomenal world where we abstract from objects toideas. In eidetic reduction we leave the individual phenomenon and reach socalledessences, which mean universals (the concept of table, not the actualtable), and which can be seen as an intuitive way of discovering earlierunreflected meaning. In transcendental reduction individual experience isseen as embedded in and bearing the imprint of a conceptual world – alsoinvolving other people. Ethnomethodology according to this regime studieshow the lifeworld of people emerges in everyday social interactions by usingfairly consistent data collection methods.In hermeneutics, with its basis in interpretation of texts, the meaning of partscan only be understood in relation to the whole and vice versa, from which itfollows that solving research situations of polar aspects can be approached“by successive acrobatic jumps between the horns of the dilemma”. Thisapproach to understanding acts of others involves trying to put oneself in theactor’s place, where “only intuition can fully assimilate the universe ofanother human being” 11 – a strategy linked to the concept of empathy. Theconcept of experience (Erlebnis) differs from the British empiricist notion ofperception in not being passive and receptive of something outside thesubject, but active, creating, intentional and meaningful – in addition to being‘global’ in a subjective whole life situation (Gadamer 1989a:60-70) 12 .Alvesson and Sköldberg distinguish between objectivist hermeneutics, wherealternations between whole and part is focused, and alethic hermeneutics,where polarities of pre-understanding and understanding are approached –both agreeing on an intuitive basis for understanding, inspired fromphenomenology and modelled with hermeneutic circles. The objectivistperspective sees achieving correspondence between divided aspects ofsubject and object as the objective of a process of understanding, whereassubject and object are seen as unified in a state of being-in-the-world(Heidegger 1962) in the alethic approach. According to Palmer (1969) theaspects can be seen as complementary and thereby integrated in one circularprocess, metaphorically characteristic of a multitude of hermeneuticapproaches and adaptable to several fields and framings.Critical theory refers to the tradition in social science known as ‘theFrankfurter School’ with associated orientations and writers (e.g. Habermas,Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm, Apel, and Offe). In addition to10 A phenomenological perspective will be expanded in section 5.311 Ibid. p.54.12 The notions of experience and perception will be expanded in chapter 5.48

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N Ginterpretation it is focused on critique of social realities and emancipationfrom old thought patterns. In this view social conditions are seen in theirhistorical and political contexts, referred to structures of power and madesubject to radical change. Elements from critical theory can leave their markon qualitative methods. As members of a society with certain interestsresearchers tend to take phenomena of this society for granted, and thusunconsciously to pass on fundamental values – a tendency which qualifiedreflection can counteract.Poststructuralism and postmodernism bring from structuralism theSaussurian thesis of language as a structural play with signs. Postmodernismopposes structuralism and the notion, pervading Western society since Plato,that there are some rational solutions and explanations which guaranteeprogress through knowledge. Myths, ‘grand narratives’ and dominantdiscourses should instead be replaced by local, provisional micro-histories.The position of the subject as a conscious, autonomous, holistic individual isdecentred. That which constructs perceptions, thoughts, emotions and actionsis linguistic and discursive context, and language does not express, butconstitute subjectivity – as a form of subjectivation. Individual identity isshaped by environment and not through one’s own effort. Derridadeconstructs old ‘truths’ through irony and fragmentation, but few substantialalternatives are suggested. Research is bent away from theory, data andinterpretation towards language and presentation, but recipes of how to do itare rare. Certain strategies, for instance local, fragmented, ambivalentnarrative and irreducible contradictions and instability of human knowledge,may nevertheless represent relevant submissions to qualitative inquiry.Reflexive interpretation, suggested by Alvesson and Sköldberg, activelydraws on elements from all these categories. Although critical to many basicideas of critical theory and postmodernism, they find elements of thesethought patterns to be important contributions to an updated approach toqualitative research. Their main patterns are, however, mostly influencedfrom data-oriented methods, hermeneutics and phenomenology. They take acritical stance towards traditional empirical epistemology. Qualitativeempirical research, they hold, is not rational, but could be provisionallyrational depending primarily upon reflection – not procedure. Very muchresearch work becomes uninteresting from being too tightly connected to dataand strictly defined empirical methods, for instance grounded theory appliedthe ‘correct’ way. Empirical research work should be actively expanded andsupplemented with reflexivity integrated with ‘wide reading’ of diversetheory. A main objective should be to lift a project out of trivialinterpretations which often follow from careful analysis of empirical inquiryand interviews from people’s everyday lifeworlds. Generating new,interesting and creative interpretation should be strived for, often throughcritical reflection and re-interpretation of earlier findings and establishmentof diverging interpretive levels. They suggest dividing research work intoseparate phases (sequencing) of empirical and reflexive focus to allow in-49

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Ndepth penetration of essential patterns. The engaged researcher should besensitive to alternative understandings through consistently admittingambiguity of interpretations; “the whole idea of reflexivity, as we see it, isthe very ability to break away from a frame of reference and to look at what itis not capable of saying” 13 . Thereby the researcher can actively construct‘reality’ – through perception, cognition, language and social interaction withthose being researched. In their four-level approach to ‘metamethodological’qualitative research atomistic can refer to data-oriented approaches, meaningof symbols through metaphor can refer to hermeneutics, influence ofoverriding systems can refer to critical theory and fragmentation and irony topostmodernism.In the reflexive methodology framework of Alvesson and Sköldberg I finallyfound what I to some extent missed in the other approaches: the unambiguousobjective of breaking new land and the intentional motivation of theresearcher to be creative in interpretation of action data and theory in searchof new basic understandings. This approach opened the doorway to ‘careful’in-depth studies of human preconditions for the patterns I was searching for.3.3.6 Qualitative research interviewingKvale (1996) describes qualitative research interviewing as one of manyapproaches to ‘conversation as research’. Instead of seeing the interviewertraditionally as a miner digging for buried metal (knowledge), s/he is hereseen as a traveller having a story to tell on returning. The researcher definesand controls the interview situation, which may very well involve divergingand contradicting views. But the objective of the situation is to establish ameaningful relation to the interviewee – for interpretation by the researcheras a qualitative description of the life world, or the ‘lived meanings’ of thesubject. An interview can, according to the actual case, be structured invarious degrees or it can be open. One should try to ask simple questions.The questions can be of many kinds according to the structure of theinterview: introducing, follow up, probing, specifying, direct, indirect,structuring or interpreting. Pauses for reflection should be included. Oneshould also try to obtain spontaneous and relevant answers with clarifiedmeanings. Interpretation and verification of interpretation should beattempted during the interview, but can also be subsequent to the interview.Five approaches to analysis of transcripts are suggested: (a) meaningcondensation, which means shortening of formulations, (b) meaningcategorisation, which reduces meaning to simple categories, (c) narrativestructuring, entailing temporal and social organisation of text, (d) meaninginterpretation, involving broader frames of reference and (e) generatingmeaning through ad hoc methods, which include commonsense approaches totext meaning.13 Ibid. p.246.50

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N GI tried to adapt these principles in the interview sessions, but in action phaseA there was a registered disagreement between the project objectives and anattempt of staying neutral 14 .3.4 Verification through credibilityThe above presentation shows that qualitative research methods are stronglyinfluenced by the theories which constitute understanding of the human beingwithin different schools of thought, the ontological aspect. The conditions forhuman interpretation and verification, which follow from these, have a multifacettedappearance which has undergone considerable changes and is in noway unproblematic. The tendency of the development has gone from strictverification criteria of positivist inheritance towards an increasingliberalisation of framings. This tendency basically seems to assign newmeaning to the concept of verification compared to traditional approaches.Yin (1994) has continued, but liberalised, the positivist verification traditionof sources of evidence in the data, principles for linking of data andpropositions, up-front definitions of criteria for interpretation of findings andtriangulation of verification attempts. Denzin (1978) suggests four types oftriangulation: data, investigator, theory and methodological triangulation.Janesick (2000:392), with reference to Richardson (1994), suggests a similarprocess of evaluating findings from several perspectives and that themetaphor of crystallisation better reflects such a qualitative approach since itportrays the multidimensionality of mentalities open to change. Because thereis no ‘correct’ interpretation of qualitative research, she suggests exchangingthe traditional trinity of validity, generalisability and reliability (technicallydefined in quantitative framings) with qualitative referents, to avoidconfusion. Such referents will represent the open nature of qualitativeexemplification, which aims at gradually approaching credibility.By suggesting discovery and generation of theory instead of verificationGlaser and Strauss (1967) have set the stage. Their grounded theory-basedprinciple of testing applicability of suggested theory instead of asking for itstruth value establishes the new direction. Central foundations of PAR are to“change reality in order to investigate it (learning with others by doing)” andthat “theory cannot stand above and beyond practice” (Kemmis andMcTaggart 2000:598). Central premises for credibility of qualitative researchresults are thereby defined. The results of intentionally changed practicalrealities must be seen as narrative accounts for others to relate to, learn fromand apply if they are eventually found relevant – not as verified validity.Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000:272) describe a similar but more productiveobjective; “knowledge must be judged by its ability to accomplish14 See section 3.5.51

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nsomething”. The criterion of good research thereby becomesaccomplishment, which can have many aspects according to Janesick’scrystallisation metaphor. In order to avoid the obvious danger of sloppyacceptance practices which may follow from the narrative turn, Alvesson andSköldberg have suggested criteria for good qualitative research: 15(1) Empirical ‘arguments’ and credibility, (2) An open attitude to the vitalimportance of the interpretive dimension to social phenomena, (3) Criticalreflection regarding the political and ideological contexts of, and issues in,research, (4) An awareness of the ambiguity of language and its limitedcapacity to convey knowledge of a purely empirical reality and awarenessabout the rhetorical nature of ways of dealing with this issue and (5) Theorydevelopment based on the mentioned issues.As all these approaches leave something more concrete to be desired for thisproject, I have turned to Buur (1989), who addresses design theory. Inagreement with the above authors, he holds that verification only can beachieved through successful practical application and that direct verificationis unrealistic due to a multitude of factors influencing the design process andthe stochastic nature of design. Nevertheless he suggests two approaches:1. Logical verification through: (a) consistency: there are no internalconflicts between individual elements in the theory, (b)completeness: that all relevant phenomena observed previously canbe explained or rejected by the theory, (c) coherence: wellestablished and successful methods are in agreement with the theoryand (d) cases and specific design problems can be explained bymeans of the theory.2. Verification by acceptance: (a) statements of the theory areacceptable to experienced designers and (b) models and methodsderived from the theory are acceptable to experienced designers.In accordance with these authors, I have chosen to see this research work as anarrative report of a new way of approaching individual and collaborativedesign. Since it is a qualitative research project, it cannot be verified in atraditional sense. But following a reflexivity objective in developing myinterpretations, I have tried carefully to focus issues and theories understoodas essential to designing and the human perspective I explored. I have alsoattempted to crystallise or triangulate my interpretations through differentkinds of data, many investigators, diverging theories and different researchmethods. The resulting theoretical development strategy is tested for itspractical applicability. But whether the story told and the practical findingsand theoretical suggestions are credible or not, is up to others to judge. Suchevaluation will be supported through continued adaptation in future caseprojects.15 Ibid. p.276.52

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N GTo strengthen these general criteria, the first of Buur’s approaches above hasbeen adapted to the research results to the best of my ability. The second isleft to my colleagues and the design community to decide upon.3.5 Adaptation to the research projectDenzin and Lincoln (2000), Schwandt (2000) and Alvesson and Sköldberg(2000) all categorise the influential thought patterns leading to qualitativeresearch differently, but their diverging emphases and blurred boundaries allilluminate the basic premise for qualitative thought; the complexity of thehuman mind and human interaction behind qualitative research methods.But having studied human faculties in regard to method has a double effect.In addition to methodological understanding it gives a foundation forapproaching the human aspect of my research questions.Studying process oriented collaborative design action involving students andprofessional actors and including several professional fields and newtechnologies has sociological, anthropological, philosophical, psychologicaland natural science implications – which are all embraced by a qualitativeframing. This research project is thereby highly transdisciplinary and alsotransparadigmatic, and a basis in a basically sociologically orientedframework as presented is seen as appropriate if it is adjusted to the realitiesof the actual project. The project is oriented towards individual and shareddesign action and internalised/externalised representation in such action – nottowards the surrounding society. The referred influences from critical theoryand postmodernism accordingly have implications for the basic methodology,but much less importance for the actual research work. From the proceedingsof critical theory, social constructionism and postmodernism came theinfluential impulses of scepticism towards ‘truths’ and (hidden) power,importance of studying local contexts, narrative as representation andfragmentation of ‘grand theories’ – tendencies which are all integrated in theway this research project is organised. But the important contributions fromthe referred theorists to the essentials of this project are the basic thoughtpatterns and procedures which are described in the data-oriented methods andhermeneutics, and the framework behind them, phenomenology. To expandthe influences from the human and social sciences of this scenario, selectedliterature from natural science was integrated through studies of physicalismas a basis for human action.Action phase A, with objective to approach research question Q1, wasorganised to freely explore how and with what effects RP could be used tosupport conceptualisation in case study research projects. These inquiries, asreported in sections 4.2-5, gave many interesting findings, but during the indepthinterviewing sessions according to Kvale there appeared a basicconstraint between the implicit premises of the research objectives and thecase research method restrictions emphasised by Yin; the claims of adetached researcher did not correspond with an explorative objective. It53

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nappeared impossible to explore a new (and to the actors earlier unknown)way of understanding design action and simultaneously remain the neutralobserver – which only resulted in a frustrated researcher. The research actorsneeded impulses to try out new ways, and an engaged (and presumablybiased) researcher was the only realistic inspiration source (Capjon 2002:58-69).Action phase B, still trying to explore relevant characterisations of RPemployment, was realised in a way which eventually solved the methoddilemma through studies of Denzin and Lincoln (2000). They had liberatedqualitative inquiry approaches considerably through strategic changesbetween the 1994 and 2000 versions of the ‘Handbook’ and now fullyembraced the principle of involved participation. It was eventually found thatintegrated extractions from the trinity of grounded theory (GT), participatoryaction research (PAR) and reflexive methodology (RM) proved to fit verywell to the explorative character of this project. But these methods were, inthe spirit of grounded theory, ‘discovered’ along the way and accordinglyinfluenced the different phases with variable significance.The scenario was that I, the researcher, had some ideas, which wereconsidered potentially interesting by me and others, but I lacked experienceand theoretical insight to operationalise them and make them easilyunderstandable to others. From a rather vague staring point, the metaphor ofchoreography and openness to appearing impulses instead of verification orfalsification of hypotheses were found to suit the intentions of trying toestablish some new way of approaching both individual and collaborativedesign problems. The PAR approach of engaged participation set thingsgoing in a productive way in phase B. The researcher’s own contributions tothe collaborative process as engineer and designer, moved the attention of theactors in a direction which was highly focused on the main issue; how RPcould be used flexibly and iteratively to support conceptualisation. Theparallel researcher responsibility of process documentation was taken care ofthrough employment of static video recordings which taped action anddiscussion of real collaborative meetings where the researcher participated.The tapes were transcribed afterwards. According to PAR principles all phaseA and B experiences were summed up through a video taped discussionmeeting and later analysed by the researcher. Questionnaires were thenprepared by the researcher, filled out by the student actors and analysed bythe researcher. The coding principles of grounded theory helped to suggestcategorisations of the experiences generatively without making the datatrivial. Concluding categorisations were finally agreed upon after severalmeetings between the research actors, and all findings were negotiated to anineteen points summary list 16 . Then, alas, appeared a reflexive vacuum; howshould the behavioural findings be understood?16 See section 4.7.54

C H A P T E R 3 : R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D S C I E N T I F I C F R A M I N GTheoretical reflection, which followed from this question, eventuallybecame a much more focused and time-consuming undertaking of thisresearch project than originally intended. Asking it set off studies aimed atpenetration of theoretical psychological, phenomenological and physiologicalbasis for human design behaviour – which tended to expand cascades of newaspects. The objectives now were to try to answer research question Q2,aimed at theoretical description of a humanly base for designconceptualisation, and to integrate praxis and theory in question Q3. Thisphase of in-depth attempts of achieving new understanding supplementedwith exploring illustrations and models agrees with the basic principles ofreflexive methodology (RM) and what Alvesson and Sköldberg above callgeneration of creative interpretation. The phase structure of the projectresulting from this study corresponds with their sequencing concept. In linewith their framework, the principles of PAR and a GT structure, the objectivebecame to try to generate new ways of understanding things in a landscapewhere empirical data and theoretical understanding were interactivelycompared, elaborated and finally brought into correspondence. Fromphilosophical reflection on an apparent dualism between mind and matter indesign action was eventually achieved a framework suitable for practicalmaterial support of a design conceptualisation process.Action phase C was finally launched to test out the suggested overall theoryand practical strategy in new case projects. Based upon a proposedintegration of theoretical and practical suggestions, in accordance with theverification-through-applicability approach, a final design project was noworganised where all the suggested technology was made available. This timethe researcher’s participation was reduced to following the proceedings fromthe side-line and participating in some meetings, but the actors were left verymuch to themselves in choosing approaches and strategies according to whatwas found most helpful – in agreement with the critique raised after phases Aand B. Written reports and videotaped summary discussions were used asempirical data.Parallel research cases, which addressed RP/RT application in early and latedevelopment phases and intended to answer research question Q4, were lessformally organised methodologically. The research foci were employment ofRP in the Fuzzy Front End phase of idea communication and employment ofRT in the User Feedback phase of finished concepts. These applications wereconsidered as supplementary to the main topic of conceptualisation, and thefocus was set on narrative exemplification, where the demonstrated cases andthe evaluation of the results were seen as sufficiently described to looselyindicate some generalisations. Simple questionnaires answered byparticipating actors supplemented evaluations in the up-front cases. A reportfrom a colleague researcher on the technical aspects of Rapid Toolingproduction and overall qualitative evaluation of the achieved case resultssupplemented the testing of the market feedback cases.55

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe description of this methodological conglomerate in retrospect mayappear like a fairly consistent story. Its real life discovery process wasanything but that. Meeting the controversies and constraints of trying tointegrate an inheritance from the humanities and thought patterns and claimsof rigour inherited from the natural sciences was experienced as problematicto this researcher. Nevertheless, the flexibility which results from attemptingto bend earlier learnt ways of thinking and behaving through continuouslychanging perspectives has been very valuable and expanding. And it can beseen as an ideal way of training one’s own mentality to the reality of designaction.56

Ch.4:EMPIRICAL CASES______________________________________________________This chapter reviews two initial action phases, where several RapidPrototyping-supported individual and collaborative design cases arepresented. In-depth interviews with the design actors, questionnairesand video-taped action scenarios form a basis for reflectivediscussions. These eventually result in a list of negotiatedobservations of central behavioural aspects of designconceptualisation supported through Rapid Prototyping.57

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N4.1 Tool performance and case objectivesDuring the first year of this research project the responsible staff was quiteunfamiliar with the technical capabilities of the newly acquired RapidPrototyping tool. One set out to explore its capacities in terms of materialproperties of the resulting parts, dimensional stability, tolerances, strength,surface finish, heat capacities and homogeneity – as well as operationalparameters like processing times, recycling capacity of powder, consumptionof gas and powder, stability of machine adjustments, quality effect ofpositioning in the tank and much more. Relevant basic part parameters wereregistered and recorded in illustrated forms as depicted below. A number ofsuch forms are included in appendix A1.Figure 1-4:Exampleof a test reportAmong our technical findings were that the dimensional stability of theresulting product was dependent upon many critical parameters and couldeasily become unstable if these were not properly maintained. The strengthwas similarly dependent upon correctly positioned adjustments or else itcould become brittle. Recycled powder could give coarse surface results ifnot properly separated. The positioning of the part in the tank was not alwaysstable and should be considered in regard to part geometry. In short, themaintenance of the equipment was much more demanding than originallyconsidered and it took us well over a year to learn most of the necessarytricks.However, if properly maintained with high emphasis on all the operationalparameters, the DTM 2000 machine delivered homogenous parts of highquality with a very high capacity for details if necessary – and to a very lowprice compared to traditional models. Quality and performance were58

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sconsiderably improved in the updated 2500 model which was later acquired.These are some basic quantified specifications:PAGFTensile strength: 44 MPa 38,1 MPaTensile modoulus: 1600 MPa 5910 MPaTensile elongation: 9% 2%Flexural modulus: 1285 MPa 3300 MPaImpact strength (Izod): 214 J/m 96 J/mFigure 2-4: Some mechanical properties of DuraForm SLS RP models– polyamide without and with glass ( www.3dsystems.com).As the project proceeded, however, it became quite clear that emphasis wouldnot be placed on technical capabilities, which has been the research focus ofalmost all RP oriented research worldwide for many years 1 . The tracking ofpart properties as depicted in figure 1-4 was eventually dropped, and most ofour attention was accordingly transferred to RP produced physicality as such– and in particular to the question of how this sort of physicality can enhancebasic conceptual understanding.This section had an objective of approaching research question Q1: How canemployment of RP produced materiality in the conceptualisation phase ofproduct development processes be characterised? In order to acquire a betterunderstanding of the materialisation capabilities of the RP technology, andhow they can be used for stimulation of bodily perception in design action,we had at this early stage quite freely to search for understanding of in whatdifferent ways the RP tool could be applied and how the design problemcould be matured through employment of RP produced physicality. Theseintentions were approached through employment of the tool in differentstudent design case projects in collaboration with the sponsoringmanufacturing companies Luxo a.s, Hamax a.s, Polimoon a.s together withNice a.s 2 and Jordan a.s. The projects have been suggested by the researcher,the employing companies or the individual students, and they have all beenchosen on the premise of high initial creative idea content related toestablished products of the companies and the market segments they areoperating in.The case projects have been solved in active collaboration with experts fromthe different companies, either by an individual or in groups of two or moredesign students. Initially the companies presented their technology andmarket strategies in plenary sessions together with their evaluations of futuretrends and their views of suggested ideas or focused objectives. During theprojects there were several contacts and discussions between designer(s) andcompany representatives and two to three presentations with discussions inplenary sessions along the way. Possible potentials of the tool were outlined,1 See e.g. Meyer and Kühnle (2000) and pdickens@dmu.ac.uk2 Norwegian Ice59

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nbut the actors were not instructed how to use the tool, as the research strategywas to let the different case projects evolve according to individualpreferences – and to observe the resulting action patterns. In most projectsiterative experiments based upon RP produced temporary draft models wereencouraged, and experiences with practical aspects of the ideas andprocedures were gained in this way.4.2 Action phase A case projects4.2.1 Luxo SidewinderLuxo a.s wanted to design a creative desk lamp based upon newly developedLED diodes technology instead of a traditional asymmetrical reflector. Thetraditional Luxo principle of a parallelogram which held the lamp parallel tothe desk regardless of position should be maintained. As the traditionalparallelogram operated in a vertical plane pivoting around a vertical axis, thelighthead will have bad functionality when angled towards the operator’sface. Students A and B analysed different parallelogram geometries andfound that with three parallel rods on vertical shaft pivot-points instead oftwo, a ‘three dimensional parallelogram’ could be designed which wouldkeep the lighthead in the desirable angle regardless of position in space – asdoes the Sidewinder snake.Figure 3-4: Three-dimensional parallelogram geometrySeveral solutions based upon this principle were tested out in rough Legomodels which eventually led to a choice of a three-rods structure on bothlower and upper level. A spring-loaded pivoting joint which compensatesincreasing bending moment with increasing angle was 3D modelled, andseveral joints were RP produced, fitted with springs and assembled onto arough 1:1 one level model fastened to wooden plates. Testing with thisphysical model very closely resembled the expectations as far as anglestability was concerned. But one found that the upper and lower ‘decks’would twist relative to each other and destabilise the structure. Turning to ananalogy of a planetary gear, they now suggested a synchronisation of themovements of the three rods through a planetary mechanism sunk into the60

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Slamp foot. Through their torsional stiffness they were supposed to keep thestructure stable.Figure 4-4: practical RP based experiments which gave a breakdownAn approximation of this suggestion was sketched, 3D modelled togetherwith a similar approximation of a design of a top structure, produced as RPmodels and assembled in a test mock-up. This arrangement functionedaccording to the intentions. The upper connection structure was kept parallelto the table in all positions, all the rods were synchronised in theirmovements and the spring loaded closed joints compensated increasingbending moments with increasing angles. However, in closer testing of thedevice one found that if the upper section was twisted sideways in one singleunfavourable position, namely when the rods were standing in an uprightposition, then the parallelogram would collapse because the rods in thatposition could not counteract the twisting. This was an inadequacy of thesolution which the involved engineers and designers had overlooked, and intrying to get around it one found that if this effect should be compensated,then the diameter of the rods would have to be increased so much that theaesthetic harmony of the solution would come out of proportion. In spite of avery promising idea, an unsolvable obstacle had been encountered; theconceptual development had experienced a breakdown.In searching for other ways to obtain a synchronisation effect, the studentsamong other alternatives came across the analogy of a car’s rear axletransmission where universal joints secure smooth connection between offsetparallel axes. Although seemingly complex, their original Lego modelscontained such simple mass-produced joints, which were now integrated inthe design, 3D modelled and materialised as RP models. After someproblems related to the miniaturisation capability of dimensions in RP, the61

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Ntests eventually came out successfully – and this solution was finally chosenas a realistic basic joint principle.Figure 5-4: innovative solutions resulting from the experimentsNow many different designs applying this principle were tested out, first assketches, then as hand-made models, and finally as RP models, where aharmonisation between technical, functional and aesthetical claims wasattempted – between all involved parts and the designers’ intentions of theoverall appearance. One implication of the universal joint choice was that thebuilt-in compensation spring in a cylinder had to be abandoned because ofcomplexity and lack of space. Several attempted alternatives came outnegatively and they were close on giving up on this detail, when they finallythrough testing discovered that an ordinary wound spiral spring has acapacity for bending stiffness as well as for stretching. When entered outsideof a universal joint, covering it, this stiffness was through testing found to besufficient to compensate the bending moments resulting from offsetting therelatively small masses of this solution. Thereby a simpler and aestheticallymore harmonious solution than the original was acquired – as a direct resultof the experienced breakdown.Figure 6-4: The resulting Sidewinder concept modelThis futuristic desk lamp concept, based upon asymmetrical configuration ofLEDs with close to 100 000 hours duration, has the ability to keep thelamphead in alignment with the original position regardless of where it is62

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Smoved. During the project several temporary RP models were used tostimulate discussions between development actors and future users. RP wasalso applied for production of the final physical presentation model.Figure 7-4: Model geometry, model-based discussion and final model4.2.2 Luxo OrchidThis project was based upon applications of the same LED diodes with thesame objectives as for the Sidewinder, but student C approached thechallenge from a different idea. After analysis of diverging principles forparallelogram geometries, he found that the basic difference between asingle-reflector and a multi-reflector lamp is that instead of adjusting onelarge reflector in parallelogram geometry, one could adjust all the separatelamps individually. This appeared as a complication, but did not eventuallyturn out to be so, because if adjustment, orientation and hinging wereintegrated in one assembly and injection moulded in one piece in an elasticpolymer, then complex geometry needed not increase the cost, but could offeran opportunity for creative design. Such complexity would represent adevelopment challenge, but not necessarily complex production. He set out tosolve his problem through sketching.Figure 8-4: Conceptual search for the Orchid lamp63

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe approach was based on an idea of using orchids as a metaphorical sourceof inspiration for the forming of the flexing lamps, but he soon found that theintegration between all technical claims (such as flexing and toolingprinciple, fastenings, strength, assembly etc.) aesthetics and freeformgeometry was so complex that three dimensional forming was needed.After hand-forming of several attempts in clay, he proceeded to 3D CADmodelling and built tentative geometries in RP models for testing ofmovement patterns, integration with aluminium extrusions, hinging etc. andmodelled animations to simulate movements and avoid collisions betweenelements in dynamic adaptations.Now followed several iterations in which he alternated between CADmodelling, movement animations and RP production of physical models.Reality testing was performed through assembling the physical parts andusing them for evaluation and discussions on geometry and function,dynamic movement patterns, aesthetical evaluations and producability ofparts – before adjusting details and trying over again.Figure 9-4:Orchid conceptmodel with detailsHe finally managed to produce an assembly where all technical, functionaland rational claims were integrated with a strong impulse of a personal,64

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Ssemantic expression – and where the CAD model and the physical modelfinally ‘cooperated’.4.2.3 Polimoon / Nice Ice LanternNice a.s had developed an ice lantern concept which has had a considerablemarket success. The intention of this project was to redesign the concept andprepare it as a series production item for Polimoon a.s. The concept wasbased upon the idea that a plastic form should be filled with tap water to beplaced in a household freezer – and when the ice would be disassembled fromthe form, an ‘ice lantern’ would result. Such lanterns are intended to beplaced on dishes on a dinner table with candles inside ‘caves’ within the ice,thereby forming ‘dynamic’ ice sculptures with living light penetrating the icewalls. This results in aesthetical experiences of the dynamically changingappearance during the meal. Students D, E and F used RP technology forexperiments resulting in three different new designs.Figure 10-4: Form, deforming and function of ice lanternStudent D based her approach upon organic form metaphors and by utilisingRP produced test forms, made an analysis of light effects through differentorganic shapes. These effects were by means of sketching and 3D modellingintegrated in possible designs and through evaluations and discussions withthe involved collaborating design actors, one basic theme was chosen forfurther studies.Figure 11-4: Concept search65

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThis preferred choice was now 3D modelled in several alternatives and onewas finally chosen after discussions and materialised in RP in a downscaledversion – for temporary evaluation. Several faults were found in the physicalrepresentation, corrected, remade and tested physically anew, now full size.This sequence was repeated until the result was finally found acceptable.Figure 12-4: RP forms and concept modelStudent E chose to concentrate on children and saw birthdays and parties asparticularly interesting applications. After analysis of possible metaphoricalthemes she decided on UFO as a preferred concept; visit from space.Figure 13-4:. Concept developmentPossible designs were analysed, but as the preferred shape was double curvedon each side this led the development into a dividable form with two halves –and thereby fairly complex geometry. Three iterations of 3D models werematerialised by RP – and tested and analysed each time – before the unitsfunctioned well without any material defects. One technical problem was thatthe dividing plane would be subjected to water pressure when the form wasfilled and this was finally solved through extension of the form to abovefilling level.66

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SFigure 14-4: CAD and RP modelsStudent F wanted to make a lantern for dinner table use, considerablysmaller than the original and based upon a somewhat abstracted organicform. Different semantic expressions were approached, first as drawings/rough physical models and then as CAD models. By producing RP inserts hetested out different design suggestions for internal patterns in real freezingexperiments. From these and evaluations of form alternatives he chose a halfellipsoid with an irregular rounded inside, made several 3D models andmaterialised a number of them for testing and adjustments. This solution waschosen by Nice as the preferred alternative of the three. A Rapid Tool of theform was materialised in copper polyamide for test fabrication of forms (seechapter 9).Figure 15-4: Concept development, RT tools and forms for test / evaluation67

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N4.2.4 Hamax Balance SledgeHamax a.s, a manufacturer of children’s sledges, wanted to supplement theirproduct line with a new creative product concept. From a suggestion by theresearcher it was decided to try to develop a sledge based upon a balanceprinciple – where balancing motor movements would be added to thesledging act. Early testing through bike rebuilding with skis resulted in anacceptance of the principle, and possible design solutions were made fromtwo principal alternatives; one ski with rounded bottom and curved steeringactivators which steered by tilting, or two skis where the front ski wasconventionally steered. Student solutions were approached from acombination of traditional drawing/hand modelling techniques and CADmodelling, and the resulting models were made from a combination ofmanual model making and production of parts or the whole sledge throughRP. Six selected models are shown – three of each alternative.Figure 16-4: Concept models of six first stage solutionsFive of these were intended for sitting or crouching, but the one for standingwas chosen by Hamax as the preferred principle. They were not content withthe design, however, and launched another student project for furtherdevelopment of the principle.Figure 17-4: Model of second stage solution68

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SStudent G, who was the designer of the original RP based design forstanding-up had also been the central actor of the winning second roundproject, the ‘AZ Rider’. The RP based development process, the new conceptand this student’s achievements were all considered so interesting by thecompany that he was selected as designer for a design project aimed atrealisation, but this time in close collaboration with professional designactors of the company and the researcher. As this was seen as a desirableoutcome and opportunity to penetrate deeper into an RP based developmentprocess, this project was now selected as one of two main phase 2 projects,with the objective of a more detailed exploration of RP based possibilities (tobe further described in section 4.5.1), but after a closer investigation of thedesign actors’ experiences.4.3 Initial in-depth interviewsMany more case projects have been involved in our proceedings, but as suchpresentations are not a prime objective of this research project, the aboveroughly reviewed design suggestions are seen as sufficient at this stage asillustrations of how RP was initially used and practically explored. Inreflecting upon what has been learnt in these cases, let us turn firstly to theexpressed experiences of the involved external collaborating design actorsfrom the participating companies. These views were tape-recorded in indepthinterviews after about a year of practical working with the tool, butthey were also based upon some earlier experiences.As anonymisation of each interviewee was continued, I have assigned thefollowing ‘names’ to the different individuals, referred to their companiesand professions: Hamax: development boss U and development engineer V,Luxo: engineering boss W, Jordan: production engineer X and industrialdesigner Y, and Interactive Institute: researcher Z. The author is called R.The full controlled and authorised texts are transcribed from tapes and printedin Norwegian in appendix A2. Selected relevant extracts have been translatedinto English, rearranged under main headings and referred in the followingsection. The experiences were found to belong in two major categories; (a)RP for facilitation of practical developmental operations or (b) means forcommunication in design action. All texts except the short introductions aredirect quotes.4.3.1 RP as facilitator of practical developmental operationsStarting with application of the RP tool to children’s sledge development, wefind many experiences relating different aspects of improved developmentprocesses:U: Our result has been that we have used probably more time in aconstruction phase, but much less time after the production of thetool. Now we have a tool which can be made faster because you69

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nhave an exact model, a 3D model. You have used much time duringconstruction through testing out. And you have a final model whichis much more exact than before. Accordingly the changes in thefinished tool are minimal compared to earlier. And that is whatmakes this interesting because it is much more interesting to useresources during development than in changing them after they arefinished.And V adds to the issue of how practical problems are approached throughRP application:R: You had a certain distance to drawing?V: Yes, there was only some, I had learnt some construction andreading of drawings, but apart from that – U also knows a little 2Dand Leif has always drawn – but apart from us no-one hereunderstands 2D drawings.R: That is interesting, so when you use RP, is it when the concept isfairly clear, or is it to experiment?V: Earlier it was much more like, make a drawing, think about theproblem – that one shall imagine as much as possible in one’s headand then make a prototype in the end, when one is close to finished.That was how we started, but after a while we found out; all right wedraw something in 3D, like that, that and that, and then we send it in.After a short week we have a model back, and then we can test. So Ithink after some experience it will be more and more oftenprototypes now.R: And then you do not need to know what you are aiming towards –just approximately?V: Yes, you see as a comparison – if we look at the fastening system oractually fastening and sledge together, which is where we havereally applied it. Watch that fastening system (pointing). It was madeby making a bracket which involved the fastening principle and theway it was built, how it was constructed to withstand the torsionalstresses. So I thought; we have to test those two things first, how thisfunctions and how the bracket behaves under load. And then I forgotabout everything else, with release, locking device and the wholething – only made a lump which they should be fastened to. Then wetried that out first and it proved to be stiff enough, but its fasteningwas not adapted to aluminium tubes. Then we changed to a conceptof simple clamps.R: You are in other words testing your way forward?V: Yes we do, and that is the way we would have done it with anothermethod, but we wouldn’t have reached our goal so fast because wewould have been more reluctant to use so much time for modelmaking. And we would not have had any correct picture of how theribs are made and such things. Because if you should make a bracket70

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sthe way we have it today, with all ribs and stiffening, then it is verytime consuming to make it in traditional ways.In development of desk lamps it has further been found that there is no pointin having restrictions on RP usage:W: Earlier we made parts based upon 2D drawings and manualproduction, and then a prototype became very expensive. There werefew prototype steps. What we do now is in a way to gorge ourselveswith prototypes. And still we absolutely save money because wedisclose very many faults which would have been very expensivelater – in tooling. If we had ordered a tool, had it made, and thendiscovered the fault at a later stage, then it is very, very expensive.R: Can you say something more about gorging in RP prototypes, whatdo you really mean by that?W: By that I mean that we use them frequently and often and we savevery much by ordering a prototype. That is not something weconsider for long if we shall do or not, because we do not consider ita large investment to make an RP.In tooth brush development the RP tool was used for experiments:X: A few years ago it was usual to make a model from wood, and thenone continued by drawing, often 2D, and ordering a test tool for twoto three hundred thousand crowns depending upon shape. And thatwas so much money that it was so to say the one trial you had, justto confirm that this was possible – and that it ought to be, to put itthat way. Then came the next step, a full production tool which for atwo component brush can be around 2,5 MNOK or more, and thenone had, what shall I say, no functional models during the process atall.R: And if you then did something wrong, then your future in thecompany was at stake?X: Right – it had large consequences. After we got 3D modelling andthen RP, life has become much simpler and we can allow ourselvesto experiment much more, as with the brush in front of us here, T42,is an example of. We had not, with our resources, dared to move tothis level of innovation if it were not because we got the opportunitycheaply and simply to supply first RP models and thereafter alsoinjection moulded brushes.But the actor who probably was closest to the advantages of the tool in actualuse was the tooth brush designer:Y: First we were in need of looking at form, of course, and in thatrespect working with RP has been important – which has been thecase in our late projects for Jordan. Lately we have got quite an71

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nextravagant relation to modelling directly from file. Because theprices are so low we can just make a model, look at it – no that wasno good, we have to make another one. Getting something like thisdone (pointing). For example you see that the neck is not at all goodlooking and it was not drawn like that either.And he continues:Y: In reality we have a possibility of having 3D models in our handsmuch earlier and much more often and we can use them for smallcorrections and forming, materialise new models. And not the least,we can do something which is of surprisingly new date at Jordan; wecan make a tooth-brush for teeth brushing, which was earlier notpossible before the production tool was functioning.R: So, what would you say are the main elements and possibilities ofthis technology compared to earlier?Y: The possibilities are that we to a much higher degree can run theprocess in such a way that we are certain we have realised ourintentions, and that we and Jordan are much more certain that theend result will be good – will become a top level product. Theyavoid uncertainty until they see how sales proceed.R: When you say our intentions, then that includes many types ofissues?Y: That includes form and function, quite simply; is this a wellfunctioning brush? That it has to be, if it is not, then you sell one andthat is it. In addition it must be an eye-catcher in the shelf includingan appropriate wrapping. Abroad, where there are more than twobrushes to choose between, where there are 5-6 shelf meters and 10-12 brands and lots of models fighting like dogs to survive, you haveto rise early and bring your food-box to sell your brushes.On the issue of testing of new design alternatives, he had some relevantviews:R: I am considering a creative new concept, how can we have thatevaluated and decided by the customers that this is something theywant, or it is not?Y: That is actually much of the same exercise I participated in. Theyask many things, and only present one alternative, right, and wouldyou like that brush, right? Or you get a spectre of new brushes. Forthat matter, they have not been so clever – Jordan often exclude untilone brush remains, and then that is shown, alternatively togetherwith competing brushes. So, being able to run a user test of five orten brush models where all are new, that had been interesting. Thatyou could if you could spit out rapid tools, because that has been thebrake.72

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SR: .…if we have one concept after a long process, what would you sayabout the customer’s possibility to decide on it through a test series?Y: That is not easy to say (laughter), but that possibility we have ofcourse, we can make real brushes. We can make 100 brushes withbristles and all for the user to take home, ask for one month of toothbrushing, and then ask if you will buy it the next time, or do youcome to buy when we take it away from you?R: So this is something you would like?Y: Yes of course we would like that, particularly as for this one here,because the first 2-3 times you use it you think what in the world –particularly for us who have drawn it.R: Right, because it is so innovative?Y: Yes – and then you eventually become hung up on this brush duringa fortnight. Then you don’t want anything else. And that type oftesting no-one performs.R: .....that is interesting because what you say is that if we did not havethis possibility, we could not test this among users because it is sounexplored and they would not understand it from watching sketchesof ideas?Y: Right, what is so special about tooth brushes is; I have had x numberof such presentations with models and all. And all just sit there, likeoh yes, that is a good brush or that is not. It is never the same asstanding at home brushing teeth, because what you do when you sitthere pretending, that is not what you do at home, that situation istotally different. And I have been sitting holding a brush and seen –yes, this must be a very good brush. Then you start using it, andthere is nothing to it!And his views on the important question of perceptual feedback in makingaction:R: Do you think it is easier to adjust form via computer along the waythan making the very first attempt? Isn’t there something there?Y: Yes, quite clearly I think so, for me it is so. For me it is easiest tomake it manually first. It is easy to adjust on the computer and lookat details, but mostly you end up with wanting what you made first.R: Yes, and then you can digitise?Y: Yes, and that is because you sit and manually adjust such a form intobeing, then you can finely adjust curves and many details exactly asyou want.R: In the next phase you can digitise and RP it and see what waswrong?Y: That is the one thing, yes, and the other thing is that if you want tomake larger changes then you can materialise many similar modelsand then sit and add or subtract material, manually change and movegrips and the like. The new clay I want to test because it can be avery fast way to make large changes – only so much that you can73

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nobserve it and, in a way; ok or no, probably I have missed. Then youtake a new round in the machine, adjust it – and then a new RPmodel again.R: Then come more steps after that – when you are approaching asolution then you will digitise each time you have made a physicalchange?Y: Yes, because the whole point is that nothing can replace a 3Dphysical model and observation of it. Absolutely nothing can replacethat. And what we need is a ping-pong effect between the differentfactual media, so that we as fast as possible can create a new 3Dphysical model. Preferably we should have had it at once, you see,because we see at once what it is that we want to adjust. Probablywe should do something with a curve here, or probably the wholething is a bit sloppy or whatever. And in the moment you take amental decision, you should have liked to have it there at once.These procedures are so damned time consuming – or have been.Things are becoming better now.R: And that was probably it?Y: My whole point is this: you usually boil over with thoughts aboutwhat you want to do, and then it is the process which is so damnedslow that you don’t get it out. This technology gives you thepossibility of realising a lot more ideas; you get to the goal on ashorter road, much faster. You can see what you have thought as fastas that – and then you can evaluate what you have thought.R: And you can make changes along the way?Y: Yes, that you can, because once you have made a change, you seethe possibility of making x more. People have asked us back andforth; how can you sit there and draw so many tooth brushes? Butwhen you draw as much as we do, as we say, then you reallyunderstand all which can be done with a tooth brush. It is quite wild,and you boil over with thoughts and ideas about what you could dowith that damned brush. But you don’t get time or opportunity – or itcosts too much and all those things.Finally, let us turn to an external researcher’s reflective reactions to someperceptual aspects of the tool’s application.Z: I think one uses creativity and intuition more or less all through aproject – which is based upon own experiences and input fromothers. I believe that this RP tool, or whatever you call it, that onerapidly can test out some thoughts in reality, that I think is importantfor creativity. If we say; ok one thing is to have something in one’shead, something else is to have the physical model and see; does itfunction practically, can it move, can it be used in this practicalsituation and so on. Then I think a very good thing about the processis that it actually can do so quite fast. That one rapidly can makedifferent kinds of models which can be tested. Because I think it is a74

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sgreat difference between sitting philosophising or being creative ortrying to think about a product and its function, that we cannot do. Imean really one should try and see how it functions in reality,because then one can have a personal relation to how it functions. Sothere is a difference between the thought and the physically basedaction.And further to the question of making alternatives:Z: I think, you showed in a way that earlier the process has been morelinear, and one has often had only a single model to work with, andthen one has detailed it as one proceeds. But as you say, to have atool which rapidly can make new physical models – then you canplay on several horses simultaneously – you can have morealternatives running at the same time. You can proceed morequickly, and the procedure can likely be shorter, or can be shortenedbecause of them. But I think much can be gained from having aniterative process – and where one plays on simultaneous horses.Then it is not only that you have one thing to bring forward, and ifthat is not successful you must start anew. So you can ride suchparallel iterative runs, that I believe will certainly give betterproducts.According to these referred experiences with the tool in design action, severalpractical advantages of different kinds seen in relation to traditional ways ofdeveloping have been registered by all the involved design actors. But howabout the employment of the tool for facilitation of communication in designprocesses?4.3.2 RP as means for communicationMost of the early experiences of the actors seemed to be related to the issueof how RP was seen as a means for communication between the participators– which could involve several collaborating individuals from investor viauser to engineering, marketing or design actors. In returning to theapplication of RP in development of children’s sledges, we find:U: It is no doubt that physical models are much more suitable forcommunication. It is quite clear, in relation to the users, at least asfar as sledges are concerned, if one develops a sledge for users whoare very demanding in relation to function, then it must function onthe hill, in use. And not knowing that before investing 3,5 MNOK,then you have a problem. You have a play of high chances. If onecan test out such things beforehand, that is the first precondition.Then you have the issues of the chain buyer’s concerns which goeson logistics – to be able to stack things in the height, packeffectively, low volume. And you have expositions in the shop, such75

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nthings. You have a graphical element here, but as far as usability,transport, logistics and production-wise – to evaluate all those issuesit is quite clear that a model is significantly better than sketches.In relating to using RP for collaboration in development action, he continues:U: That which is often the case is that for visionary designers, it is verymuch focused on aesthetics which makes an idea easy to sell to nonengineers.Engineers think what happens in that joint when onemakes it like that, how can one make a practical tool of this. Basedupon sketches it is easy to manipulate people too, because one canshadow and manipulate dimensions, which makes the wholeexpression different. And to ‘sell’ a project concept internally in thecompany and externally too. With physical models it is easier torelate to such things as well. You can approach the problem better –you can in a way communicate on the same level as whencommunicating over sketches. Because of that Hamax hasexperienced as a company, because we have had very cleverdesigners on a conceptual level, on sketch level, with very goodsketches with shadows and all that stuff. But the engineer whoapproaches this thinks of the practical issues and their realisation. Heknows how a plastic shell looks when extracted from the machine.And it does not look like on those sketches – that he has experiencedseveral times. But the director who evaluates the concept looks at thesketches and is fascinated by the market strategy, the designer’spresentation technique. They are in a way convinced – dollar signsshine in their eyes, right, this will become great. But often later inthe process, then ….. We have some projects here at Hamax wherewe have become surprised when the product comes from themachine, it was not like how they had imagined it. Then you haverun away from quite a few problems, it was not so easy to produceanyway. To get these two parties to approach each other – that isquite clearly an advantage.And concerning the communication with the decision makers:U: Yes, the advantages are what you can test out before you startbuilding tools. That is the main advantage here, because it is whenyou start tooling that costs really accumulate. That you can also dowith today’s procedure, but the way we work, a project has twomilestones before going to tooling. One is after the concept phase, inmaking a market strategy based upon your idea which you present tothe board to obtain grants for developments up to tool investment.Then you have the next milestone. And it is quite clear, if you couldhave had some models for visualisation of your project instead ofonly sketches, then you would have had higher chances for76

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sbreakthrough of innovative products at that first milestone – at anearly stage.V follows up on the same issue:V: The advantage of having a model, the way I see it, is that you forexample sit discussing with people on the floor and you have a planwhich you tell them. If ten persons listen, then all imagine tendifferent things and it is difficult to have them comment anything onthat basis. But if you have a physical model, then for instance Harrycan say that yes, but that does not work, we cannot make it that way.It does not work because of machine capacity or something else, wecannot have it that way, it is too thick, or some other reason. Andthose who assemble the parts, they can say that ‘what in the world, isit that much manual assembly?’ You get a very early input, and youcan get it from everyone involved, which you wouldn’t have hadotherwise.And he continues:V: I believe that often between designer and engineer – they can thinkonly through sketching on a sheet of paper because it is their work ina way. It goes in that line, but when the market man shall give hiscomments, then it becomes difficult with only sketches.R: They do not speak the same language?V: No, I think it is an advantage that one from the start gets an input ofwhat the market wants, and that the designer settles to work with asuggestion and makes a concept of it. And then probably makes afast RP model.R: Then that will ease the communication between the actors?V: Yes, that is quite clear. And then the market man can take this RPwith him to his customers and ask: is this what you want? It is muchworse to take a bunch of papers to a customer and ask: what do youthink of that?On RP application in development of desk lamps, W contributes to the issueof engineer/designer interaction:W: What happens is that we make a model in 3D. We earlier madewooden models of only outer forms. But now we very fast go toinner forms as well in 3D and make RPs of it – plastic prototypes.R: But then you have designer suggestions prepared on sketch level?W: Yes, we usually get sketches. There are different levels and wishesfrom the designers. Some deliver only a sketch, an ordinary drawingmore or less by hand. Others wish to model in 3D. We actually wantto do most of the 3D modelling ourselves, because our experience isthat when the designers have done too much modelling, they have77

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Noften entered dead ends production-wise which are difficult toreverse.R: So, the designer and the engineer play ball in a way, through draftsfrom the designer which are modelled by the engineer?W: Yes, back and forth, it becomes – to play ball, that is a coveringexpression.R: But I think of the RP physical model, that it becomes a kind ofmediator?W: That it definitely becomes. Both for the designer and those whomake the injection moulding tool it is a very important medium forcommunication.And further:R: How do you look at physicality as a means of communicationrelated to other ways?W: To have something physical to touch directly is definitely the waywhich communicates form and feelings best.In development of tooth brushes the view of inconsistency of drawings isstrongly supported by X:X: I am a hundred percent agreeing with what you are saying, and wehave actually taken a decision at the development department someyears ago – to avoid using sketches for our presentations for theadministration or the board because we have so bad experiences. Itshows in sketch presentations – yes, the brains of different peoplefunction differently. They go in different gears and see differentangles in things, and we were often confronted by that when westarted something on the basis of sketches. And when the productlay on the table some months later, we were very often confrontedby this; it was not that which we agreed upon! That created quite afew unpleasant situations, and to avoid that discussion, we have nowactually taken a principal decision that we do not show sketches anymore – not at all. If we present something, then it is in the form ofmodels, and that is it.And he continues on the view of idea communication:X: …if it is cheap to create models which look right and have rightmaterial properties, flex where they are supposed to and so on, andthey can be made relatively cheaply, then one can actually take thestep to create three, four, five alternatives and actually present themas real brushes with an approximately correct appearance and feelright. And one can collect views from a much larger audience thancan be reached through a traditional cost situation.78

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SThe superiority of physical feedback is also strongly emphasised in the toothbrush designer’s view:Y: That has to do with what I have earlier said, that the closer we cometo a final product concept in presenting a project, the larger is thechance that those who know the project and the product can take awell-grounded, qualified decision. This means that if you have acompletely prepared project including advertising material andpackaging, a ready end-product, then you have the best possiblebasis for decision. Earlier we had to use hand sketches andcommunication was worse, of course, than with a 3D model. That Ihave observed when I have been stupid enough to show models tooearly in my presentation. In a meeting with 5 to 6 people around thetable – present a model early and you have spoiled the whole thing!Every one wants to get hold of it; he there, the only thing he aches toget his fingers on is that damned model. He does not listen to whatyou say, you can just as well send it up to him and go for lunch. Andstill – some always sit and play with that stupid model – as long asyou talk. So, if you have not communicated your message first, then..... And what that tells you is that a 3D model is the most effectivecommunication tool which a designer has.R: You mean a physical model?Y: Yes by all means, you must hold it in your hands.Finally, let us listen to an external researcher who has worked with similarproblems in preparation of a doctoral work and who was presented thetechnology and applications:Z: My experience is, after having participated at Danfoss for 3,5 yearsand also having been at Interactive Institute: at Danfoss all thecollaborating users had a technical background and some kind oftechnical education. They were, what do you call them, plumbers orelectricians or they had different backgrounds. And in cooperationwith them; they were easier to talk with than people withouttechnical background. But nevertheless, we found that even thoughthey had a technical background, they had different professionallanguages. In other words, we had another professional languagethan them, and we could use the same words, but understood themdifferently. And then what counted was to use a model or drawing orwhatever it was for explication, what do you really mean, as agrounding for the discussion. So much of it had to do withprofessional languages. And of course, what could be difficult insuch collaboration, was that different actors represented differentinterests, and there can be conflicts in dislike interests.R: Technical conflict?Z: There can be technical or many other different conflicts because onehas different things one wants to find out in the new product – if it is79

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nprofit or adaptation oriented or if it is recycled after use, orwhatever. I believe there are always different interests represented indifferent actors.R: …which can be negotiated physically, in another way thantheoretically?Z: Yes, then it helps, but it also depends on how one arranges acollaboration or meeting including shared action. I think it is quiteunique, quite essential; to have something to meet over, havesomething on the table, something physical as a reference instead ofjust starting to talk diffusely and abstractly, so the concrete isimportant. And I also saw from your Power-Point presentation andthought, in different phases of a development project one shouldhave more alternatives. And that is especially in the conceptualphase, where one typically should have many alternatives to test out.But also later, that one does not only work with one model, butmany simultaneously, because one often does not like what only onemodel has. Then one can take all the different models; no but here itis only something with the size which is not right, and here it issomething else.4.4 Reflections on the initial empirical inquiriesThese preliminary mappings of the capabilities of the RP tool are based upondevelopmental experiences in action cases and in-depth interviews ofparticipating actors. It appears that many differentiated practical andcommunicative aspects of tool applications seem to have positive effects oncollaborative design processes. How can these aspects be characterised andwhat are relevant aspects for further investigation?From the case-based experiences referred in section 4.2, supported by thequoted experiences of the actors in section 4.3 and documented by thetechnical specifications in section 4.1, it is confirmed that application of theRP tool in physical modelling can be considered as:(A) Fast, (B) Cheap, (C) Strong and (D) Exact if neededThese characteristics are seen in relation to traditional methods of modelling,and in the referred reflections by design actors these characteristics must beconsidered as the technical basis for their quoted experiences. Thesecapabilities of a design tool have only recently become generally available tothe involved design actors. When these basic characteristics are applied toactivities aimed at creation of new and original product concepts, then severalnew possibilities emerge, which the actors must relate to in concrete designactivity before they can be utilised and implemented in new developmentalprocesses. It is the intentions of this research project to explore thesepossibilities. But possibilities are of different kinds.80

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E STechnical possibilities are usually easy to relate to. Quantifiable parameterslike processing time, cost per volume, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity,surface finish, tolerances etc. are decisive technology characteristics of thematerial aspect of modelling action which are directly accessible to users ofthe technology. Such parameters form the technical basis for action patternswhich result in statements like “what we do now is in a way to gorgeourselves with prototypes, and still we absolutely save money” and “we canjust make a model, look at it – no that was no good, we have to make anotherone” 3 . The superiority of modelling characteristics compared to old methodsis behind the significantly improved technical possibilities attainable throughRP. But that is seen as more or less obvious and already utilised by thousandsof product developers around the world – as documented for instance inWohlers (2001). The focus of this project is not on technical possibilities assuch, but on possibilities which follow from them – in terms of how they canbe used to mature basic understanding of that which is technically modelled.In order to mature understanding of design problems, collaborating designactors have to communicate between themselves, and several examples ofusing RP produced physicality as a possibility to stimulate suchcommunication have been revealed in the presented empirical material. Theinterviews have shown that design sketches and drawings are communicatingideas badly, and that RP modelling has a valuable capacity for representingdesign suggestions in an understandable way to actors, future users anddecision makers. We have heard how concept suggestions have beencommunicated as RPs in a ping-pong-like fashion between engineers anddesigners, how many easily materialised alternative solutions of designsuggestions communicate idea diversification and the possibility of ridingmany horses simultaneously. We have also heard how building of RP modelscan communicate realism in testing so that certainty of aesthetical quality,functionality and producability of a concept can be achieved – therebyradically reducing risks of tooling disasters. The aspect has also beenintroduced that communication across different professional languagebarriers can be facilitated through application of RP physicality.The cases and interviews have in addition shown that a possibility which iscreated through RP application is the capability to experiment with ideasuggestions in reality. This initially seems to be a very attractive capacity ofthe tool because experimentation has always been a source of creativity. Theparticipating students and external actors have all emphasised the importanceof building their ideas physically and through realistic experimentsexperience advantages, flaws and crashes in reality and thereby approachbasic understanding of the design problems – aesthetically and functionally.3 Quotes from engineering boss W and designer Y.81

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NBut even though all the above observations are relevant and promising as faras an emerging understanding of the usability of the tool is concerned, theempirical enquiries have revealed that there are some elements in the referredmaterial which seem to have a more basic character in relation to the act ofdesigning than what is reflected above. Such elements are implicit in thefollowing extracted quotes by the designer Y:(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)“that is because you sit and manually adjust such a form into being,then you can finely adjust curves and many details exactly as youwant”“and the other thing is that if you want to make larger changes thenyou can materialise many similar models and then sit and add orsubtract material, manually change and move grips and the like. Thenew clay I want to test because it can be a very fast way to makelarge changes – only so much that you can observe it and, in a way;ok or no, probably I have missed. Then you take a new round in themachine, adjust it – and then a new RP model again”,“the whole point is that nothing can replace a 3D physical model andobservation of it. Absolutely nothing can replace that. And what weneed is a ping-pong effect between the different factual media, sothat we as fast as possible can create a new 3D physical model.Preferably we should have had it at once, you see, because we see atonce what it is that we want to adjust. Probably we should dosomething with a curve here, or probably the whole thing is a bitsloppy or whatever. And in the moment you take a mental decision,you should have liked to have it there at once”,“my whole point is this: you usually boil over with thoughts aboutwhat you want to do, and then it is the process which is so damnedslow that you don’t get it out. This technology gives you thepossibility of realising a lot more ideas; you get to the goal on ashorter road, much faster. You can see what you have thought as fastas that – and then you can evaluate what you have thought”“because once you have made a change, you see the possibility ofmaking x more”.These quotes contain some essences of what I am searching for in thisresearch project. His whole way of describing his experiences, for instance“nothing can replace a 3D physical model” and “then you take a new roundin the machine, adjust it – and then a new RP model again”, expressesenjoyment in having found a tool which has the capability of materialisingthoughts fast before correcting them. From the way he talks, this way ofworking seems to be in accordance with some ‘inner’ or ‘natural’ drive whichhas not been similarly satisfied in earlier methods. But in saying “the momentyou take a mental decision, you should have liked to have it there at once”, hestill admits a shortcoming of the tool relating to processing time, becauseeven though it is fast, it cannot produce physical feedback immediately likemanual modelling can. This shortcoming, however, it seems can be met82

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sthrough “adding or subtracting material, manually change and move gripsand the like”, which indicates that the RP tool could be supplemented bymanual modelling methods.These rather loosely formulated reflections summarise what was essentiallylearnt during phase A of this research project, which were realisations ofunspecific character, but indicating directions for further search. But whatwas learnt methodologically was that in spite of having an ability to indicateinteresting issues for further search, in-depth interviewing, performed by thisresearcher in this context, had serious limitations as far as the question ofneutrality was concerned; my questions readily became leading. In short, therealised problem related to the paradox of trying to interview people aboutsomething unknown to them. I was trying to explore the possibility of using apartly known tool in new and unknown ways, and asking people what they“think” of such not-yet-existing ways of application becomes problematic.The research method accordingly had to be changed. From now on I decidedto pick out only a few relevant case projects, study them with more detailedfocus on a combination of RP based and manually based modelling, asindicated above, and base conclusions on observed behaviour and negotiatedunderstanding according to the methodological principles of participatoryaction research (section 3.3.4), where the researcher is allowed to engagedeeply in the cases. I chose to participate as collaborating and observingdesign actor in one project (Hamax Balance Sledge) and as observer inanother (Jordan Mouth Hygiene), which will both be described in section 4.6.4.5 Acquisition of a Concept Modeller RP machineAll RP experiments of phase A were based upon model production in ourSinterstation 2000 machine from DTM, which is a top level machine as far asstrength and accuracy is concerned. As a direct result of our phase Aexperiences, where fast production of many consecutive models became acentral issue, we concluded that in conceptualisation of new design solutionsin most cases the speed of RP processing is more important than strength andaccuracy as long as one is trying to approach a basic solution. In accordancewith this conclusion and also considering the machine capacity in a rapidlygrowing demand situation, we acquired a Concept Modeller machine of typeZ-Corp 402, which was faster and cheaper to use than the DTM unit, but withless accuracy and strength. Low strength was also considered an advantage asfar as the possibility of adding manual grinding on the models wasconcerned. This machine was used for most of the continued experiments insection 4.6 – which facilitated manual reshaping of the models.4.6 Action case B case projectsBased upon the preliminary phase A results, phase B was organised to furtherexplore how the RP tool can be employed in collaborative and individualdesign projects, but this time in combination with manual modelling methods83

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nfor the sake of improving the tool’s capability of immediate feedback fromphysicality 4 . An additional objective of this phase was to formulate asummary of what positive or negative capabilities the RP tool was seen topossess for design action. In-depth interviews of phase A were in this sectionexchanged with reports describing real meetings and action patterns, videorecordings of collaborative discussions over RP produced models,questionnaires and video-taping of a summary discussion.4.6.1 The Hamax Balance Sledge projectAs introduced in section 4.2.4, this project was based upon the results of theAZ Rider student project, and with student G as the active designer incollaboration with the development and marketing boss of Hamax a.s, U, thedevelopment engineer V, and the researcher R as participating engineeringand design actor – as well as observer. A full written report of this projectfrom the video-taped meetings is enclosed in appendix A3. Here only a shortproject summary will be described, including the milestones and discussionswith most relevance to application of RP produced physicality as adevelopment tool.Following several incidents with little relevance to the concept developmenta meeting between U, G, R and an external sledge design expert was held,where possible concepts were discussed and a solution with low hinging andpossibility of a crouching position in addition to standing was decided uponfor experimentation. Following this meeting a rough mock-up was drawn byG and built from bicycle parts and commercial carving skis. A test run wasarranged at an alpine hill, concluding with U exclaiming: “this I believe in!”Adjustments of the mock-up were now performed and two grown-up versionsof similar designs were acquired for comparative testing. A repeated test gaveconvincing results and from one commercial alternative we learnt a lotconcerning functional and geometric parameters, which eventually wasdefined as design specifications.Figure 18-4: Testing of competing concepts and steel mock-up4 For the experiments mainly modelling clay was used – in the following referred to as modelling clay or onlyclay.84

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SAfter a similar test session by the market department with positive conclusionand concept discussion meetings, a brainstorm session between U, V, R washeld at Hamax, where main design parameters like overall strength, toolinggeometry, hinging principle and strength, crash properties, user security,collapsibility, assembly solutions, operational logistics, functionalrequirements, market image, corporal identity and aesthetical issues werediscussed – in other words issues of both rational and value laden nature. Itwas decided that the front ski should be made in one piece, whereas the mainski should be divided into a lower and an upper part preferably connected byscrews. Much consideration was given to the strength of the steering columnin collision situations and to the torsional and bending stiffness of thesteering column and the bearing surfaces between the main and the front skis.It was decided that the steering column with hinging was the critical part.Some tentative alternative approaches to solutions of the joints weresketched, but nothing was decided upon, and it was generally agreed that weshould separately elaborate alternatives further – to be discussed in nextmeeting.In the following meeting, R’s sketches of the suggested solutions werediscussed, and it was decided to separate the steering device from the frontski. Two alternatives with spring lever disengagement in crash or transportsituations were evaluated, one based upon a double steel tube column andone based upon an injection moulded plastic part. The design of the main skiwas discussed and the sketched joint between the parts was chosen. Butinstead of using screws, an earlier direct joining based upon a plastic snap-onspring was decided upon. The joint and bearing surfaces between front andmain ski were discussed. Suggestions were made to introduce steel bracketsto off-load the bearing surfaces. It was decided to investigate this solutionfurther.G and R now collaborated in a first 3D modelling session based upon sketches,measurements on the mock-up, application to measurements of seven to elevenyears old children and all the acquired experiences from the testing. This 3Dmodel, meant as a rough preliminary indication, was accepted by Hamax andmaterialised as a full-size Z-Corp concept model.Figure 19-4: Early concept models with improvements modelled in clay85

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NIn this model particular focus was put on the hinging with ribs and steel jointinserts, but its outer shape was only an approximation without supportive ribsor aesthetical evaluations, which were both difficult to evaluate on thecomputer screen. As a first approach, the physical model was nowaesthetically evaluated by the designer and rough ribs integrating strength,moulding properties and aesthetics were manually fitted to one side of themodel by applying modelling clay. The two sides could then be compared.Then the design actors met at Hamax for shared evaluations of the conceptover this RP model.The model was found to be very helpful for setting off the collaborativediscussion. This first solution attempt turned out to have serious faults whichwere not discovered at the last meeting, but which the physical modelexposed quite clearly. The bearing points were considerably underdimensionedfor both vertical stress and crash-induced shear forces. Thetooling geometry was impossible to make in reality because of too deep andnarrow sections which would not get cooling and the parting lines of the toolhalves were too complex. The designer was quite dissatisfied with thegeometry which had a too high visionary impact, was too brutal at theborders and particularly at the top. Also, a simple test showed that thefunctionality of the steering tubes attachment to the ski was not functioninggeometrically, and neither was the swing-out of the front ski relative to themain one. But the probably most serious objections were found from theevaluation of how the injection moulding tool should be constructed to obtainacceptable geometry.All these problems had not been observed on the virtual 3D model, but wereeasily discovered on the physical model, and particularly the toolinggeometry problems were found to be so serious that we had to give up theinitial solution and search for a new one. This set us off on a long discussionover the physical model where it readily functioned as a dummy for pointingat, holding, demonstrating on by describing in the air what each actor thoughtshould be changed. Where arguments were difficult to understand, sketcheswere added. After discussions on a detailed level we finally found solutionsto the geometrical problems. Sketches of these suggestions were produced asdrafts for the next attempt.Again, in collaboration between G and R with the former as modeller, all thediscussed issues of the new suggestion were 3D modelled through changingthe old model in a combination of sketching, clay modelling of details,discussions and final modelling on screen. The result was then materialisedas 1:2 concept model, but this time of the whole unit including detailedcolumn/hinging, and brought back to Hamax for a new meeting between allfour actors. The new joint proved to be a much better way to proceed. Thegeometry was now possible to produce. The tooling geometry was not toocomplicated and it was considered to get sufficient cooling. Physical testingof the swing-out showed that the new joining geometry between steering rod86

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sand ski functioned well, and similarly with the steel steering device/skiconnection. The bearing points were acceptable in principle, but a closerevaluation showed that crash induced shear would still be problematic. Aredesign based upon steel inserts in the rotational/ frictional zones was agreedupon with increased dimensions. The insertion of these dimensions in the topand bottom sections had aesthetical implications, which had to be adjusted.Shared evaluations of the physical model and discussion of individual viewsmade us agree that some details turned out to be out of proportionaesthetically. The most basic problem was the disharmony between theaesthetical expression of the ski which had open, characteristic strengtheningribs and that of the main board which was made from two internally ribbedsections assembled together by means of deformation of the steel edges –thereby obtaining a ‘clean’ exterior which did not match the look of the frontski. This was poorly visible on sketches, but striking when seen and felt inthe reality of the physical unit. Since doubling the front ski to compensatewas unnecessary and expensive, it was decided to try to harmonise theaesthetical imbalance by gradually increasing the visual effect of the externalribs of the main board as they approached the front. Thereby the functional‘sliding’ effect of the ribs for a person with snow under the feet increased.This was compensated by adding small ‘bumps’ between the ribs. A similaraesthetic disharmony was found between column size and the skis – resultingin a decision on height reduction and several other small changes. Manyother details, e.g. concerning attachments of steel edges, assembly of top andbottom board sections, locking device and geometry for steering assembly,strength of main board, rib configuration (strength and aesthetics) of front skiwere discussed. Decisions were reached by holding the model, pointing at theplaces in question, feeling at the points with the fingers and making sketchesafterwards – as preparation for the next iteration.Figure 20-4: Concept models of improved solutionsFollowing a new remodelling session by G with assistance from R basedupon discussions over the last physical model, ‘drawing’ in the air, modelclay adaptation and new sketches if necessary, a third iteration was 3Dmodelled, materialised as a concept model and brought to Hamax for a newmeeting with U and V. This time two people from the marketing section wereinvited as discussion partners. The marketing people liked the design and hadfew objections to the actual solutions. They expressed strong support for theprinciple of evaluating possible innovations over real and detailed physicalmodels. To the degree they had any doubts, they were of relative nature – of a87

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N‘balance’ principle relative to a ‘stable sitting’ image, of priorities of thisproject relative to others etc.Figure 21-4: Late concept models with several integrated improvementsThe design team this time agreed that the design was now approaching arealistic stage. Hinging, strength, functionality, assembly, edges,collapsibility were all parameters which were now mature for testing in afull-size RP version. There were still corrections to be made on theaesthetical and functional sides, which became noticeable when observed ona ‘next to finished’ model – for instance the height of the rear centre sectionof the ski, its top pattern and details concerning central column, ribsexternal/internal and steel edge/skis connections. The most important themesof discussion at this meeting were parameters concerned with handlinglogistics. Dimensions of finished packages fitted well, as planned, withinEuro-pallet dimensions. But the steel steering handle, which was to bepacked detached on top of the assembled board, exceeded desirabledimensions. This meant that the handle had to be produced foldable or in twopieces to be assembled by the customer. The last solution was found to bepreferable and a design was outlined. All these evaluations were performedby ‘playing around’ with the model and a measuring stick and comparingdimensions to norms. It was now decided that before building a full size,testable RP version through strong laser-sintering, a finished detailed modelshould be produced for presentation and evaluation by Hamax’s Europeanmarketing network at the upcoming Ispo fair in Germany. G was engaged toremake the 3D model according to the new decisions.Figure 22-4: SLS model of final solutionThe modelling was done according to the same working pattern as the lasttime. A new RP model was built, this time in a strong and exact laser-sintered88

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sversion and the model was given a surface finish, painting to presentationstandard and locking/hinging details. The finished fourth iterative stagemodel was finally presented at Ispo by U. The response was positive and theproject was given a ‘coming priority’ status in the corporate strategy.According to the objectives of this section, the Hamax balance sledge projectwas the first project where we actively experimented with a combination ofRP and manual methods, primarily model clay adaptation, to improveimmediate physicality feedback in forming action. The experiences were verypromising, as to a certain degree referred above. But because there was alimited need for free-form modelling, the nature of the project was not suitedto acquire any deeper understanding of this issue. Before trying to approachsome summary of this aspect, it was therefore decided that more concreteexperiences were needed with free-form designs. As we also needed moreexperience with employment of the RP tool in creatively oriented procedures,it was decided to organise a project embracing all these aspects. An obviouscandidate for approaching these objectives was our sponsor Jordan a.s,producer of mouth hygiene products to the European market, who wasactively searching for creative new product concepts aimed at creation of newmarket niches within their traditional field.4.6.2 The Jordan Mouth Hygiene projectBeing intended for identification and development of earlier unknownsolutions, it seemed reasonable to suggest this project as well suited forapplication of the RP technology as a tool for creativity support. In line withthis intention the first part of the project was organised as a creativity courseled by Dr. Erik Lerdahl. As his approach is well documented in Lerdahl(2001), and as start-up stage creativity is beyond the focus of this project,these early phases will only be superficially described. The principles ofbreaking loose from habitual thinking and creating seeds for new thoughtpatterns were central aspects of early phases. And scenario playing andstaging of unorthodox problem framings were highly focused approaches.Information, impulses and specialised knowledge from field experts wereinitially presented to the students.Figure 23-4: Mouth Hygiene scenario play89

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe class had great fun and was thoroughly engaged in imagining all kinds ofsituations, unheard-of solutions and ‘crazy’ ideas, all relating to the issue ofimproving mouth hygiene in different ways – and presenting theseimpressions to teachers and sponsors. From this session a lot of ideas weregradually materialised – first as abstracted suggestions presented as wordsscribbled on paper and pasted on sticker boards, later as rough sketches plustext pasted on cardboard. Eventually, through screening sessions and groupdiscussions, the most interesting ideas emerged as very rough approximationsin the form of sketches supplemented by word based explanations whereneeded.Figure 24-4: Board presentations of ideas with gradually increasing realismThe class now divided into groups or individual projects based upon thedifferent ideas and according to individual wishes. A total of nine studentswere given the opportunity to develop their ideas into designed productssuitable for mass production (preferably injection moulding) through severaliterations of RP based experiments with focus on free-form modelling and acombination of RP concept models and manual modelling. The developmentwas performed in close collaboration with Jordan experts; an engineeringmanager, a dentist with specialised market knowledge and a professionaltooth brush designer, who participated in regular presentation/ discussionsessions. From the reports of five different projects three will be reportedsuperficially and two more in detail because they had most relevance to thefocus of this project. The reported projects and design actors are: Chewballby student F, Click brush by student H, Electric Brushes by students C and E,Messenger brush by students A, B, D and G.The Chewball project was built upon the idea that teeth could possibly becleaned through chewing a soft ball, probably flavour or paste added, andequipped with some sort of devices extending in between the teeth. Initialplaying with alternative solutions in clay forming experiments, CADmodelling and tests concluded with bristles as most effective solution. Tosupply balls for idea testing, Rapid Tools were produced from a 3D model inwhich silicone rubber balls were produced. These were equipped withdifferent kinds and geometries of bristles and tested out in differentconfigurations with a “fair” result. Design effort was focused on different90

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sprinciples of storage, transport and hygiene issues, and several alternativedesign solutions were RP produced and tested out. A “spider” solution wasfinally preferred. Process-wise this project had too little emphasis on modelclay/RP experimentation.Figure 25-4: Clay and RP models, Rapid Tool and siliconetest units of the Chewball concept.The Click brush project was born from the dentist’s advice that a graveproblem in tooth-brushing is that the combination of tooth-paste and hardpressure on the brush will cause wearing down of the enamel. Inspired byJordan’s latest market success, the T42 brush with a flexing part of the neckwith ‘flex feedback’ to the finger tips (the basis for the Jordan interviews ofsections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2), the student set out to explore different ways ofcombining flex and some feedback solution whereby a pressure limit isindicated. After identifying, analysing and testing physically differentsolutions in RP produced concept models, she landed on an alternativemechanism with a hardened single curved steel band, similar to a measuringtape, which would suddenly collapse when bent past a certain limit, built intothe flex joint. From a lack of background in CAD modelling, the project wasto a large degree spent in studies of basic free-forming capability in severalconsecutive iterations changing between manual clay models, RP conceptmodels, testing of these in physical application, grinding/clay remaking andnew CAD remodelling of these. Parallel steel band experiments dimensionedthe click device, and a RP physical brush integrating stiff brush, bristles,click device and soft silicone flex was finally built. The Click solution waseventually patented with the student as a co-inventor and later employed formass production of Jordan’s next generation commercial tooth brushes. Theproject was less suited as an overall case study because of slow progression.91

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NFigure 26-4:. Early stages andcommercialised result of theClick brush projectDesign: G. Øxseth and A. DreherThe Electric Brush project mainly grew out from an aesthetical objectiveachieved during the initial market studies. Students C and E wanted to findout whether the design of electric tooth brushes could be renewed through RPsupported aesthetical/functional experimentation. A technical analysisrevealed that state of the art geometrical layout could be altered, for examplethrough application of flexible shafts and new batteries. The students wantedto collaborate in the form/functionality studies, but finish up with individualdesigns. Three basic shapes were first created from studies and plastic formexperiments, CAD modelled and materialised as concepts models.Experiments with these through hand tests and physical form manipulation inparallel with technical analyses of mechanical structure resulted in five newand more detailed basic shapes, which were modelled and materialised for anew similar round. The students from then on made individual approaches.From presentation feedback, discussions, individual guidance sessions,physical testing by advisors and fellow students they now tried out severalideas resulting from all which was learnt – through 3D modelling,materialising, testing and rebuilding. A large number of possibilitiesincluding principal layouts, technical details, functionality and aestheticalexpressions were evaluated in these sessions, and the most promisingconcepts were materialised, tested, evaluated and redesigned until they weresatisfied. In the end one design suggestion from each student resulted, theHelix and the Sweep, with basically different technical solutions andaesthetical expressions. Both were considered as original relative to markettrends by the students and advisors. The solutions were materialised as finalphysical models, finished with colours and details and presented to thesponsor in a final session. As far as desirable research process characteristicswere concerned, these students were very clever 3D modellers, but they didnot emphasise clay/grinding experiments as desirable.92

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SFigure 27-4: Concept models, CADmodels and RP models of two elbrushcases.The Messenger brush project used the fact that small children are often notmotivated for tooth brushing as a point of departure. The idea resulting fromthe creativity course was that since modern tooth brushes have big handles(partly resulting from ergonomic considerations), their volume may includedifferent items which could be designed as motivating features – instead ofjust solid plastic fillings. Several different possibilities were analysed, forinstance loose figures or objects, moving particles in liquid, moving or staticpictures, or different kinds of printed tags to be torn off. The latter idea set offa search for what printed tags could be used for. If they are supplied withglue like 3M tags, one tag could be torn off each morning after brushing andadded to a growing assembly forming some message on mirror, wall or afold-out. After a hundred tags the brush should be changed anyway. Codingof colour, image or text could be applied to varying ages. The idea was found93

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Ninteresting by Jordan, and a developmental process based upon RP testing ofalternatives was now undertaken. Functional aspects like hygiene, moistureresistance and bacteria growth were not found to interfere with the idea, andseveral basic principles for storage and supply of tags were suggested. In thisproject one finally managed to create a well-functioning process whererepeated cycles of sketching / clay modelling / freeform CAD modelling / RPmaterialising / testing / evaluating / remodelling were performed interactivelyaccording to the pre-established objectives. A five stages basic experimentalphase established the physically experienced concept grounding:(1) In the first iteration six alternative form solutions with different principlesof tag containers and strip-off principles were clay modelled by hand and twoof them were selected, copied by means of a MicroScribe robot arm scanner,3D modelled and materialised. In the following test the containers werefound functionally and aesthetically inappropriate in many ways. (2) In thenext iteration thirteen clay-based form studies in a similar way resulted in onechosen and materialised design, but in a parallel container developmentprocedure eleven different separate container principles were developed, 3Dmodelled, materialised and experimented with. This test reduced the numberof surviving container alternatives to three and aesthetical/functionalpreferences were matured. (3) Third stage resulted in seven clay-based formexperiments where three of them were chosen as patterns for scanning, 3Dmodelling and materialisation, integrated with the three remaining containerprinciples from stage two. Physical testing and evaluation of thesealternatives in the group, and together with Jordan experts in plenarysessions, gave the result that the simple open cage container was the simplestand best solution. The two others failed to pass the test for several physicallyexperienced reasons. (4) This gave the preconditions for stage four whichwas focused on experiments with what aesthetics/geometry combination ofan open-cage solution would give the best overall design. Ten clay-basedhandmade models based upon the results from the three earlier stages nowcreated the grounding for hand-held testing, observation and discussionsbetween all engaged actors. From this process, through copying and 3Dmodelling, resulted eight alternative materialised models for the next test.Conclusions from this round were that although earlier having divergingpreferences, aesthetical/functional understanding which could be shared byall four designers now seemed to be emerging, but the tests revealed thathandle size, tactility and grip in all angles of operation had not yet beenoptimised. (5) Iteration five was therefore focused on testing out andintegrating aesthetical expression and a well-functioning grip in all angleswithin the actual age-span. Three clay-based models were used for sizetesting and six similar models for grip/aesthetics integration – from whichfollowed four new physical concept models. After new testing these werereduced to a solution accepted by all the collaborating design actors – thefinal conceptual agreement represented in one material model.94

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SFigure 28-4: Several iterations of concept models, clay revisions andtest mock-ups of Messenger brushes with silicone second materialDuring this process all the design actors including children, dentist andtooling expert on several occasions participated in evaluations of the physicalmodels, testing them in the hand, playing around with them and trying toimagine how the resulting concept would become seen from theirperspective. Their contributions to the project were based upon theseevaluations. These tests were performed with either ‘finished’ models withcolours and tags based on RP models or ordinary tooth brushes with clayadded to them to roughly suggest form.95

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NFigure 29-4: Cross-disciplinary negotiations of alternative solutions basedupon many alternative concept models and clay-modified concept modelsThe Messenger brush was not intended as a one-material, but a two-materialsolution in accordance with corporate strategy, whereby a stiff polymerconstituted the main body and a soft semitransparent polymer was added in asecond stage moulding – contributing to soft grip, colour and possible flexcharacteristics. This technology offers possibilities of design freedom, not theleast in terms of semiotic strategy and semantic expression, and this aspect ofthe design task is seen as very important in this kind of user critical market.From the decided basic 3D shape several alternative two material designswere now created through a combination of sketching, test application on thephysical model, CAD modelling and application of graphics and colouralternatives to the CAD models – with different colour applications for boysand girls.Figure 30-4: CAD illustrations of model alternativesSuch virtual 3D models on the computer screen or on paper print-outs are ofhigh graphical quality. But the final evaluation and choice of the bestalternative, where future users are involved in the process, still can be adelicate affair because graphics is not reality. Since RP/RT technology offersthe possibility of making either negative moulding tools directly or positiveplugs which can be negatively copied in silicone moulds and used for96

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Smoulding of the soft silicone transparent second material, this procedure wasnow chosen for the final phase of the project. The objective was to produce anumber of ‘finished’ physical prototypes for evaluation. Several selecteddifferent alternative designs were now produced physically as RP models,equipped with the transparent or coloured silicon component, finishedthrough high gloss painting in alternative colours, supplied with bristles andoffered for final testing and evaluation. The concluding choice of designconcept could then be based on physical reality – and agreement could bereached between the team actors, the company experts and the future users.Figure 31-4: Finished two-material conceptmodels of alternative designsThe final case of the Jordan mouth hygiene project was the Donut Dispenserby student I – a radical dental floss container concept. This project wasselected by Jordan as a project for possible commercial realisation, and it wastaken through a long-lasting thirteen stages RP iteration process. Its resultswere not available for the summing-up sessions which now followed. Thedocumented results of this conceptualisation process added considerably tothe empirical data base of this research project, but it will only be reported inappendix A4 for strategic reasons.97

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N4.7 Concluding sessionsDuring both the Hamax Balance Sledge and the Jordan Mouth Hygieneprojects data of qualitative evaluations of relative levels of development ineach iteration were registered as ‘votes’ among all participants and remadeinto ‘soft quantification’ graphs. The data is available in appendix A8, andtwo resulting graphs are presented in section 6.10.After having completed the projects the collaborating design actors includingJordan development boss, K, participated in a video-taped summarydiscussion. Following this discussion all the students filled out aquestionnaire trying to track down their impressions and experiences fromthe projects. These data were reviewed by the researcher and a suggestedsummary was made as preparation for a three stages discussion procedure,which finally resulted in a list of negotiated observations – according toparticipatory action research principles 5 .The complete questionnaires of seven questions are enclosed in appendix A5.The answers seen as most descriptive have been translated into English andare reported in the appendix. Below, each question is fully quoted and only asummary of all the answers are referred, abbreviated, and ‘double booking’ isexcluded. Some displaced answers are moved to their proper position.4.7.1 Questionnaire and answers:1. Rapid and cheap materialisation of 3D models opens for conceptexperimentation through physicality. Try to explain in general terms howyou experienced the use of RP produced physicality in your case andcompare with how you used to do it.The summarised answers were:RP is an effective tool which gives fast, exact and precise models.RP facilitated group collaboration is brought to a substantially higherdegree than before.It is nice to have a model to discuss around in group collaboration.Good for production of a grounding for choice of form.Good for testing out technical solutions practically.Good for communication of desirable finish.Good for checking if formal impression on the screen agrees with thephysical result .Easy to design variants of a concept and aesthetical variations.To hold a model in the hand gives immediate answers.RP helps to make things concrete at an early stage.5 See section 3.3.4.98

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SIt is easy to make details if necessary.Actual testing of working solutions is possible.2. The RP tool makes iterative development possible. Describe how youexperienced the stepwise work pattern.Summarised answers:A logical way of working.Takes much individual “opinion making” out of the process.Many variations in each step.Most usable towards the end.Real feedback from the future user is possible.Testing of different technical principles is possible.3. Can you distinguish between the iteration effects on a) basic conceptdevelopment, b) ergonomic experimentation and c) form variation?Summarised answers:RP models were good for assistance in finding and testing out conceptprinciples.Development in relation to the user will be adjusted gradually during thedevelopment.Ergonomic experimentation through clay/RP combinations, with an RPmodel in the end.We were able to test how these improved shapes functioned in the hand.Without these models the distance from the screen to physical product istoo long (alienation).For form variation we used many RP models which were of great helpand were easy to create.4. Try to describe how the physical models functioned as ‘negotiationobjects’. Did they ease the communication process between the involvedactors? Did they ease the communication between you (as designer) andthe (physical) world?Summarised answers:Models helped us, both in our group and when we discussed them withothers.It functioned well to have physicality in front of us, for discussions anddecisions on changes.Valuable in the meetings with future users.Models make it possible to formulate quite concrete questions andanswers.99

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NFeedback about what is necessary to change which forms the basis fornew models in clay.5. When one model was materialised, and you found out what could beimproved – how did you improve it and how did you model an improvedversion?Summarised answers:Improvements were made in clay models, which were used as a basis fora new RP model.Only towards the end did we make corrections on existing models.As the development proceeded, we scanned clay models inspired fromthe last version, and then we remade the 3D model with the scannedgeometry as a rough pattern.I made both clay models and carved/grinded on sintered models.It was important to develop the product in parallel with handling itAfter decisions based on handmade models, I worked in 3D withconcrete visual development.I made many variants on the same basic concept and finally chose a fewof those for sintering.It facilitates fast improvements, particularly when these are situated inthe finger tips.Modelling with clay is a direct way of defining shape because ofimmediate response through hands/eyes.6. Did you find any negative or less desirable sides of the RP supportedprocedure?Summarised answers:It takes much time to model new models (forced break), but you save inthe time by going for RP.When I modelled digitally I often missed the immediate physical feedbackfrom the model, to model and to judge the modelled was experienced astwo quite separated actions.When ideas pop up one needs to take immediate decisions, which isdifficult when the model is only virtually represented.One may get the impression of having reached a higher stage ofdevelopment than one has in reality.Physical RP models can deviate from what you apprehend on the screen, andthis is discovered in RP.The process was too focused on the tool.The limitations of the 3D programs.Actors can defend their models.100

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E SIt can be difficult to see the potential in an early concept model withoutfinish and colours.7. Do you have any suggestions of how to improve the process compared tohow this project was arranged?Summarised answers:More attention should be placed on the manual changes one can make onthe existing models.Integrate handmade models better as basis for the 3D modelling throughscanning them.Supply better equipment and program for 3D scanning.Access to STL control through installing Magics or similar software.Let the 3D modelling emerge gradually and naturally into the project.Evaluate what tools (drawing, clay, 3D) are the most appropriate in thedifferent phases.4.7.2 Reflections on questionnaire and shared understanding.These answers are very positive regarding the application of RP as asupportive tool for design action, and a generalisation will be attemptedbelow. But first, let us relate to some of the referred negative aspects – intrying to distinguish between basic and avoidable problems.One frequently repeated objection is the danger of perceiving RP models asbeing of higher developmental level than they actually are. This objection canalso be read as a danger of going to specificity too soon, thereby leaving(creative) diversity before this phase is matured. In some of the case projectsthese tendencies were observed, but in closer reflection on them we find thatthe fact that the RP tool has a capacity for details does not mean that it cannotbe used for rough drafts as well. It actually has the capacity for both. StudentF says: “…, but this I believe is a question of time and can be eliminated as aproblem when these kinds of models become usual”, which seems to be acorrect observation given that we learn how to use RP appropriately in eachphase. Again, however, this question has to do with finding a proper balancebetween manual and computer-based modelling, which will be analysed inthe following. Another registered problem was that in the case projects toomuch emphasis was placed on the RP tool instead of approaching it as one ofmany alternatives. In a research project focused on the RP tool such a bias ishard to avoid, but a balanced approach to tool choice is intended as the finalcase project will show 6 . And neither is it seen as a basic problem. A furtheraccounted problem was related to lack of access to appropriate software,which is seen as a question of proper organisation. A final problem was6 Section 8.8.101

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nrelated to the experienced alienation effect or perceptual feedback delaybetween CAD modelling and resulting physicality or between physicality andCAD remodelling. This latter basic aspect of modelling is seen as the mainperceptual problem revealed in the studies up to this point, whichaccordingly will be a topic of high focus in the continuation of this work.In turning to the numerous positive effects of RP application, we find, inagreement with the in-depth interviews, the aspect of communication to becentral – probably best summarised by student B:“In earlier projects it has been difficult to obtain a groupcollaboration like in this project, simply because form developmentis difficult without concrete objects to discuss around. Accordingly Iwill say that RP in this project facilitated group collaboration to asubstantially higher degree than what would have been possiblewithout”.As can be observed from the case projects, the in-depth interviews, thesummary discussions and the questionnaire answers, this capability offacilitation of communication and elicitation of shared understanding hasseveral differentiated aspects which emerge from the totality of the referredempirical material. In trying to approach some generalisation of all theseaspects, I found many of them to be overlapping, and in an attempt tocategorise them and to avoid establishment of biased views I turned to thePAR principle of negotiating conclusions.Based upon reviews of all the empirical material including the abovequestionnaire answers, I now tried to arrange different aspects in categories,eliminate repetitions and finally suggest a list of summaries as starting pointof a discussion session between the actors. Several changes were done to thesummaries as a result of this session, and a revised summary was distributedand discussed in a later session – where new corrections were added. A lastrevised list was distributed, discussed again, then accepted and forwarded toJordan and Hamax for further acceptance by the development staff in charge.All collaborating actors finally agreed to this list by signing it.(See Appendix A6)4.7.3 Negotiated observations from the RP-supportedconceptualisation projects:1. Experienced physicality in the form of models has facilitated thecommunication between the collaborating design actors - as a ’languagewithout words’, which has been understood by all participants regardlessof background.102

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E S2. Physicality, which could be observed and touched, has given valuablebackground for establishment of basic understanding of the designproblems for everyone involved.3. Such basic understanding is behind the verbal discussions we haveparticipated in during the project.4. Through shared seeing and touching of physical models, and after thatsharing our sensations through spoken language, we gradually developshared understanding of the design problems.5. Such shared understanding of the whole objective of the design problemis a condition for a meaningful contribution from the individualstakeholders who individually may see different aspects of theproblematic as central issues.6. According to the above observations, physicality can be depicted as a‘catalyser’ for communication between dissimilar stakeholders of adesign team.7. Physicality can be produced in many ways (e.g. as mock-ups fromcardboard, foam or clay), but as a design concept materialises in aproject, RP produced physicality has proven to be a very efficient designtool for elicitation of catalysation effects between collaborating designactors.8. The tool’s ability to produce fast, cheap and exact physical models fromvirtual 3D models makes it ideal for experimentation with differentpossible (or impossible) design solutions – including many variants ofeach idea.9. Such possibilities open for simultaneous experimentation with manydifferent aspects of design problems such as for instance strength,producability, material properties, technical functionality, assembly,packaging, ergonomics, aesthetics, market image – in other wordsparameters of both rational and value-laden nature.10. If dissimilar stakeholders shall experiment with different specialities in adesign project, then it has been found to be convenient to arrange suchexperiments as iterations.11. In each such iteration all collaborating stakeholders must negotiate theirown particular speciality – and simultaneously see their own contributionas part of the experienced totality.12. The results of negotiated decisions can be seen, touched andexperimented with by all actors in each iteration – thereby producingshared meaning and impulses for improvements.13. An iterative development pattern also opens for experimentation withradical solutions.14. If the focus of a collaborating team is creativity and search for earlierunknown solutions, iteration procedures can easily be directed towardssuch objectives by being organised as playgrounds for creativeexperiments with all actors involved.15. Many such experiments will naturally lead to experienced breakdowns –and some may produce original results.103

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N16. The completed cases have revealed that RP-produced physicalityinvolves great ‘sense feedback’ properties, but it is by no means alwaysthe best possible design tool because it can not give immediatefingertip/view feedback to the designer like clay can, for instance.17. The modelling of virtual 3D models on a computer screen produces analienation effect between the designer and the material, which iscompensated by the resulting physicality, but this was still considered asa process obstacle because of the undesirable waiting time.18. Experiences and reflections in the projects indicate that if material isremoved from the concept models through grinding or added manuallythrough use of clay, these drawbacks can be compensated, and‘immediate sense feedback’ can be approached.19. This observation left us to conclude that there is need for appropriatetechnology for quick and easy remodelling of clay adjusted conceptmodels into new 3D models for next stage processing (our technology atthat time did not allow this).4.8 Challenges emerging from the empirical findings.The basic objectives behind the empirical case research projects was freely tostudy how and in what ways the RP tool can be applied to stimulateperception and understanding of the design problems in design action. Theabove negotiated list summarises the team’s experiences and represents ananswer to research question Q1: How can employment of RP producedmateriality in the conceptualisation phase of product development processesbe characterised?The referred case studies of sections 4.2 and 4.6 are seen as representativenarrative and visual examples of different ways and purposes of suchapplications – with a higher focus on perceptual feedback in the latter than inthe former cases. As appears from the cases, the interviews, the questionnaireanswers and the summary list, extensive employment of physicality, both RPproduced and manually applied, will enhance and elicit basic perception andunderstanding by individual and collaborating design actors. When physicalexperiments are repeated over and over with newly acquired elements addedeach time, shared understanding of the design problems will evolvegradually. Taken as a totality, what appears from the studies up to this pointis that application of RP as a tool for stimulation of perception andexperimentation in product design action has reported many very positiveeffects on emerging understanding of the design problems – if compared toprocesses without access to an RP tool. The interviews, discussions andquestionnaires have also revealed that even though the RP tool is consideredas very fast and efficient compared to many other modelling techniques,delay between making action and physical perception of a resulting attempt isundesirable if it can be avoided. Immediateness of perception or fastperceptive feedback in designing is therefore an objective to strive for in theestablishment of an appropriate developmental process. For this reason the104

C H A P T E R 4 : E M P I R I C A L C A S E Sintegration of manual modelling and RP has been suggested, and grinding incombination with clay application has been experimented with – withpromising results so far, as referred. But as emerges from for instance studentA’s answer to question 7, more attention should be placed on the manualchanges one can make on the existing RP models. And as student B suggests,better equipment for 3D remaking should be supplied. The consequences ofthese findings were actually taken, and the results will be described later inchapter 8 together with many other aspects and experiences referred in theabove negotiated list. But instead of proceeding directly onto this new threadof technicality, an increasing need for a reframing of the project had becomemore and more apparent during all the summing-up exercises.What makes RP produced materiality particularly interesting in a context ofconceptualisation is not its physicality per se. Physical models can beproduced in many ways and give similar effects to the facilitation ofdesigning, as has been described in section 2.8. The important issue with RPphysicality is the way it is produced – its efficiency, speed, cost andexactness – which is superior to earlier available processes (section 2.1), andthese capabilities will be further investigated in chapters 8 and 9. But ourempirical experiments and findings reported in the observation list seem toimply that the technical capacities represent an inherent ability to activatehuman creative resources. RP technology must in this framing be seen onlyas a design tool, not as a design method or process. Whether the tool’scapacity can be implemented into a useful specialised design process orstrategy depends on whether or not we are able to understand its capacity inrelation to basic human patterns of conceptualisation and related theory. Ourempirical observations so far seem to indicate that this should be withinreach. But in terms of human capacities our observation list is unspecific andinsufficient because it is primarily based upon observations of externalisedcharacter – behaviour which we can observe in physical reality – and notrelated to any deeper understanding of human capabilities. Observingdesigners’ actions can only reveal what happens ‘outside’ the individual so tospeak. In reflection on designer Y’s descriptions in section 4.3.1 of his fightsto represent or reproduce a “mental decision” in physical form, whereperceptual feedback from physicality is seen as a condition for a good designprocess, we can sense that there must be some essence buried behind suchverbalisations. But only from observing and listening to design actors’ pointsof view we will hardly be able to penetrate such essences – which must havesomething to do with the dynamics of experiencing material reality, makingsome kind of opinion from what is experienced, creating an urge to remakethe experience into something better, and finally do just that. That must bedesigning in a nut-shell: perceiving reality, improving it mentally andremaking the perceived through new perception.But what is perception in the first place – and how do these ideas that we aretrying to materialise emerge? As shall be shown, these are not easy questionsto answer, but to this researcher the realisation eventually emerged that trying105

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nto escape them would only lead the project into tracks which seemed trivialonce the questions were asked. Accordingly, let us now for a while leave theaction stage and, armed with the described experiences and the temporarystudy results of the negotiated observations list above, face the challengeswhich emerge from a theoretical approach to physically stimulated humanperception.106

Ch 5: HUMAN PERCEPTION AND CONSCIOUSNESS_____________________________________________________In this chapter the empirical foundation is extended to a theoreticaland philosophical level. From the observations a ‘design cycle’ wasnegotiated, which models an internalisation/externalisation pattern.From this follows reflection and theoretical analysis of thesubject/object problem. In search of answers to this problem, humanperception and consciousness are approached from divergentpositions of phenomenology and neurobiology and reconciliation iseventually found through a ‘dual-aspect’ theory. Summaryreflections on a dual-aspectual monistic framework provide a basisfor assessing the perceptual aspects of design action. Finally theconcepts of intuition and engagement are related to the sameframework.107

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N5.1 A basic theoretical problematic5.1.1 Conceptualisation aspects and theoretical objectivesWe want, according to the outline in section 1.3, to study humanconceptualisation supported through evolving physical representation.Conceptualisation in this framing is understood as development of a concept,which according to Fowler’s concise English dictionary is defined as an “ideaof a class of objects”. A concept is an idea of something concrete which isconceived in the mind, but it is also an expression of an understanding of thisidea, for example in the form of word(s), drawing or model – abstracted orconcrete. Human conceptualisation is thereby the process of creating an idea,maturing its meaning and eventually expressing how it is understood throughverbal, written or modelled representation in a way which can be shared in acommunity.The objective of this research project can be seen as suggesting a way tomake such a conceptualisation process effective in a framing of designaction, which involves how thorough understanding and stable meaning of adesign problem and its solution is achieved (the process aspect) and howunderstanding and solution is physically expressed (the product aspect).Perception, consciousness, engagement and ideation will be focused elementsof the process aspect, and originality, functionality, aesthetics and rationalitywill be emphasised qualities of the product aspect.Effective conceptualisationProcess aspect Product aspect perception originality consciousness functionality engagement aesthetics ideation rationalityFigure 1-5: Focused aspects of the theoretical analysesThe process aspects of this framing are difficult to understand and explainconsistently, not the least because of disagreements and controversies withinand between related fields 1 . As stated in section 1.3, an ambition ofcompleting any thorough analysis or reaching any concluded outline of theseissues is beyond the scope of this thesis. But if our aim instead is reduced toattempt to identify some basic conceptualisation patterns from existingtheoretical frameworks and empirical findings, then some understanding ofindividual and collaborative human conceptualisation processes couldpossibly be achieved – suitable for developing design theory from. The other1 Will be analysed in sections 5.2 to 5.6.108

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Spossibility – sidestepping the challenge represented by the human mind intrying to understand design action – appears as unproductive in this project.If we consider existing attempts of description and visualisation of designaction patterns, as described in sections 2.5 to 2.9, we find that they appear ashighly diversified. Cognitive psychology does suggest some very usefulconcepts for approaching ideation, for instance image generation, imageinspection, image transformation and information retrieval (Kosslyn 1995) 2 .Referred attempts have been made to model how such basic humancapabilities are transformed into perceivable representations in contexts ofcomplexity, for example Hickling (1982), Blessing (1994), Ward, Smith andFinke (1999) and Brandt (2000) 3 . The basic structure which can be observedin these presentations is that linear processes are transformed into whirling orcirculating processes where focus tends to converge towards spiral patternswith decreasing amplitudes as reality is gradually approached. Andsystematic, linear engineering approaches tend to become more intuitive andwhirling in architectural and industrial design. These general views coincidewith the observations in the empirical cases of chapter 4, but what do they tellus about essences of human conceptualisation patterns? In reflection on suchdescriptions and illustrations they seem to reveal little about the ‘mysterious’sides of human creation and design action, for example in interactionsequences between mind and body, in generative ideation processes or inhow making aesthetic or rational concepts hardly can be understood asidentical procedures.How, then, should a process of creating ideas from experiences andtransforming them into new experiences be depicted? In gradually attemptingto illuminate some aspects of the problematic of human conceptualisation, Iwill approach diverging existing basic positions from different fields withrelevance to this question and relate them to our empirical observations. Butin search of relevance, I will use one of the above mentioned process aspectsas a torch; that which to me seems to represent the most basic potential forideation – namely human engagement.And in going basic; what are the elements of our design action scenario?We are studying a RP tool with good capabilities for production ofphysicality, but the resulting materiality is formed by individuals throughcontrolling the tool by means of the hands and eyes. Input from thesurrounding world received through the actor’s bodily senses form the basisfor their design work, but that which, by means of hands, eyes and toolsemerges as physical form, comes from an idea created within, in the mind.So, these are the basic elements of our scenario, then: tool, body, mind, idea,produced materiality and surrounding world. In approaching these conceptsand the relation between them, I will use a simplified frame of reference as apoint of departure.2 See section 2.9.3 See sections 2.5-2.7.109

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N5.1.2 A design cycle and its paradoxical challengesBefore engaging ourselves in what philosophy and neuroscience could tell usabout human action patterns, it was considered helpful to find out how agroup consisting of three of the student design actors (untrained inphilosophy) and the researcher could conceive engaged design work in aframing of mind/materiality alternations. The students were in the middle oftheir diploma project based upon consecutive RP concept model/clay/scanning-iterations according to the suggested design process of section 8.8.The objective of the session was, following participatory action researchprinciples of negotiated agreements 4 , to try to identify a structure of aninternalisation/externalisation pattern of a clay forming process – as a basisto pursue further. After three discussions with corrections between each, weeventually agreed that such a pattern, which we decided to call a designcycle, could be divided into five clearly definable stages (documented inappendix A7). Since our observations were based upon introspection by eachgroup member, they are presented in first person:(1) I perceive through my body a physical draft-model [5].(2) An inner representation of the perceived object is formed in my mind.(3) The mental representation is changed into some new (improved) form asinner vision or idea through involving memory and emotions.(4) I intentionally try, by means of my body, to reshape the old draft into thenewly imagined form, and in doing so the mental image and physicalreality are partly changed from what I experience in the making process.[5] A new draft is now materialised - and the cycle is repeated.21[5]34Figure 2-5: A design cycle of mental foci in actionThe physical model [5] is differently bracketed since it is of another naturethan the other ‘positions’, which signify where and how my attention isfocused. We now asked ourselves: which of these stages take place in our‘inner’ mind and which take place in the ‘outer’ world? We agreed thatposition [5] is external. Positions (2) and (3) are understood as internal andbetween these states a complex creation-process is taking place involvingconscious and unconscious thoughts, experiences and evaluations. Butpositions (1) and (4) were difficult to decide upon. In (1) our mind is clearly4 See section 3.6.110

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Spart of the body’s evaluative activity through eyes and hands and in (4) theintentionality of the mind is clearly part of the hands’ forming actions andthe eyes’ interaction with the (changing) mental image. They accordingly canappear as being both physical and mental. Figure 2-5 is an illustration of thestructure.To develop these reflections further the most appropriate way has been foundto be through introspection, since an external observation of another’sconscious mind is impossible. Let me therefore, based upon own earlierdesign experience, the described empirical cases of chapter 4 and everydayconsiderations, initially attempt some further reflection on what can behappening in my mind in the action of reforming – say a tooth brush RPconcept model by manually applying clay.The basic source of my innovation is some earlier experienced need in the realworld. The source of my remaking effort is an earlier attempt to meet this needthrough a made physical model [5]. Through holding this model in my hands,touching it with my fingers, playing with it, testing it, looking at it through myeyes (1) and then doing some sort of emotional evaluation of what I perceivethrough my senses (between 1 and 2), I manage to form some inner mentalimpression, which represents the physical object I have perceived (2). Thisrepresentation of the artefact made earlier is now changed into some new shape(3), maybe with some new functionality and aesthetics through a seemingly‘mysterious’ process. It seems that the change from something I have a visualimpression of (2) to something I ‘imagine’ (3) includes some kind ofdecomposition of the known into a complex mixture of conscious rationalthoughts (maybe abstract), feelings (which to a large degree may beunconscious), ‘irrational’ emotional reactions, intentional efforts ofimagination (whatever that is) - until some new, improved image finallyemerges in my consciousness (vaguely or strongly according to context anddisposition). To ‘decide’ on this new version, I have gone through manyimaginative alternative solutions in my thoughts and have rejected one after theother before I finally choose a preferred one. Then, if I am content with myremade mental image (3) when I compare it with the ‘old’ image (2), a desire to‘realise’ this vision in physical reality arises, and through an act of will I now,through engagement of my body (4), intentionally try to remake the oldphysical model [5] so that it can resemble my vision (3). In this act of applyingand taking away clay by use of hands/fingers and feedback through eyes, Idiscover that the physical material continuously ‘talks back’ to my consciousawareness in comparisons between materialised form [5’] and vision (3). This‘backtalk’ can be seen as new cycles ‘over-layered’ on earlier cycles. And inthis continuous forming process both vision (3) and result (iterations of [5])will be changed according to continuously acquired senses/mind experiencesuntil some (temporary) satisfaction is reached.In this cyclic pattern the outer physical draft can be seen as a representation ofthe inner vision (externalisation, which can be communicated to others) and the111

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Ninner impression as a representation of the outer reality (internalisation, whichis private). Since externalisation and bodily perception can be observed asdesign behaviour, this part of the process is generally regarded as ‘the designprocess’, but the invisible process taking place in each actor’s mind is hardlyvisible in design theory. This reflection leaves us with a seemingly importantquestion to be addressed in the following: what happens between internalisationand externalisation? Since this appears to be where the very act of idea creationis initiated, it seems to be a worthy objective to include some understanding ofthe subject’s imagery processing action in an attempt to describe design action.Another aspect which ascends from this scenario description concerns thelegitimacy of approaching ‘subjective’ processing. In introspection, as designactor, I know from own experience that a decisive element for creation ofsuperior solutions is my ability to form relevant imageries in my mind (to beexternally represented) 5 . But if we turn to traditional science we find that whatis created in my mind is not considered as trustworthy, because ‘subjectiveimpressions’ depending upon individual dispositions have for hundreds ofyears been disregarded as a basis for ‘knowledge’. This reflection displays anapparent paradox of designing; on one side what is desired of me as a gooddesigner is basically a superior ability of creative individual ideation – and onthe other such ability is disregarded as relevant in terms of generalisedunderstanding of the reality I perceive. Industrial design is both creativeideation and rational understanding and accordingly an illumination of thisparadox seems to be relevant. As industrial designer I have to emphasise thecreation of internal visions – and I need to believe in their legitimacy, also in ascientific framing, or else the foundation for my creativity will evaporate.This apparent paradox between internal vision and external world is nothingelse than the basic question over which philosophy has been fighting for morethan two and a half millennia: the subject-object problem, often also referred toas the mind-body problem, which has led science into a long period of so-calledCartesian dualism where mind and body/world are seen as separated. Thisposition is today, as we shall see, strongly opposed in several disciplines. Butthere are different ways to get rid of dualism, and the findings of this chapterindicate that the way we choose will be decisive for how we come tounderstand design thinking.Dualism stems from the basic problematic that if we are absorbed in anexperience without thinking about it as such, we are one with what weexperience, but once we start considering the experience or what it consists of,we separate ourselves mentally from our environment – and appear as ‘I’ and‘the world’; ‘I dislike that brush’. And as human beings are thinking creatureswith an inborn urge to understand nature, our environment and ourselves (inscience as in design action), this separation may seem to be a natural thing. Butif we try to understand humans in their environment, we also find that5 A view seen as supported by Kosslyn (1995) and Finke, Ward and Smith (1992) in section 2.9.112

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sexperiences can be shared in spite of subjective differences of actors. Anunderstanding of the relation between absorbed experience and reflectiveanalysis on such experience thereby seems to be called for. And as designingcan be seen as thoughtful creation of shared experiences for oneself and others,an expansion of a dualist world model therefore seems to be highly required.In philosophy the alternative is called monism, which sees reality as some sortof unity, and which comes in three different basic versions. In materialism,often also called physicalism, objectivism or naïve realism, reality is reduced tomatter, and all which can be observed is real (which leaves ideas unreal). Thisposition, where for instance thinking is seen as neural action, battles withunderstanding of how thought should be understood as stemming from nothingbut cells, or how consciousness can be produced by a complex material system.In idealism, often called spiritualism or solipsism, the world can only beexperienced through our individual internal impressions of it, meaning thatconsciousness is the only form of reality and matter is created throughimagination. This position obviously has to fight for instance the problem of‘spiritual’ access to the world through sense perception of material body.A third variant of monism tries to avoid the problems by integrating the twoviews through some unifying principle.Essential aspects of these positions initially seem to have relevance for how weconceive design action. If our mind is only body, how can we then seeourselves as free individuals with any belief in our potential as subjects? Howcan we understand creativity and ideation and personal engagement as braincells alone? And oppositely; if all we can know about the world is our personalimpression of it, how can we know that we are engaged in realities – and notonly in a dream world of our own fantasies? Finally; since these views arefundamentally opposed, how can they possibly be integrated?Even though our ‘design cycle’ initially seemed to be a quite understandablemodel of what we, the actors, experience in design action, its inherentambiguity had to be faced. Through studying different approaches to theapparent dualism problem I hoped to find clues with a potential of resolving theambiguity.5.1.3 Adjusting the compassTo establish a direction of the search, the problematic was related toappropriate design theory from the start, in an attempt to avoid losing trackof primal intentions in the wilderness of other fields.Gelernter (1990,1995) presents a historical analysis of architectural designtheory, which is based upon a mind-world model with relevant resemblanceto the topic.113

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NmindknowingworldFigure 3-5:A mind-world model(Gelernter 1995)creatingIn this model the designer’s mind is portrayed as separated from the physicalworld. He holds that up through the history of architectural design the designideas have been understood to originate in one of two opposed ways. Onealternative is that they are “passively discovered by the designer insomething external to him, either in the material constraints of the designbrief, or in prevailing ‘spirit of the times’, or in his social and economicconditions, or in the mind of God, or in the realm of timeless Forms”. Theother alternative is that they are “actively created within the designer’s ownpersonal artistic resources, independent of – and even in advance of – outsideinfluences” 6 . His analysis of ruling views of influential historical periodsshows that one or the other of these principles is ascribed to each period, forinstance external view to positivism and empiricism and internal view toromanticism and idealism, whereas some tendency of attemptedreconciliation can be seen in classicism and rationalism.Gelernter is looking for ways to reconcile these polarities in design, and hefinds a principle of interaction between the two polarities in Piaget (1971,1972) who suggests that mental schemata, which are a kind of program ormemory bank of earlier externally experienced actions, can be seen as an“essential medium through which mind and world mutually interact” 7 . Inconclusion he suggests that Piaget’s descriptions of schemata parallels thedesign theory of Hillier et al (1974) who hold that a designer’spreconceptions, meaning design suggestions based upon earlier experiences,comply with the schemata concept and are thereby appropriate for furtherelaboration and adaptation to the relevant situation.It seems appropriate to raise the objection that Gelernter’s presentation aimstowards describing emergence of original ideas more than it describes whathappens in design action. According to our case-based observations and ownexperiences, original ideas have a tendency to multiply and/or be altered inthe design process into something totally different from its originalappearance (objective of creative approach). The idea of preconceptionswhich was an essential contribution to the design methodology discourse ofthe 1970s (Cross 1984), thereby seems well suited for describing a startingpoint, but not for description of the designer’s negotiation process withreality as such. But Gelernter nevertheless emphasises that internalisationand externalisation do exist as basic elements of design action, where somereconciliation is needed. How did this polarisation originate?6 Gelernter (1990) p.90.7 Ibid. p.92.114

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S S5.2 Perception as dualism between body and mind5.2.1 Descartes’ separationNagel (1974) defines consciousness as “what it is like to be something” – adefinition which may appear ambiguous. But as this chapter will show,consciousness or mind is difficult to define consistently. The three basicallyopposed positions describing the human mind today were represented alreadyin ancient Greece, where Democritus represented an atomistic approach,Plato a ‘two-world’ approach and Aristotle an attempted reconciliation of thetwo. Plato’s so called metaphysical dualism presented an immaterialuniversal world of Ideas (ideios), which cannot be acknowledged through thesenses, but through thought or intuitive insight. The world of phenomena isaccording to this idealist view real only to the extent it has part in the Ideasand human moral has its basis in a universal, cosmic source 8 . This model,where the material body interacted with the human soul was taken up sometwo thousand years later by Rene Descartes (1596-1650), but in his view theuniversal Ideas were reduced to subjective representations of the world in thehuman mind, which was different from animal minds because of its uniqueability to think and have a ‘free will’. This ability was portrayed as a kind ofimmaterial substance, res cogitans, as opposed to another material substanceof the machine-like body and brain, res extensa – and the interdependencybetween the two has been termed dualist interactionism.Taylor (1989:143-158) describes how the world of Ideas was exchanged withhuman reason and internal representations came to be seen as mirror imagesof external reality. Instead of finding the order of ideas, man has to build suchorders. Such constructed representations ‘in the mind’ were based uponhuman reasoning, and in order to be accepted as correct, they had to betrusted – which meant that high claims had to be prescribed to the manner inwhich they were established. Well-grounded certainty had to be based uponstandards, which were derived from the thinking activity of the knower –standards of ‘evidence’. Descartes thereby ‘objectifies’ the world includingour own bodies and this means that we must observe our bodies – throughwhich we as subjects perceive the world – in the same way as an uninvolvedexternal observer does in order to obtain ‘well-grounded certainty’ ofobservations of worldly action. The consequence then becomes that ourperceptions, which are derived through bodily senses, must systematically bedoubted. Still Descartes is totally dependent upon the senses for acquiring his‘evidence’, because if no Idea can be found, there is no other way toexperience reality. This dilemma he ‘solves’ by dividing sense qualities intocategories of ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ nature. Primary sense qualities arethose which in some way can be measured or quantified, like number, size,shape, magnitude, position etc, while the secondary qualities are those whichcannot be quantified, like light, colours, sounds, smells, taste, warmth,roughness or smoothness. The latter category, he says8 See Lübcke (1983) p.341.115

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nappear in my mind with such darkness and confusion that I do notknow whether they are true or false, i.e., whether the ideas I have ofthese objects are in fact the ideas of any real things or whether theyare mere chimerical entities which cannot exist 9 .In Descartes’ philosophy we thereby distinguish two kinds of subjectivity;(a) the ideas which are based upon rational and to a large extent mathematicalanalysis of primal sense qualities – which can be employed for science andunderstanding of the world and (b) the ideas which are based upon‘irrational’ thinking stemming from secondary sense qualities, which must beavoided.The dualism positions described by Plato and Descartes are known assubstance dualism because they try to ascribe both mental and physicalfaculties to some kind of ‘substance’. But instead of ascribing humanfaculties to material or immaterial stuff, they can be seen as propertiesinstead, and the position called property dualism holds that the human mindis characterised by non-material properties inherent in its brain – for instancepain, sensation, thought and desire. These are according to dualist thinkinginexplicable in terms of concepts of physical sciences. In epiphenomenalismmental phenomena are not seen to be part of the physical brain and thereforeone’s actions cannot be determined by one’s desires and decisions, but solelyby physical events in the brain. As this view is too extreme for most propertydualists, the perspective of interactionist property dualism has beenestablished, which asserts that “mental properties do indeed have causaleffects on the brain, and thereby, on behaviour”. 105.2.2 Reflection on dualismDualist interactionism has had a remarkable ability to survive up through thecenturies, and there is according to Velmans (2000:14) little differencebetween the updated mind-body theory of Eccles (1980, 1989) and that ofPlato and Descartes. The self-conscious mind, seen as a non-material entity,receives information from the senses and controls the body through free will.Body and brain seem to be basically different from mind and consciousness.There is extensive evidence that body and brain affect our mind through thesenses and vice versa. Interaction between body/brain and mind/consciousness therefore seems to be quite plausible. Churchland (1997:13)sees traditional religious beliefs to be an important factor in favour ofdualism, as well as one’s everyday apprehension of introspection of thoughts,sensations, desires and emotions. In several contexts sensory qualia (theintrospectible qualities of our sensations) and meaningful content of thoughtsand beliefs have been seen as irreducible to merely physical matter.9 Quoted from Descartes Meditations, in Bortoft (1996) p.186.10 Churchland (1997) p.11-12.116

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S SIn spite of these obviously favourable arguments, there are very few defendersof a dualist position today – why is that? The main problem with the idea of adualist interaction between mind and body/brain in modern science lies in thenon-existing explanation of how an interaction should take place – the problemof causation (Velmans 2000:16-20). How can something subjective have causalinteraction with something objective? And if we cannot find such anexplanation, what is the real nature of consciousness? As we shall see in thefollowing, modern neurobiology has done impressive advancements duringrecent years, but they nevertheless are far away from being able to answer thesebasic questions consistently, although many researchers in this field claim thatthey are approaching some substantial answers. The paradox of a possibleinteraction seems to be that “if some aspect of the mind does control themomentary activities of neurons, that aspect of the mind must benonconscious” 11 . There is no reason to doubt that generalised ‘intelligent’functioning follows physical principles once it is instantiated in the mind, buthow is such a process started? Velmans holds that dualist-interactionistinterpretations do not offer alternatives to physical explanations – they “splitthe world in ways that makes it difficult to put it back together again”, andtherefore “classical dualism offers ‘explanations’ which themselves requireexplanations” 12 .Mind and matter are thereby both seen as fundamental but basically differentelements of reality in a dualist framing, and although the brain can be atransmitter one strives to find out how it can be the basis for humanconsciousness. The way Descartes describes secondary qualities, is that it isunderstandable how these mental states may ‘disturb’ rational thinking andevaluation in a scientific sense, but what about application to design andmaking? In our context it hardly seems viable to dismiss the subjectiveinfluences of light, colours, sounds, taste, roughness or smoothness as totallynecessary factors for creation of form. Is it at all possible to imagine makingwithout a subjective starting point, and must not that necessarily besomething else than objective reality? How should we conceive evaluation ofgiven materiality and following creation of new form, if not through internalsubjective qualia towards some external ‘negotiated’ expression? Therefore –is it at all conceivable to separate emotions and rationality inconceptualisation, the way science to an overwhelming degree has donesince Descartes? A closer look at these questions reveals that they seem tokick in two directions; simultaneously for and against separation of mind andbody! Instead of exchanging them with more ‘logical’ versions, however, Iinitially let them remain ambiguous, because I feel that they express quitewell the bewilderedness most of us feel towards the mind-body problem –and I want to address this ambiguity in the following. Mind and bodyseemingly are both separated and integrated in design action, which leaves usat a loss as to how consciousness should be understood.11 Ibid. p.19.12 Ibid. p.20.117

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe positions of idealism and materialism have developed historically intotwo influential directions where a solution to the problem of dualism hasbeen attempted actively; phenomenology which is particularly focused onengagement and where a phenomenon is understood as it is perceived, andneurobiology where a phenomenon in order to be understood basically isreduced to matter. I will present them individually at some length beforetrying to reconcile some important issues. The authors are selected for theirrelevance to their respective positions and for my case.5.3 The phenomenology of perception5.3.1 Edmund HusserlHusserl (1859-1938), whose biographer (Lübcke 1982) is basically referredto in the following, is seen as the founder of phenomenology. He rejected thenotion that the act of knowledge should be reduced to psychology. He heldthat ‘psychologism’ confuses between the experienced and the experience aswell as between concepts and ideas through which we describe what isexperienced. In order to understand the world and give philosophy ascientific foundation, we must directly face our actions through which wemake experiences and in a reflective state of mind give neutral descriptionsof die Sache selbst (Husserl 1900) – the way we experience prior to anytheoretical analysis. We have to give clean accounts of that which emerges inthe way it emerges before any opinions or theories are formed and before anyinterpretation has taken place. And that which emerges or meets us in theworld are the phenomena. Phenomenology thereby has the immodestambition of describing the basis for all philosophy and all theories – as atheory-free, descriptive epistemology about the phenomena. 13For Husserl all our experiences are based upon a consciousness aboutsomething, they are directed against something, and this directionality heterms intentionality after his teacher Franz Brentano. What our consciousnessis directed against is no given fact in the world independent of theexperiencing consciousness – die Sache is always experienced as something.The phenomenon can have two ambiguous meanings; my experience of thephenomenon (intentio) or the phenomenon itself as the object (intentium) ofmy experience. My intentionality has a dynamic quality whereby an objectnever will be given in one experience. I need to have many consecutive senseexperiences directed against the same object over time, from differentperspectives, in order to acquire a full account of the sensed object – beforethe inner essence of the phenomenon will emerge. When I perceive an object,I always tie up some meaning to it – the intentionality relates to its objectthrough its meaning. 1413 Lübcke (1982) p.35-43.14 Ibid. p.44-46.118

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S SIf I reflect upon an object like a rose, its meaning can emerge in many waysaccording to how the intentium of the act is given (gegeben). He dividesbetween five levels: judgement act (blosse signitive Vergegenwärtigung),imaginative representations (Phantasie-vergegenwärtigung), recollectionand expectation (setzende Vergegenwärtigung), shared intention(Mitgegenverwärtigung) and finally direct perception (Gegenwärtigung,Präsentation) where I directly “see” the imagined object (Urerfahrung,Urimpression. Such direct perception (schauen) is the highest principle ofknowledge – also called intuition. Husserl defines truth as “the fullcorrespondence between the intentional and the given” 15 .Repeated critique of Husserl’s phenomenology is that evidence or intuitioncan be seen as a private experience of ‘certainty’ or ‘conviction’ and therebyends in subjectivism. Lübcke (1982:48) opposes this objection by proposingthat according to Husserl’s view the evidence is defined by the object’s wayof being given, not from a psychological experience of certainty. In additionthe intentio side cannot be isolated as ‘psyche’ and the evidence (intuition) onthis side is defined from a correspondence between meaning and object onthe intentium side. The so called ‘subjective’ evidence is thereby decidedfrom the so called ‘objective’. The evidence is therefore not some mysticalinner human ability to decide between right or wrong – but the experiencethat the object gives itself in the way in which it was intended. How do weknow when we have evidences? Through having several repeated evidenceexperiences, which confirm and extend the original experience fromdiverging positions. Any act of evidence can be checked, but does not have tobe so to keep its evidence character. Any evidence act can be faulty, but thisdoes not lead us into scepticism because the concept ‘faulty’ presupposes thepossibility of having new evidences where the fault will show up and beabolished.The naturalistic notion of an objective and measurable world extended inspace and time was opposed by Husserl, who instead suggested that such aworld can form the outer framing of a human life-world (Lebenswelt). Thephenomena of this life-world can be directly experienced through humanintentional acts in which the human senses play an important part as agentsfor perception. The life-world concept rejects objectivism, but also asubjectivist position, because a life-world is neither purely objective norpurely subjective. Nevertheless, Husserl does not leave the dualisticseparation between subject and object as basis for human experience. Thismove was left for his successors.5.3.2 Martin HeideggerHeidegger (1889-1976), also portrayed by Lübcke (1982), followed Husserl’sbasic notion of a direct human access to the phenomena, but opposed his15 Lübcke (1982) p.47.119

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nview that it is possible to set parenthesis around earlier preconceptions. Hismain work is Sein und Zeit where he defines a phenomenon as that whichappears by itself (das Sich-an-ihm-selbst-zeigende, das Offenbare)(Heidegger 1927/1962). Any subject matter has its own particular way ofappearing, for instance the appearance of a colour, and the purpose ofphenomenology is to reveal the matter exactly as it is experienced.Husserl says that whether that which appears for my consciousness exists ornot is not my concern as long as I can give an account of what appears andhow it appears. As the object is seen from many perspectives and itsindividuality is excluded I can finally reach in to that which with universalnecessity is the nature of the phenomenon, its idea. Heidegger basicallyagrees with this, but disagrees that all matters can be approached in this way.According to Husserl, the ‘I’, or the consciousness which an object revealsitself for, cannot be considered as an object among other objects. Heideggerclaims that this is just what Husserl does when he moves from discussing anindividual I to the universal entity of this I. The I should be consideredphenomenologically in the same way as other entities, says Heidegger, andsuch an analysis will reveal that the I is an entity different from all otherobjects in the world. The I can only exist by relating to its own existence, itsown being (Dasein) – to exist. Heidegger thereby exchanges Husserl’scognitive focus to a philosophical perspective of existence; “I am” instead of“I think”. 16Heidegger takes over Husserl’s intentionality concept, but reframes it todirectionality against something; I can only exist through being-directedagainstobjects in the world. The I is here not understood as an isolatedsubject versus an equally isolated object and directionality is not a mysticalrelation between and independent of them – it extends beyond itself to allother being. Heidegger here introduces a radically new resolution of thesubject/object problem. The basic question now became: how can the Itranscend its own sphere of consciousness and reach out to an ‘objective’being independent of this consciousness? Heidegger dissolves this problemcomplex by claiming that it is wrong to believe that because the intentionalityis a basic feature of the consciousness, then the object of intentionality alsohas to be part of this consciousness – or subjective. If I imagine the Eiffeltower, I am not directed against my mental pictures of it, but against thetower itself as an objective being independent of my consciousness. Mymental pictures can be distorted and ‘cover up’ reality, but only to the degreemy intentionality is a revelation of that which is. The question of how toavoid being wrong disappears because a condition for being wrong is that Iam directed against being and thereby I am always already beyond the solelysubjective sphere; I have a pre-understanding of the world. “The I is therebynot primarily a ‘subject’, which relates to its ‘inner’ consciousness, but on thecontrary a being which relates to its own existence, and which can only exist16 Ibid. p.118-123.120

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sthrough being directed against all other being” 17 . Thereby dualism isovercome.Husserl says that the most basic experience I can have of a vacuum cleaner isby sensing it through view, touch and smell without having preconceptions ofit, and thereby bring it to viewed presence. Heidegger argues that thisposition is restricted and overemphasises the vision sense. Only throughusing it in real world situations can I approach the vacuum cleaner. Theintentional observation of an object is therefore possible because being is inan always already, interested, handling and using intercourse with theexisting objects (Zeug). Such use-oriented intercourse with the thingconstitutes an intentional objectification of them. An object for use can eitherbe ready-to-hand (zuhanden), as a hammer is for a working carpenter, or itcan be present-at-hand (vorhanden), as the same hammer can be for the samecarpenter when he after use reflects upon its performance. Objects orphenomena can be more or less present-at-hand depending on what context ofmeaning they appear in. Meaning can, phenomenologically speaking, beproduced in a being if it is produced in direct access to reveal the beingthrough its meaning. 18In the development from Husserl to Heidegger we see a move fromperception through view to perception through participative action. Both havethe same objective of elicitation of meaning from phenomena of the worldand both depend upon the body as an ‘agent’ between world and mind, butthe tendency is towards a more intensive focus on bodily perception todevelop basic understanding.5.3.3 Maurice Merleau-PontyMerleau-Ponty (1908-1961), portrayed by Grøn (1982), extended the focuson the body as a privileged communication vehicle between mind and world.In Phenomenology of Perception Merleau-Ponty (1962/2002) finds the lifeworldconcept to be a close point of attachment. Husserl does not distancehimself from Descartes’ position, which is strongly opposed by Merleau-Ponty, who says that the true subject reaches itself through this world and notthrough an isolation. Subjectivity, in other words, is inseparably connectedwith the world and a “true” subject is a being-in-the-world (l’être-aumonde)19 . He follows Heidegger in his description of a basic human opennessto the world, which is assessed through experience of the senses (l’experienceperceptive). Sensing is not seen as a passive reception of impressions ortheoretical adaptation, but it “is part of our ability to move, to orientourselves in a world of sounds, forms, colours and smells, and to be able toform the things through the knowledge which ‘sits in our hands’” 20 .17 Ibid. p.129-130.18 Ibid. p.131-136.19 Grøn (1982) p. 331.20 Ibid. p.332.121

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NIn the concept of intentionality Merleau-Ponty sees a component which goesdeeper than Husserl’s own use of it. He means that before having a consciousor explicit intentionality, we ‘intend’ something. I do not have to have anexpressed, conscious thought of grabbing a hammer in order to fasten a nail -I just do it. Conscious reflections or analysis builds on a rich background ofunexpressed earlier intentions and experiences. Reflection on an experiencetherefore builds on earlier experiences, and our prime access to the world isthrough sense-based experience. Contrary to Husserl, who wanted to give theworld transparency through viewing it from a distance, Merleau-Ponty meantthat primacy had to be given to the world which is already there and whichwe live in. This view precedes scientific or technological analysis, which issecondary to the world we experience. Through sensing we can conceptualisethat world which the sciences are “founded” in 21 .The Cartesian tradition has created a split between consciousness as being foritself (pour soi), or as a thing, as being in itself (en soi). In experience ofeveryday incidents it seems that our body exposes a more ambiguous way ofbeing, where things we live with become integrated in our way of behaving.To use bikes, cars, tools, household articles etc. means having knowledgewhich is deposited in the body in many ways, and perception of situations weare in brings this knowledge into object-related action in desirable ways. It isin order to conceptualise this real world ambiguity that Merleau-Pontydescribes the third way of existing and calls it “le corps propre”; a way ofbeing which is neither solely subjective nor solely objective and which can beseen as an extension to our bodily being, as both consciousness and body.Through perception in this between-world (entermonde), the depositedknowledge of the body is brought up in activity. The body can thereby beseen as “the subject of perception” 22 and immediate experience through oursenses is seen as pre-objective and pre-subjective.Existence in this view should be considered as complex and multidimensionaland phenomena of our life-world emerge when perceivedthrough the body; a perceptual field opens up which contains many layers ofmeaning. A basic, primordial layer consists of pre-objective many-sidedphenomena which the body opens itself to. Objectivity, on the other hand, isseen as a non-original layer of the perceptual field. When pre-objectivephenomena change into objective ones, the pre-objectively experienced“stiffens” into something limited when the body faces it, which is whathappens when our consciousness changes from a pre-reflective to a reflectivemode. (Merleau-Ponty 1994:170).Merleau-Ponty’s critique of science includes both intellectualism(Cartesianism) and empiricism which both consider perception to belong inan ‘objectivist’ regime, where both world and body are seen as objects with21 Ibid. p.334.22 Ibid. p.335.122

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sphysical connections. The scientific approach to the world has forgotten howwe see, listen or smell in real world sensing experiences, and this‘objectifying’ view has eventually infected everyday ways of thought.Sensing is then looked at as an object in line with other worldly objects,instead of being seen as a condition for objective thinking. Strictly speaking,in everyday action I do not sense objects as such, but I live in the middle of astream of integrated experiences in space and time, which illuminate eachother; they belong in a meaning context. My perception of a certain context isdependent upon my own earlier experiences of similar contexts, it isintegrated in my own history, but it is based upon external, embodiedknowledge. We experience the body as expression (talk, movements andmimicking). My existence is realised through my bodily expressions, but thisdoes not mean that my body is only something ‘external’ accompanying an‘internal’ soul-process. My existence is realised for others in bodilyexpression, but there is not a random, ‘outer’ connection between my externaland my internal. The expression and the expressed cannot be separated, orrather they can, but only through abstraction. “The meaning is first actualisedin the expression, and that means oppositely, that the bodily-ness no longercan be understood as a random condition of our existence” 23 .My body has a metaphysical structure, in that it is simultaneously object forothers and subject for me, and this ambiguity clearly emerges in the culturalworld. Action, through which humans are forming their lives, is depositedexternally as things, which other humans can relate to or perceive and whichtell stories of other ways of existing, as witnesses of other consciousnesses.The problem I face when I want to relate to another human being is also that Ifirst meet this being as a physical object – the body. If I can exist only asobject or as mind, then what I meet in another person is reduced to a physicalobject, but the paradox becomes that the other also exists as consciousness.Accordingly his or her existence must “fall between” an opposition betweenobject and mind in the same way as my own does. The third way, the“between-world” way of existence, thereby becomes a way of conceiving alife world of experienced complexity for individual selves as well as for otherpeople with whom we interact in collaboration and cultural activity.A being-for-itself is a collaborative action, which takes part in a social andhistorical context as praxis. The between-world means the world which firstis created between the human (consciousness) and the things, and secondlybetween the humans. In its totality the between-world means the world whichis created between individual liberties. I conceive the world without givenborders, I am always open to new experiences, and the other is included inmy perspective. We both participate through bodily-ness in a shared world;“the world of perceptions exceeds the individual I who perceives, and therebythe other’s perspective exceeds mine”. Involved in discussion a person’sbody gives itself, not only as part of the world, but as a personal perspective23 Grøn, (1982) p.336-338.123

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nof that world. Intellectualism and empiricism conceive the world as a givenframework for that which can take place, but the world we can engage inthrough our perception is open, un-transparent, unfinished. It is not lyingunfolded for an un-engaged spectator, but can only be discovered through theengagement, which is implicit in our perceptions. The world becomes anopen totality when we experience it 24 .Merleau-Ponty’s conception of the between-world is also related to social andhistorical contexts; our connections to things provide connections betweenindividual and free people. Three forms of being are connected in thebetween-world; being-for-itself (being of freedom, consciousness), being-initself(being of things) and being-for-others. His conception of existenceembraces the social, historical and verbal instrumental connection betweenindividuals – an existence which basically has a dialectical structure.Through this aspect emerges the twofold nature of Merleau-Ponty’sphilosophy. On one side the given which has immediate character; theperception through the body, and on the other side that which connects; thehistorical and language-related. 255.3.4 Reflection on phenomenologyIf we compare the phenomenologists cited here with the cognitivepsychology theorists of sections 2.4 to 2.6, we find some basic differences.The cognitive sciences with basis in observation of actor behaviour describethe structure of action patterns, what happens in such action, the structure ofinternalisation and externalisation processes, resemblances betweenperception and imagery, human capabilities like image generation,inspection, transformation and so on. But they do not account for how humanbeings experience reality – which phenomenology tries to do throughapproaching the subjective perspective as a disembodied aspect of reality.Phenomenology does not relate to subjectivity as a static position, but as aflexible state of being which sees individual consciousness as dynamic in itsintentional attempt to approach understanding through reconciliation betweenhow a phenomenon is experienced and the phenomenon itself – or intentioand intentium in Husserl’s terms. In order to assess such understanding, howsomething is experienced (the quality of the experience or how it engages thesubject) is important to the subject’s attempts of coming to terms with thescenario it is engaged in. In such a process of trying to integrate experienceand phenomenon by approaching the phenomenon from as many perspectivesas possible over time and in perceptual life-world experiences as rich aspossible, meaning or understanding will emerge gradually.24 Ibid. p.338.25 Ibid. p.346-348.124

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S SRelating such an understanding of subjectivity to the Cartesian view exposestheir basic opposition. Descartes saw the subject’s view of how incidents areexperienced to be untrustworthy particularly in relation to the emotionalaspects – which leads to separation of reason and sense from livedexperience. As an approach to understand design action, in which asubjective point of departure must be seen as a precondition, this view seemsto describe an erroneous approach. Heidegger on the other hand, emphasisesthe importance of wholeness of perceptual experiences in realistic usesituations, where all human senses and faculties are seen as desirable integralparts of rich experiences, and where rational thought is postponed. Hischange of focus from “I think” to “I am”, or being, fundamentally changesthe understanding of the subject as necessarily untrustworthy. Through seeingitself as part of the world totality, or as being related to own existence, thesubject has access to a “pre-understanding” of the world, and a separationbetween subject and object is, through this connection, overcome.Merleau-Ponty develops this view a considerable step further when hesuggests that experiences of human beings, if based in engaged life-worldreality, take place between mind and world, as an extension of bodily beingwhere knowledge deposited in the body is brought up in activity – in a presubjectiveand pre-objective framing. In this engaged between-world scenarioconsciousness and thing are united, and it portrays an ambiguous way ofbeing which the body exposes when the things we live with and use (forexample tools) become integrated in our way of behaving. But if myexistence falls between a subject/object opposition, then this must hold forthe other individuals I collaborate with in design action as well, and weaccordingly can be seen to participate in a world of perceptions which“exceeds the individual I who perceives, and thereby the other’s perspectiveexceeds mine”. Such a description seems to depict a situation of successfulcollaboration in the initial cases of this project quite well.In the shift between pre-objective and objective phenomena, there seems tolie a seed which could become meaningful in our attempts of understandingdesigning. To this researcher Merleau-Ponty here gives a relevant account ofan idea which is developing into a concept – seen as something unknown, butin the process of emerging into something known. When something is in theprocess of emerging, then it could be understood as ‘pre-objective’. It isunclear idea or fuzzy vision, it is possibility, or rather many possibilities –but it is not reality, it is not form or established in any kind of perceivableshape. And because it is pre-objective, it contains all the degrees of libertyessential to creative thinking. Once it becomes concrete, it ‘stiffens’ in a wayinto some ‘objective’ appearance – which enables us to approach theemerging concept from the verbal-analytical side. But as Schooler andMelcher (1995) indicate in section 2.7, some important richness of creativepossibility may then be lost.125

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NClassical phenomenology thereby presents a framework for understandinghuman engagement as being in accordance with the urge (intention) to unitesubject and object in lived experience (being). This seems to be a veryimportant basic understanding when related to designing, because in designone seeks to create engaged experiences in other people (other subjects)through formed material environment (objective context). But as actingdesigner one also seeks to engage oneself (subject) in design action throughthe way one intentionally relates to contextual materiality (object).Nevertheless; in thoughtful analysis of differentiated aspects of what theengaged experience consists of, subject(s) and object(s) separate. We therebyhave unification in engaged experience, separation in analysis and intentionin how the subject chooses to approach the object.But through emphasising the individual’s life-world experience so stronglyphenomenology, with its roots in idealism, exposes itself to the widely heldcritique of the probability of ending in subjectivism. Although the positionestablishes a profound basis for understanding how process-oriented aspectsof design action, like perception, engagement and ideation, are structured,one remains at a loss as to the realism of these aspects. How can I be certainthat my experience of a phenomenon corresponds to the reality of thephenomenon, that intentio and intentium merge? Since this is the veryquestion posed by the Cartesian tradition it is no wonder that thephenomenologists use much energy on it, but since the world is overflowingwith examples of erroneous subjective understandings, it nevertheless seemsrelevant that the position of correspondence through engagement is heavilyquestioned. And it is also understandable why the spiritualist view remaininglike a hidden ghost behind an idealist position presents insurmountableobstacles to a scientific world seeking to find ‘realistic’ answers to theenigmas of human consciousness and action. According to these challengingbut very important objections it so far seems that the best way one canapproach phenomenology is through seeing it as a highly relevant view ofreality, but which cannot explain human – and thereby design – action on itsown.Let us therefore now expand our search and face the other and seeminglymuch more understandable way of uniting subject and object; by reducingthem to being the same. Can support for a view which sees a designer’sengagement in action to emerge from physical matter be found?5.4 Perception as brain statesAlthough this view initially may seem ‘logical’, its consequences soonbecome very difficult to relate to in reflection. If my ‘subjective’ view ofreality is the same as my body, then what I understand as my freedom todecide what I want to do and focus must follow directly from how my bodystores my experiences – there can be no ‘between’. The storage ‘stuff’ mustthen give all the impulses for how I think, what I like and dislike, what I126

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sconsider beautiful or ugly – seemingly not irrelevant aspects for how I asindividual and designer ‘understand’ the world around me. My ‘embodiedmind’ must then be understood as the real creator of what I choose to formwith my arms and hands as physical representations of what I up to this pointhave considered to be my ideas. My engagement in action, my impulse tocreate, then is what is stored in my body.Whether this is a correctly understood description of the consequences ofmaterialism must now be analysed. In an attempt to achieve some basicunderstanding of how physicalist science explains these assumptions, I willreview four representative authors with their basis in the physicalist camp,but who have diverging approaches to the question of how the physicality ofhuman nature is structured. Their books are reviewed with references madeby page number. How, then, can physicalism account for qualia?5.4.1 Paul M. ChurchlandIn Matter and Consciousness Churchland (1997) describes how present-daymaterialist positions succeeded a period of behaviourism, which representeda reaction to earlier dualism and was based upon the logical positivism ideaof observable circumstances. In this view cognitive processes are private,‘objective’ research data is collected through observation of action andcontext, and behaviour can be understood by careful language analysis. Therelation between mind and body is thereby tuned down and seen as a“pseudo-problem”. But the behaviourists struggled with flaws mainly relatedto the rejection of the ‘inner’ aspects of mental states. And the flight fromthis position to another materialist position, functionalism in cognitivepsychology, was substantial from the late 1950s onward. Here the humanmind is related to functions of the brain, or information processing in neuralnetwork terms. Any type of mental state is causally connected to a variety ofother mental states or bodily behaviour, and therefore it cannot, as thebehaviourists meant, be defined only in terms of environmental input andbehavioural output. The internal physiognomy of the brain is not theimportant issue here, but the structure of internal activity which thephysiognomy sustains. The same type of structure can be applied to artificialsystems, for example computers. A frequently sited objection againstfunctionalism is that, because relations are seen as its prime mover, it ignoresthe ‘inner’ or qualitative nature of our mental states. Churchland argues thatthis problem can be overcome through quantification of qualia. 26But how is the brain structured which, according to functionalism, is the basisfor production of qualia?The so-called neurosciences, which have become increasingly influentialduring the last part of the 20 th century try to answer this question.Neuroanatomy 27 basically describes how animal- or human nervous systems26 Churchland (1997) p.24-25.27 Ibid. p.121-130.127

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nhave developed through genetic mutations in different species. Clusters ofsomatosensory nerve-fibres bring muscle activity information and tactilestimulation to the central spinal cord and motor fibres bring impulses to themuscle tissues. In mammals the spine is connected to the brain, where themain parts are the right and left cerebral hemispheres and the cerebellum atthe rear of the two. The field of neurophysiology 28 describes how the humanbrain functions physically. Specialised, elongated nerve cells called neurons,consist of a cell body or soma, finely distributed dendrites for input and along axon ending in terminal fibres with several connecting synapses at theend for output. There are some 100 billion neurons in the brain, combiningseveral parts and functions with each other electrically through selectivechemically activated synaptic connections. The resulting influence of theseinhibitory or excitatory synapses decides whether a neuron will fire (becomeactivated) or not, thereby establishing physical connections in the brainresulting from perceptual influences. Axons of motor neurons of the spinalcord synapse directly onto a muscle cell and secure graded musclecontractions. Sensory neurons can perceive stimulus from outside the nervoussystem, such as transforming light from the retina of the eye into synapticevents. Axons from somatosensory cells project from the skin and muscleinto the spinal cord, conveying tactile, pain, temperature and muscleextension/contraction information. Axons of many neurons are projectedacross the entire brain where they form synapses at distant points. Denselayers of interconnected neuronal cell bodies are called cortex, positioned forinstance as thin sheets at the surface of each cerebral hemisphere and thesurface of the cerebellum. Information patterns of this complex network ofconnections are extremely difficult to understand, but about fifty distinctcortial areas with connections to bodily functions, collectively called thesensomotoric cortex, have been identified and are called Brodmann’s areas.These are connected to for instance genitals, foot, arm, hand, thumb, lips,tongue and viscera. In particular the visual cortex at the rear of the cerebralhemispheres is a highly specialised region receiving stimuli from the retinas.The motor cortex is a topographic map of the body’s muscle system, whereartificial stimulation of motor cortial neurons produces movement in thecorresponding muscles. There are several contemporary theories andhypotheses of how these interconnected areas of the brain interact. Thediscipline of neuropsychology 29 attempts to explain psychologicalphenomena in terms of neurochemistry, neurophysiology and neurofunctionalactivities of the brain. This field is mainly based upon the study of cases ofbrain damage, degeneration and disequilibrium, or abnormal psychology.The loss of psychological capacity can e.g. through postmortem examination,be allocated to specific locations in the brain.In order to demonstrate how the attempt to quantify qualia is performed,computer supported proceedings from the field of cognitive neurobiology 3028 Ibid. p.131-142.29 Ibid. p.143-145.30 Ibid. p.146-155.128

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Scan serve as an example. In this tradition the brain performs computations ofits representations of the world, for instance the colour of a sunset, the smellof a rose, the face of a loved one and the taste of a peach. There are fourkinds of receptor cells on our tongues, each with a peculiar response to agiven substance in contact. Tasting a peach may cause different effects onthese cells, giving a pattern of relative stimulations uniquely characteristic ofpeaches, a sort of neural fingerprint. A resulting quantified sensory codingvector will characterise the particular peach. “The important point here is thatthere is evidently a unique coding vector for every humanly possible taste”.The vector can be graphically displayed in a “taste-space” of four axes, andChurchland maintains that “subjectively similar tastes turn out to have verysimilar coding vectors” 31 .Figure 4-5: Quantified ‘spaces’ of ‘qualitative’ evaluation (Churchland 1997)A similar “colour-sensation space” can be based upon activity levels of threetypes of cones of the retina, a “smell-space” is based on seven kinds ofreceptors, a “facial-space” based on ten different facial features each withfive levels giving about 10 million discriminable positions. A coding vectorof the positions of all the thousands of muscles in one’s body would haveover a thousand elements, but “that is no problem for the brain: it has billionsof fibres with which to do the job” 32 . This landscape of neuroscience isprimarily based upon positions regarding physiology. But the views on whatthe nature of the mind (its ontology) is in relation to neurophysiology, differsin different schools of thought. What is human consciousness in reality – andcan a physiological explanation present sufficient grounding for anunderstanding?Radical or Eliminative Materialism holds that common-sense conceptions ofhuman psychology (or ‘folk psychology’) is “a false and radically misleadingconception of the causes of human behaviour and the nature of cognitive31 Ibid. p.148.32 Ibid. p.151.129

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nactivity” - and should therefore be eliminated altogether. This view impliesthat our everyday understanding of ourselves having a ‘free will’, of beingable to control our own motives, likes and dislikes, of having a self-consciouscontrol of ourselves and our preferences is simply wrong. Our traditionalunderstanding of belief, desire, fear, sensation, pain, joy are based upon amisrepresentation of our states and activities, and folk psychological theorywill eventually be exchanged with neurophysiological theory which ispresently under development. An argument in favour of this view points tothe widespread explanatory and predictive failures of folk psychology. Forinstance, we do not know what sleep is, how learning can be understood, howdifferences in intelligence are grounded, how memory works or what mentalillness is; “the most central things about us remain almost entirelymysterious”. The reason folk psychology has survived for so long is that theaddressed issues are so complex that it is no wonder common understandingis insufficient. What can be held against eliminativism is basically that itsplausibility may seem to be low for almost everyone, because it deniesdeeply entrenched assumptions; introspection reveals directly the existence ofpains, beliefs, desires and fears. 33Reductive Materialism (or Identity Theory) simply claims that mental statesare physical states of the brain. If the entirety of the human mind can beexplained in a context of pure materialism, then new theories can be derivedfrom propositions and principles of some older theory – an approach calledintertheoretic reduction. Examples are that light is electromagnetic waves,heat is ‘total molecular kinetic energy’ etc. Churchland sees the “purelyphysical origins and ostensibly physical constitution of each individualhuman being” in favour of such a view. From DNA molecules upward, thisview is supported by evolutionary history theory, which by way ofreproduction provides “the only serious explanation we have for thebehaviour-controlling capacities of the brain and central nervous system”. Hefurther points to the growing success of neuroscience to ‘explain’ behavioursof several species through physical analysis and to the “neural dependence ofall known mental phenomena”. Again, the argument of introspection seemsto counter these views, because they reveal a domain of thoughts, sensationsand emotions, not a domain of electrochemical impulses in a neural network.But this does not hold, because our senses are simply not penetrating enoughto reveal “subtle differences in intricate electromagnetic, stereochemical, andmicromechanical properties of physical objects”. 34As computer structure according to these disciplines can be applied tohumans, a ‘human’ structure can be applied to the construction of computers.The possibility of creating artificial intelligence (AI) based upon hardwaresystems modelled as biological brain has remained a dream in these fieldsever since the idea was introduced in the nineteen-fifties. After a long periodof set-backs, the protagonists of the AI philosophy are presently pursuing this33 Ibid. p.43-46.34 Ibid. p.27-29.130

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sstrategy with great enthusiasm because late developments within the fieldlook very promising according to Churchland.There are other researchers who, from similar neurobiological platforms,have worked deeper into issues with particular interest to the field of design;those of feelings and images.5.4.2 Antonio DamasioIn Descarte’s Error, Damasio (1994) expands on how body basedexperiences via the brain lead to the formation of mental images and how ourfeelings and emotions are integrated factors of such formations. Unlike earlierresearchers he avoids distinct location centres of the brain for properties likevision, language, reason or social behaviour. Instead he describescollaborating systems as networks of interconnected brain units where theirrelative orientation is of high importance. He illuminates an extremeinteraction and interdependency between body and brain (thought), and holdsthat reason is not pure, because emotions and feelings are highly integrated inthinking activity. “Feelings are just as cognitive as any other perceptualimage” he says 35 , and he also finds misdirected emotions to be necessary forthinking. When I perceive something, a feeling is the momentary “view” of apart of my body landscape which is juxtaposed in time to the perception orrecollection of something else that is not part of the body – a face, a melody,an aroma – and my feeling ends up as “qualifier” to that something else. “Thequalifying body state, positive or negative, is accompanied and rounded upby a corresponding thinking mode; fast moving and rich, when the body is inthe positive and pleasant band of the spectrum, slow moving and repetitive,when the body state veers towards the painful band” 36 . Body states causefeelings, feelings cause body states, and body states and feelings areintegrated in thinking. Our organism in turn interacts with the environment asan ‘ensemble’ and the body/brain relations are mediated by the body and itssensory devices.Aggregates of closely interlocked sectors form the basis for topographicallyorganised representations are sources of mental images – which in their turnstructure the factual knowledge required for reasoning and decision making.If I observe an object, I am perceiving this object, and the internal imagesformed through such an action he calls perceptual images. They can also beformed from hearing music, reading a text, or smelling a flower. If I try tothink of an earlier, similar form I once made, the images created from theseare called recalled images. But from perceptual and/or recalled images I canalso form internal visual images of something I want to make. Perceptual,recalled or visual images are constructions of my brain, and all I can know isthat these images are real for me, and that other beings can make comparable35 Damasio (1994) p.159.36 Ibid. p.xv.131

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nimages. But there is a remarkable consistency in constructions by differentindividuals (textures, sounds, shapes, colours, space). “Images are baseddirectly on those neural representations, and only those, which are organisedtopographically and which occur in early sensory cortices. But they areformed either under control of sensory receptors oriented to the brain’soutside (e.g. retina), or under the control of dispositional representations(dispositions) contained inside the brain, in cortical regions and subcorticalnuclei”. Mental images are not formed as facsimiles or ‘Polaroid pictures’ ofthings, events or words, meaning that we do not get an exact reproduction.Permanent pictures cannot exist, they have low accuracy and can be seen asattempts of replication of patterns once existing, arising from “the transientsynchronous activation of neural firing patterns”. Images are formed “underthe command of acquired dispositional neural patterns elsewhere in thebrain” and they are acquired through sense-based learning. 37Knowledge is thereby embodied as dispositional representations, andacquisition of new knowledge is achieved by continuous modification of suchrepresentations. Thought is therefore largely made from images. A traditionalview is that thought is made from words and abstract symbols, but Damasiomaintains that words and symbols are made from topographically organisedrepresentations and can become images. Most words and inner speech existas auditory or visual images in our consciousness and we could not knowthem if they were not there. Recalled images are reconstituted side by sidewith perceptual images formed upon stimulation from exterior, but therecalled ones are not as vivid as those prompted by the exterior. Scientistslike Benoit Mandelbrot, Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein all confirmthat they think in images – also in abstract reasoning 38 .Images are probably the main content of our thoughts, regardless ofthe sensory modality in which they are generated and regardless ofwhether they are about a thing or a process involving things; orabout words or other symbols, in a given language, whichcorrespond to a thing or process 39 .Memory-based knowledge can be made available to consciousness verballyor non-verbally. The purpose of reasoning is deciding, and the essence ofdeciding is selecting an appropriate response option, e.g. a non-verbal actionor a sentence. Many sorts of response options are called for in approachingreal world complexity situations, and using rational analysis for all optionsdoes not function in reality. But in most action cases we get an immediate gutfeeling, which is a body state, about what is right or wrong. Damasio saysthat our body ‘marks’ the image picturing the situation and calls such imagessomatic markers. Somatic markers can impose immediate rejection of‘impossible’ options (negative mode), and thereby reduce alternatives to37 Ibid. p.98.38 Ibid. p.106.39 Ibid. p.107.132

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Schoose from – or provide assistance in the process of approaching complexityby detecting relevant scenario components (positive mode). They are of bothconscious and unconscious structure, are built primarily from secondaryemotions, and their forming requires normal surroundings or culture. Somaticmarker signalling is situated in the prefrontal cortices of the brain, where theconstituting images of our thoughts emerge and where categorisation of theexperiences of the body originate – which in turn are the basis forestablishment of scenarios for making predictions and planning 40 .If somatic markers result from conscious states, they will mark outcomes aspositive or negative and thereby lead to avoidance of wrong tracks, but theymay also operate unconsciously. Thus, instead of producing perceptiblebody-changes, they may inhibit regulatory neural circuits which mediateapproach or tendency to act. It is suggested that somatic markers can supportintuition in the overall process of decision-making by assisting in theselection of options, covertly or not – a sort of “biological mechanism whichmakes preselections, examines candidates, and allows only a few to presentthemselves for final exam” 41 . They serve body-based signalling, conscious ornot, which can become the basis for focused attention and provide criteria tochoose between preferences.It is worth noting that in spite of all his neural focus Damasio is very modestin his views on the ontology of consciousness, and he holds that it isimprobable that we will ever know what ‘absolute’ reality is.5.4.3 George Lakoff and Mark JohnsonWith respective backgrounds in linguistics and philosophy, Lakoff andJohnson (1999) in Philosophy in the Flesh; The Embodied Mind and ItsChallenge to Western Thought base their approach on recent developmentswithin cognitive sciences. They do not emphasise design or materialconceptualisation, but how we conceptualise the world in linguistic terms.Three basic generalisations from cognitive sciences (the empirical study ofmind) supply a grounding for their elaborations:The mind is inherently embodied.Thought is mostly unconscious.Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.These claims, they say, have potential of literally changing the world, notonly by rejecting Cartesian disembodied reason, but also millennia ofmainstream Western philosophy which holds human reason and concepts tobe free of body and brain and characteristic of some kind of external‘objectivity’. ‘Faculty psychology’ holds the ‘faculty’ of reason and ourability to form concepts to be purely mental and independent of perception40 Ibid. p.181.41 Ibid. p.189.133

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nand bodily movement, distinguishing us from other animals, but they siteupdated cognitive psychology to indicate the opposite. Reasoning andconceptualisation is thereby directly integrated with the neural structure ofour brains, which contain 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapticconnections. According to neural modelling computations of particularconfigurations of neurons, formed by the perceptual and sensomotoric systemof our bodies, are responsible for what we experience as rational thought andeventually end up in stable ‘mental’ concepts, suitable for ourcommunication with other people of our culture. 42As human beings we categorise our experiences and concepts, indicating thatwe are animal-like in a Darwinian sense as only a small percentage of ourcategories have resulted from conscious reasoning. We automatically andunconsciously learn new categories which cannot be changed consciously,but which can be reshaped unconsciously over time as we experience moreof the world. Structuring of human life and language is based upon conceptswhich “are neural structures that allow us to mentally characterise ourcategories and reason about them”. All such conceptual structures areembodied in the sense that “any mental construct is realised neurally” 43 . Suchstrong sense of embodiment in conceptualisation leads them to the view thatthe locus of reason is the same as the locus of functions of perception andmotor control. Basic-level categories (elephant, table, building) fit the worldwell and are easy to relate to and interact with, whereas higher-levelcategories (species of elephants) need scientific support. Division betweenthem is based in the body through gestalt perception. Also spatial-relationsconcepts are basic in our relations to the world. They convey our sense ofspace, spatial form and spatial inference, but these are not seen in the way wesee physical objects. If I perceive a cat behind a tree, I must make animaginative projection based upon my embodiment. These concepts arebased upon only a few primitive image schemas, which structure systems ofspatial relations in our languages, for example part-whole, centre-periphery,link, cycle, iteration, contact, support, balance, straight-curved, near-far,vertical-horizontal and back-front orientation. Extensive relations supportingour reasoning can be built from these, and such conceptualisation involvestwo aspects: phenomenological embodiment represents the way weexperience our everyday relations to the world and neural embodimentcharacterises how neural aspects of our bodies participate in ourconceptualisations.For establishment of concepts involving subjective judgements, primarymetaphor has been suggested as characterisation, which searches to embodyexperiences of desire, affection and intimacy. Mental imagery fromsensomotoric domains are used for domains of subjective experience. SeeingIs Touching is one example of a metaphor conceptualising meaning relatedto body, and a huge range of such conventional conceptual metaphor exists.42 Lakoff and Johnson (1999) p.18.43 Ibid. p.19-20.134

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S SThe theory of metaphor holds that associations result in neural simultaneousactivations which result in permanent neural connections. This theory seesthe critical balancing between ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ as a processwhere the sensorimotor neural system has “more inferential connections andtherefore a greater inferential capacity, than a neural system characterisingsubjective experience in itself” 44 . Sense-based perception through our bodiesthereby overrides our abstract subjective experience because results ofinferences flow in one direction! When embodied experiences of the worldare universal, or in contexts shared by many, the corresponding(unconscious) primary metaphors are ‘universally’ acquired, or sharedaround the world, and thereby learned and not innate. Conceptual metaphorscan be manifested in many other fields than language, for example art,gesture or ritual, and thereby also secondarily expressed through language.When subjective judgement and experience is regularly and over timecoactivated with a sensorimotor domain, permanent neural connections areformed through synaptic weight changes. These are not necessarilyeverlasting, and feelings, emotions, values, evaluations and judgements arethereby stored in our physical bodies – ready to be ‘activated’ whenappropriate settings in the world call for it.Although they indeed reduce our mental activity to a material basis in thebrain, Lakoff and Johnson avoid reductionist materialist or eliminativistpositions because they claim that in addition to neurobiology, there are“nonphysical things as neural computation and the cognitive unconscious”.But they still consider them as real in the sense that they are “real relative toforms of scientific theorising” 45 . Therefore human mental activity should notbe reduced to neurobiology without adding such theoretical constructs. Theycall this position physicalist and label it noneliminative physicalism –referring it to the Neural Theory of Language (NTL) paradigm. Thisparadigm, representing second generation of cognitive science, involvescognitive, neurocomputational and neurobiological levels where each levelcontains truths which cannot be stated adequately at some other level. Thereis a material basis for all entities taken as real within the relevant scientifictheories of all levels. The paradigm is materialist, but what in other fields istermed ‘conscious awareness’ is here exchanged with ‘neurocomputational’and ‘cognitive’ levels seen as necessary for mental activity. Thereby it is notseen as ‘eliminative’, which is understood as eliminating a nonmaterialcomponent of human consciousness.5.4.4 Reflection on physicalismIn spite of my meagre selection of works for this analysis, there seems to beoverwhelming evidence in the neurobiological research of the past decadesthat the brain and its interaction with the body plays a much more substantialpart in human perception than has been traditionally acknowledged. But in44 Ibid. p.55.45 Ibid. p.114.135

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nthe study of these physicalist positions some important differences should beidentified. Churchland, who unambiguously goes all the way and declaresreality to be nothing but physical and all aspects of emotion, qualia andhuman consciousness to be describable in terms of quantifiable measures,takes a straightforward stance which is easy to relate to in ontological terms.This eliminative physicalism is exemplified through his description of how arose’s colours affect me qualitatively through quantified cone effects of theretina – an explanation which hardly can satisfy a designer’s understanding ofengagement. But different noneliminative physicalism positions are moredifficult to relate to. One can admit uncertainty as to the nature ofconsciousness, like Damasio confesses. Or one can make abstractconstructions like “a material basis for all entities taken as real within therelevant scientific theories” like Lakoff and Johnson do. They say: mind isembodied. Why do they not say: all parts of mind are embodied? Similarlythey say: will is not free and we are not at liberty to choose. Why do they notsay that no part of will is free? And why is thought largely made fromimages? What kind of thought is not made from ‘physical’ images? The waythey express themselves indicate that noneliminative physicalism has a hardtime deciding upon what it is that they do not want to eliminate – a reflectionwhich is strengthened by observing the many existing variants of this basicposition 46 . Physicalist positions are thereby divided in two main categorieswhere a non-physical aspect of consciousness is either rejected or accepted insome way or another, and the borderlines and diversities of the latter categoryare complex. The mere fact that very few scientists within the cognitivesciences take an eliminative stance today and most accept some kind ofnoneliminative view 47 indicates that the question of how humanconsciousness shall be understood in a physicalist framing is highlyinconsistent.In such a perspective it is surprising (or is it not?) to find that the referredphysicalists accept phenomenology as another frame of reference.Churchland admits that neither phenomenological research nor introspectivejudgements need to be precluded as data for science as long as it is not given“any special or unique epistemological status” 48 . Lakoff and Johnson honourMerleau-Ponty as one of their prime sources of access to an “empiricallyresponsible philosohy” to primordeal embodied experience 49 and accept thephenomenological perspective as one aspect of experience which should beseen in combination with the neural aspect. Damasio indicates an essence ofthe same nature when he says that “at first glance, the view of the humanspirit may not be intuitive or comforting. In attempting to shed light on thecomplex phenomena of the human mind, we run the risk of merely degradingthem and explaining them away. But that will happen only if we confuse a46 See section 5.5.2.47 Lakoff and Johnson (1999) p.112.48 Churchland (1997) p.87.49 Lakoff and Johnson (1999) p.xi.136

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sphenomenon itself with the separate components and operations that can befound behind its appearance. I am not suggesting that” 50 .In the study of physicalist accounts of the embodied mind from the positionof making, one important question emerges; can creative freedom exist if mypreconditions for thought are bound in my body? An example of a possiblenon-physical aspect of consciousness remains my ability to choose what Iwant to engage myself in – in spite of all which is bodily stored. This mayrepresent one of the most problematic aspects of physicalism; regardless ofhow much science can assign to my physical cells, I will nevertheless have anability to focus engaged and conscious attention to new aspects of reality(ideas) – which seems to be the very locus of my creativity. How else candesigners design new realities? And if my brain shall blueprint an experience;what decides which aspect of the experience ‘counts’?As the ontology of consciousness appears to have high relevance to designthinking, as for example appears from the design cycle analysis in section5.1.2, it seems to be worth pursuing this thread somewhat further towardssome possible clarification. But if one does accept a disembodied aspect ofthe human mind in order to account for issues like engagement, one seems torun into the problem that a non-physical aspect of reality in general terms isassociated with dualism. Haven’t we then created a problematic which bitesits own tail? We will accordingly in the following have to relate to thequestion of whether a disembodied aspect of a designer’s mind necessarilyentails dualism.Our analysis so far then indicates that neither phenomenology norneuroscience has the ability to convince us on own premises. In turningattention from my ‘lay’ analysis above to experts’ views; can some approachbe found to understanding design as both embodied and disembodied withoutfundamentally separating them?5.5 Reconciliation between neuroscience and phenomenology5.5.1 Humberto Maturana and Francesco VarelaIn The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human UnderstandingMaturana and Varela (1998), with respective backgrounds in biology andcognitive science, strongly oppose the view that the nervous system simplycan “get information” from the environment and represent it “within” 51 , as ifthe organism constructs or invents its own world at whim – a position whichthey term representationism (objectivism). This position, which they call atrap, takes many forms, but the basic principle is that it “puts the burden ofknowledge on pre-given items in the world and leaves no place for thecreation of the significance and meaning proper to the autonomy of the50 Damasio (1994) p.xvi.51 Maturana and Varela (1998) p.133.137

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nliving” 52 . Another trap in acquisition of knowledge is the arbitrary view ofnonobjectivity (solipsism or idealism), where everything seems to bepossible. Instead they claim that in the middle road of lived reality theknower and the known are mutually specified; the act of knowing bringsforth a world – where all doing is knowing and all knowing is doing.Based in studies of biology they trace autonomy of living being back to itsroots, which they call cellular autopoiesis. This principle describes theorganisation of living things and how cell metabolism of living organisms isself producing with an autopoietic organisation and ability to specify its ownlaws and what is proper to it. In this context being and doing of autopoieticunity is inseparable, but structures vary. Ontogeny is the history of structuralchange in a unity without loss of its organisation, and structural couplingsignifies the history of recurrent interactions leading to structural congruencebetween two or more biological systems. Metacellular systems can beautopoietic and have operational closure with an identity specified by anetwork of dynamic processes whose effects do not leave the network.Studies of evolutions of phylogenies of intertwined reproductive historicalnetworks of bacteria, plants, animals and human beings can give a key tounderstanding cognition as a structural congruence between living being andenvironment. In this framing evolution is not seen as living beings adaptingprogressively to environmental world, but as structural drift with phylogenicselection. Instead of optimisation of use of environment there is conservationof adaptation and autopoiesis – or structural coupling.In applying these patterns to domains of relations between organic being andbehaviour, they find that living beings always function in their structuralpresent where experience can be seen in a framing of creative freedom anddiversity. In living beings with a nervous system, behaviour arises because ofthis system’s internal relations of activity which operates with structuraldetermination. A newborn lamb separated from the mother only for a fewhours will later behave normally, but never run around and play with theothers lambs. As observers of behaviour we can see a unity in two separatedomains; from an internal perspective of the neural system where externalenvironment is nonexistent and from an external perspective of anindividual’s historical interaction with environment where internals areirrelevant. Both are necessary to explain a unity’s understanding and can beapproached from a broader context.In metacellular organisms the neural system causes interaction of sensory anddistant motor cells where a network through synaptic connections generatesvaried sensorimotor correlations. The representationalist approach of a retinalimage transformed to an exclusive neural representation is simply not correct;it is “not like an incoming telephone line, rather it is like a voice added tomany voices during a hectic family discussion [...…], in which the consensus52 Ibid. p. 253.138

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sof actions reached will not depend on what any particular member of thefamily says” 53 . The nervous system thereby does not invent behaviour, butexpands it, and it is characterised as having operational closure in a closednetwork of changes of activities between its components. All externallyobserved behaviour is then a related phenomenon between organisms andenvironment, dependent on their structure, which can be instinctive (suckingbreast) or ontogenic (historic interactions or learned), but are notdistinguishable. To select and conserve structural coupling as living being isto know in the realm of existence – which in humans is facilitated throughself consciousness and language. Synaptic physical patterns are formed inthis process, but must be seen as plastic components of continuous structuralchange and modified through new experiences. The structure of environmentcannot specify changes in neurons; it can only trigger them.In such a context reciprocal structural coupling between organisms ispossible, with individual adaptation and organisation intact, which will occurwith definite complexity and stability – as for instance in mating, sexualreproduction and mother/father/child relations. Constitution of social systemswill entail co-ontogeny of its components, and communication can be seen asthe coordinated behaviours mutually triggered among members of a socialunity. Cultural behaviour then becomes a transgenerational stability ofbehavioural patterns ontogenically acquired in communicative dynamics of asocial structure. A basic characteristic of such structural coupling is thatcommunication is not information generated at a certain point and transmittedto a receiver as in communication media and theory, because this modelpresupposes a unity which is not determined structurally. Each person saysand hears according to his own structural determination – and saying does notensure listening. In social coupling of two or more organisms they arereciprocally involved in attaining their respective poiesis, or communicativebehaviours which can be inborn or acquired. Linguistic interaction, forinstance in singing a duet, is behaviour in reciprocal ontogenic structuralcoupling. Recurrent interactions and coordinated behaviours are establishedin many ways. Many animals establish linguistic domains throughsocialisation (where they can interact with humans), but humans share thephenomenal domain of language. To enter a human domain, an appropriatehistory of interactions is needed, but in the network of social and linguisticcoupling, the mind is not something that is within the brain. “Mind andconsciousness belong to the realm of social coupling and operate as selectorsof the path which our ontogenic structural drift follows”. Language wasthereby not invented to take in an outside world, and accordingly cannot beused as a tool to reveal that world. “Rather, it is by languaging that the act ofknowing, in the behavioural coordination which is language, brings forth aworld” 54 .53 Ibid. p. 163.54 Ibid. p.234.139

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NInstead of choosing the positions of isolated objectivism or solipsism,Maturana and Varela thereby propose the via media where both sides belongand knowing generates the explanation of knowing. In their framing theautonomy of the living being is the key factor in how humans approach theworld in structural coupling with its environment. This focus is not to beunderstood as the organism picking or processing information, but asspecifying or choosing what counts as relevant.5.5.2 Max VelmansIn Understanding Consciousness Max Velmans (2000) starts out from the veryquestion which is now pressing itself forward: what is consciousness?In addition he asks how we are to understand causal relationships betweenconsciousness and matter/brain, what the function of consciousness is and whatthe neural substrates in the brain are. At the base of his analysis lies the viewthat consciousness is not the same as mind, because mind refers to apsychological state which allows ‘cognitive unconscious’ and which may ormay not have conscious content. Nor is it the same as soul which traditionallycan survive bodily death. Explaining consciousness from a theoretical position,says Velmans, like substance and property dualism or reductionism do, will notget us to its sources, because a third person perspective can never penetrate itsessence. Consciousness must be approached from its own phenomenology,because external observers in reality have only access to their ownconsciousness. But he fully accepts central advancements in physicalistresearch. His point of departure is taken in an everyday understanding ofconsciousness as awareness or conscious awareness meaning focusedattention, and sees this as its phenomenal content; all that we are aware of,conscious of or experience. This includes not only “thoughts, feelings, images,dreams, body sensations, and so on, but also the experienced three-dimensionalworld (the phenomenal world) beyond the body surface” 55 . In reality there areonly three possible ways to collapse dualism to monism;Physical matter may be seen as nothing more than a particular aspect orarrangement of mind (idealism).Mind may be seen as nothing more than a particular aspect or arrangementof physical matter (physicalism, functionalism).Mind and physical matter may be seen as different aspects of somethingmore fundamental (neutral monism).Velmans divides eliminativist positions, which want to do away withconsciousness into three groups; those who deny its existence, those who holdthe term ‘consciousness’ to be too unclear to be usable and those who arguethat theories about consciousness (folk psychologies) are crude and fallaciousand will be replaced by future neuroscience. But “no discovery that reducesconsciousness to brain has yet been made”, and he accordingly sees all55 Velmans (2000) p.6.140

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sreductionist claims that consciousness could be nothing more than brain-statesto be speculative. Since qualia of conscious experiences appear to be differentfrom brain states, it is by no means obvious that they are one and the same. Herestricts the term ‘consciousness’ to situations where phenomenal content ispresent – or where one is conscious of something. If one denies the existence ofconsciousness, one denies everything that one experiences; “if consciousnessdoes not exist, neither does its content”. A large experimental literature whichdistinguishes conscious from preconscious or unconscious processing (e.g.Dixon 1981 and Cohen and Schooler 1997) is referred to. “In essence, then, theclaim that conscious experiences are nothing more than brain states is a claimabout one set of phenomena (first person experiences of love, hate, the smell ofmown grass, the colour of a sunset, etc.) being nothing more than another set ofphenomena (brain states, viewed form the perspective of an externalobserver)”. 56Early functionalism had an unclear apprehension of the association betweenconsciousness and information processing; if focal-attentive processing wascausing, correlating with or identical to consciousness. From 1970 onward thisposition tries to redefine consciousness to a form of processing of focalattention, information in the ‘limited capacity channel’, ‘global workspace’ etc.This is a very useful approach to many detailed aspects, says Velmans, but itconfounds a basic understanding because attentional processing might cause orcorrelate conscious experience without being conscious experience – they“should not be confused with their ontology”. Emergentism, on the other hand,retains the view that there are fundamental differences between consciousnessand physical matter, but views these as “properties of the brain”.Consciousness is thereby “not reducible to something ‘physical’, but itsexistence is still dependent on the workings of the brain”. This is characterisedas property dualism as defended by e.g. Searl (1987) and Sperry (1969,1970).Velmans says that emergentism tries to ‘naturalise’ dualism by claiming thatconsciousness is “caused by neuronal activity in the brain and is nothing morethan the higher-order, emergent effect of such activity”. He agrees that thedemonstration of such brain macroproperties caused by brain micropropertiesis plausible, but not the identification of those with consciousness. Further,Searl simply “declares” that subjective, intentional conscious experiences arephysical states without having support for such a claim. Velmans argues thatemergent property dualism “stumbles, without firm support, betweennonmaterialist dualism and materialist reductionism”. 57So – if conscious experience cannot be reduced to brain or exploded todualism, what is it then?Knowledge of central processing in the brain tells us nothing of what it is liketo have experiences. And experiences can only be of three kinds:(a) experiences of the world (seem to have location and extension),(b) experiences of the body (seem to have location and extension) and56 Ibid. p.31-35.57 Ibid. p.36-44.141

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N(c) ‘inner’ experiences (thoughts, images, feelings etc. with no clear locationand extension in phenomenal space, although loosely said to be ‘in the head orbrain’). According to what he terms the reflexive model all experiences resultfrom a reflective interaction of an observer with an observed.Both dualism and reductionism assume experiences to be quitedifferent from the perceived body and the perceived external world(perceived bodies and worlds are out there in space, while experiencesof bodies and worlds are in the head or brain). But the reflexive modelsuggests that in terms of phenomenology there is no actual separationbetween the perceived body and experiences of the body or betweenthe perceived external world and experiences of that world. 58With eyes open, what we call physical world just is what we experience. Thereis no additional experience of the world in the brain. A perceived pain in thefinger is in the finger and not in the brain. An object perceived by a subject, forinstance a phenomenal cat in 3D space, represents something that existsbeyond the subject’s body and surface – but it does not represent it fully, as it isin itself. The subject’s phenomenal cat is a private, subjective, approximaterepresentation of the thing itself, and it is out there in phenomenal spacebeyond her body surface. There may be neural causes and correlates ofconscious experience in the brain, but on the basis of all available first andthird person evidence, no additional phenomenal experience of objects ‘in themind’ exist. In a wider framing, thereby “physical objects and events asperceived are part of the contents of consciousness” 59 . According to dualismand reductionism, percepts of objects in the mind or brain represent the objectswe see in the world, but that is not sensible if experiences of objects and objectsas perceived are phenomenologically identical. Our experiences are caused byreal things in external world, body or brain, and according to the reflexivemodel represent those things together with our concepts and theories, but thethings themselves are the true objects of knowledge. This understanding of the‘thing itself ‘ differs from Kantian notions, because instead of the thing itselfbeing unknowable, knowledge without the thing becomes senseless – even ifthe ‘reality’ of the thing can only be known incompletely. “If the thing itselfcannot be known, then we can know nothing, for the thing itself is all there isto know” 60 .Once we have observed a physical phenomenon, it is already an aspect of ourexperience, not apart from it, and thereby it is private or subjective. Butobservations can also be ‘public’ in the sense shared private experiences, or‘objective’ in the sense inter-subjective. A subject or an external observer canboth make ‘objective’ observations in the sense of being dispassionate andtruthful, but neither of them can make observations in the sense of havingnothing to do with what they experience. They both experience their own58 Ibid. p.111.59 Ibid. p.135.60 Ibid. p.166.142

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sphenomenal worlds, and their individual observations are therefore entirelydependent upon their focus of attention. The consequence, according to thereflexive model, is that ‘phenomena’ observed by ‘external’ experimenters areas much part of the world that they experience, as are the ‘subjectiveexperiences’ of the subjects.So, even though Velmans declares brain and subjective experience to befundamentally different, he claims avoidance of dualism. How is this to beunderstood? His framing of consciousness and its component parts asbelonging in a wider world supports a form of nonreductive reflexive monism.Individual conscious representations are here seen as perspectival parts of agreater universe (or ‘natural world’ if one prefers) where human minds, bodiesand brains are embedded. “The precise manner in which entities, events andprocesses are translated into experiences depends upon the location in spaceand time of a given observer, and the exact mix of perceptual, cognitive,affective, social, cultural and historical influences which enter into the‘construction’ of a given experience. In this sense, each construction is private,subjective and unique. Taken together, the contents of consciousness provide aview of the wider universe, giving it the appearance of a 3D phenomenalworld”. This conscious view of reality is a result of reflexive interactionbetween the entities, events and processes and our perceptual and cognitivesystem, which represent them. But conscious representation is not the thingitself. The one universe is the thing itself, with quite differentiated individualconscious beings like ourselves as its parts, each with a unique, conscious viewof the large universe of which it is a part. And in being parts of the universe,“we participate in a reflexive process whereby the universe experiences itself”– it becomes both subject and object of experience. 61Then, what does consciousness do? We have substantial knowledge of howmind/brain analyses information, stores it, retrieves it, transforms it and how itcontrols motor responses in muscles, but this knowledge has little, if any,importance as to how we experience. Consciousness, or focused awareness,seems to be necessary for complex adaptive functioning in the real world,where its component parts seem to enter into different causal interactions witheach other. Consciousness is bound up in representation (phenomenalconsciousness is always of something) and with knowledge (when conscious ofsomething, we know what is going on). But many forms of representation areeither preconscious or unconscious and a vast knowledge reservoir is encodedin long-term memory which is primarily unconscious. Representation andknowledge, therefore, are either conscious or unconscious. Subjectiveknowledge differs from abstract knowledge in an obvious way. One can knowthe sorrow of losing a child only through experiencing it, and one can onlyknow what inspiration is through having one. One can also say that“consciousness is the creator of subjective realities” 62 – it gives meaning toexistence. “It is only when we experience entities, events and processes for61 Ibid. p.233.62 Ibid. p.277.143

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nourselves that they become subjectively real. It is through consciousness thatwe real-ise the world. That and that alone is its function” 63 .In human processing only those representations we focus on reach ourconsciousness. Our minds/brains receive information simultaneously from anumber of sense organs, monitoring external and internal environment, and thatinformation must be related to our long-term memory and processed accordingto our objectives. A lot is happening in action situations, and we intentionallyhave to choose what information is most important, which means that it is justas important for consciousness to stop certain things happening in our brain asit is to make them happen (prevention of information overload – awarenessoutside focus is inhibited).The so-called ‘Causal Paradox’ says that from a third-person perspective,phenomenal consciousness seems to play no causal role in our mental life,whereas from a first-person perspective it appears to be central. In science thisis usually an indication that one of the views should be rejected. Velmans(1991a,b) and Chalmers (1996) instead suggest what they term the dual-aspecttheory of information where consciousness and aspects of brain activityrepresent one process with two sides. This theory claims that in order to obtaina full account of what goes on in human processing, one needs the view fromboth perspectives, which “does not require first-person phenomenalconsciousness to have a third-person causal role” 64 . In everyday experienceconscious representations are treated as if they are the realities they represent.In physics, biology and other sciences, the same entities may be treateddifferently, which indicate that our experiences are different from the thingsthemselves. Both conscious experience and third-person accounts arerepresentations, which need not conflict when they are accurate and of thesame thing. First- and third-person accounts of consciousness and its neuralcorrelates may in two complementary ways describe operations of mind.5.6 Reflection on aspectual reconciliationIt is striking how the individual inconsistencies of idealism-inspiredphenomenology and materialism-based neurobiology seem to dissolve if bothcamps can be understood as presenting aspects of an encompassing totality.Maturana and Varela, with a basis in biology appears to display a resultingframework for the human organism in its functional environment which hasremarkable similarities with the framework of the phenomenologists and inparticular Merleau-Ponty – only that suspected subjective bias seems to bebalanced by what they term structural coupling of recurrent interactions leadingto structural congruence between two or more systems. The fundament of bothapproaches is the subject’s autonomous liberty to decide within given framesupon what he or she finds to be relevant in a given situation – although severalaspects of their ‘freedom space’ are restricted through structural drift with63 Ibid. p.260.64 Ibid. p.276.144

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Spolygenic selection, which signifies the individual patterns gradually adaptedby different environments, or cultures. But through functioning in theirstructural present with individual experiences in a framing of freedom anddiversity, an understanding of the subject’s conditions for creativity emerges.And as these conditions integrate other subjects, structural coupling or a unitybetween individuals is seen as a condition for real communication to takeplace, which is dependent upon each actor’s own disposition and how he or she‘attunes’ to the situation they are in. The relevance of this aspect tocollaborative design seems evident since it emphasises the conditions forcreative freedom regardless of all embodied cell structures. A good example ofhow this framework is opposed to eliminative physicalism is their descriptionof how retinal images simply cannot be transformed to exclusive neuralrepresentations without an active decision of relevance through the subject’sconsciousness (subjective decision on the quality of the experience) – whichstands in sharp contrast to Churchland’s quantified ‘sensation spaces’.Maturana and Varela take the observer’s perspective and describe organicallybased behaviour from a scientific position very lively and understandably to anon-specialist. But their penetration of human consciousness is neverthelesslimited, since they avoid the perspective of how experiences are experienced bythe human subject, which includes the unique human capability of thinking indifferentiated ways.This challenge is taken up by Velmans, who finally relates to the controversialand important question of what consciousness is. Human consciousness in hisframing is not mind in general with all (physically stored) unconscious aspects,but awareness which can be focused at will, and which includes thephenomenal world beyond the body. He fully accepts the updated findings ofneurobiology as long as they are not misinterpreted as the ontology ofconsciousness. In line with phenomenology the reflexive model sees allexperiences to result from reflective interaction between an observer and theobserved. Experiences are thereby not different from perceived body or world.My phenomenal experience is what I experience, which means that what Iperceive through my eyes and the tips of my fingers, for instance in formingclay, is an experience situated at my fingertips and not a synaptic imprint in mybrain. There may be imprints in my brain after an experience, but that is notblue-copying my engaged experience which involves my awareness where clayand fingers and eyes’ focus meet in the act of making – or my consciousnesswhere it meets matter there and then.But the synaptic imprint of a perceived object, which results from and isinfluenced by my conscious awareness at the instant of formation, willrepresent the engaged experience together with the consciousness whichfollows it – as my phenomenal experience of the object. My phenomenal objectis thereby a private or subjective approximation of ‘the thing itself’ – out therein space where it was perceived. The physical brain imprint is only one aspectof the experience I had, where the conscious aspect is in space where the realinteraction happened. Our experiences, which are caused by things in the145

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nworld, represent those things together with our understandings of them, but thethings are the objects of knowledge. This framing is not in agreement withKant’s notion of the thing itself being unknowable, because even if ourknowledge of the thing is incomplete, it is still seen as part of what the thing is.But in such a setting subjective consciousness and objective world do notappear to be of the same, and therefore it is difficult to assess how they canbe embraced within the same mode of understanding – in a non-dualistframework. Velmans meets this objection by describing how theynevertheless must be understood as two dislike aspects of the same, whereeach aspect is basically dependent upon the other and where both areelements of the same reality. In this view individual consciousrepresentations are integral parts of an encompassing world totality in whichminds, bodies and brains are embedded. And in this dual-aspectual realityfocused experiences can only be directed towards the external world, towardsthe body surface or towards ‘inner’ awareness. But the individualconsciousness is free to be moved at will between these ‘locations’.Through this involvement of the subject in the wholeness of its environment,which Maturana and Varela call structural coupling, the question of whethera disembodied aspect of a designer’s mind necessarily entails dualism 65 isanswered with a negation. It is not dualism because both material andphenomenal aspects are parts of individual human minds, which are integralparts of the world. But my autopoietic, autonomous structure and the fact thatmy awareness can be transferred at will to external, body-based or ‘internal’locations also must entail that I can decide how I want to use and focus myconscious awareness – in spite of the fact that much of the preconditions forhow I will do this is bound in the body, and in spite of structural coupling anddrift. Given this then, some part of my consciousness is free to be used andfocused just as I as an individual want to. This entails that my thoughts canbe focused and applied in many different ways according to my intentionsand the situation I am in. Such a description of my abilities may seemobvious, but may also appear blurred if I differentiate between two dislikesuch situations. In one scenario I am absorbed in an engaged experience, sayan appreciation of an object of art, and in another I am trying to analyse whythis art object made such an impression on me. The first scenario can in thisframing be understood as if my conscious subject and the art object areintegrated in a structural coupling of unity, and in the second as separated inrational thought. But is not the latter scenario similar to what we have used somuch energy on accusing Descartes for – a separation of mind and world?From the reconciliation scenario above and this reflection it seems that wehave now succeeded in establishing grounding for claiming that differentways of intentionally applying consciousness need not be accused of dualism.Rational analysis (scientific approach) and immediate engagement are justtwo initially opposed modes – there are several others where subject andobject can be integrated or separated according to individual dispositions in a65 See end of section 5.4.4.146

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sreflexive monistic framing, as temporary ‘polarities’ in a process of getting toknow. We have then described a monistic landscape in which aspectualseparation of subject and object is possible without being dualistic.This understanding of the subject-object problem is built on thephenomenological tradition, but negotiated with updated neurobiologicaltheory and reconciled with the physical aspect mainly through the theoreticalposition of Max Velmans. An attempt can now be made to adapt these viewsto design action.5.7 Adaptation to design actionThese reconciled understandings of the relationships between individualmind and physical world seem to have high relevance when applied to designthinking because design action can, according to our design cycle in section5.1.2, be seen as dynamic fluctuations between these polarities withdifferently modulated consciousness according to what aspect ofrepresentation which is temporarily focused. But a very important aspect ofdesign action, which distinguishes it from the referred neurobiologicalapproaches, is that not only are neural bonds established from sensesupportedinteraction with things, but in addition such bonds must be brokenin order to imagine and create new realities. Such breaking away fromembodied habit will, within the described framework and according tosection 2.9, need conscious intention of first to try to liberate oneself of thatwhich is deeply anchored in the organism, then to try to imagine new ways ofinteracting with the physical world, and finally to try to represent suchimagery physically. Let us call the complex dual-aspectual mix of embodiedhabit and disembodied ability to imagine and intend for our mentality. Ourmentality will then be the fundamental force behind what has been calledengagement.In this framing, engagement can be seen as a very essential aspect ofdesigning. The engagement of the future user’s interaction with the productwe are developing can be seen as a prime objective of our design action. Butin order to design a material representation which is intended to produceengagement in the future user the design actor(s) must be highly engaged inthe action of designing – which deeply involves imagining how the futureuser will become engaged. Thereby the process of designing becomes aprocess of dynamic interactions between differentiated states of awarenesswhich are focused either on materiality (physically representing mentality) oron mentality (physically representing materiality and integratingconsciousness which involves disembodied imagination and intention). Thisis the generalised process of subject-object interaction of an individual designactor described in this framework.In focusing these polar states of awareness we find they can be of many kindsaccording to the individual disposition of the subject in question. A scientist147

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nwith a mentality of intentionally disengaged observation can be seen ashaving subjective mentality and objective focus well separated – in line withthe Cartesian view. An engineer focusing rational criteria of the materialaspect can be seen as having a similar relation, but a somewhat closerconnection between the two poles since for example material testing oftheoretical hypotheses will be a relevant engineering aspect. An artist in theact of forming for instance clay into a beautiful shape can in such a framingbe seen as having a much tighter closure between mentality and awareness ofmateriality. The degree of integration between subject and object (theobserver and the observed) can thereby be seen as highly variable accordingto what kind of aspect is focused. The complexity of this scenario should notbe underestimated, as the scientist very well can be an affectionate individual,which entails that individual and professional focus may not be the same. Theimportant issue here is how they intentionally choose, and manage accordingto individual disposition, to focus their awareness.As an objective of designing is the integration of as many of these and otherproduct related aspects as possible (functionality, aesthetics and rationalitywith different priority in different projects 66 ), the challenge of the task isilluminated. And if designing in addition has an objective of being original,the complexity of the process is even further extended, because creativitymust mean breaking away from old laboriously acquired embodiedbehavioural patterns and first imagining and later representing newunderstandings. But, as particularly Maturana and Varela emphasise, we havethe ability of doing so through our autopoietic, autonomous structure. Whenapplied to design action, a central question resulting from this way ofdescribing human abilities then becomes: how should breaking old andcreating and establishing new bonds to reality be achieved?Before engaging in the aspects of this important process-oriented question,let us try to summarise some findings central to designing up to this point:My subjective ‘I’ and the objective world are not the same, but they areparts of the same encompassing context.I have the ability to focus my awareness on objects, my body or my innerthoughts about objects – which means integrating mentality andmateriality either in an ‘outer’ or ‘inner’ space of this context.According to my individuality and intention I am free to choose to focusthis awareness in different ways; I can for example separate my subjectand the object in rational thoughtful analysis, or I can unite them ininterpretation of their relations.Since designing shall preferably promote interaction between all aspects,we must search for scenarios where both separation and integration canbe approached in a context of engaged unification.66 See section 5.1.1.148

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S SSince design also involves (autopoietic) separation between my mindand earlier embodied learning, old subject/object relations can also bebroken and new can be established intentionally.The consequence of these relations according to all earlier analysis thenseems to become:To create relevant relations between new subjective ideas and newobjective representations of them, such new relations shouldintentionally be developed in engaged interaction between mentality andmateriality. The new materiality can in this framing be seen as catalysingemerging new imagery through the bodily senses.This temporary conclusion summarises an essence of the analyses of ahumanly based conceptualisation process up to this point. In returning to ourprocess-oriented problematic, then, how should the engagement of theactor(s) of such a process of subject/object interaction be created? A basis foran answer to this question seems to be relevant to search in the framework ofphenomenology, since this is where the issue of engagement is addressed.And in relating it to the similar question of what happens betweeninternalisation and externalisation in section 5.1.2, we find a thread whichleads back to the between-world concept of Merleau-Ponty as a possiblesource of understanding how polar aspects of subjective and objectiveawareness could be integrated through scenarios of engagement.In order to approach this problematic, let us face some selected theorists whohave worked intimately with aspects of human interaction with the worldfrom the positions of aesthetics, intuition and sensing of atmospheres. Theseissues seem to have intimate relations with what traditionally has beenunderstood as ‘mysterious’ capabilities of inspired, creative individuals, andwhich, according to my knowledge, design theorists to a very little degreehave been able to approach with consistency. Let us now, in line with theexpressed general ambition of section 2.7 where these issues have beentreated theoretically, make an attempt to shed some light on such capabilitiesby relating them to the above acquired understanding of the relation betweenmentality and materiality.5.8 Atmospheres of engagement5.8.1 Aesthetics and playFriedrich Schiller (1759-1805) was engaged by Kant’s contribution to anunderstanding of the human mind, but was not content with his separationbetween the inner and the outer world. To Schiller there was a need toreconcile an antagonism between the two seen as polarities, butsimultaneously he deeply acknowledged their differences. In 1795 hepublished Uber die Asthetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reie von149

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NBriefen, known as ‘Schiller’s aesthetical letters’ (Schiller 1991), where hesuggests that the human inclination towards the aesthetical sphere has aninherent capacity for such reconciliation.Human beings, he says, are basically driven by two seemingly opposedforces. The first of these he calls the inclination towards matter, which isbased upon human physical existence. Our personality is suspended and weare ‘in the time’ as long as we are ruled by our sense impressions. And sinceform only appears through matter, the human being as outer form is bound tothe senses, which are directed against passive receptive abilities – includingfeelings. The other force is the human inclination towards form, whichoriginates from human absolute existence or its reason. It strives towardsfreedom and expression of the personality and is directed against activechange and decisive abilities including thought and will. While the outerinclination creates occasions, the inner gives us laws governing the will toact. Outer feelings are temporary, while when the thought says this is, then itconnects us to the world of phenomena. But both aspects are dependent uponeach other and coordinated – “without form, no matter, without matter, noform”. Between them stands culture, and “when both abilities are united,humans will combine the highest sense of existence with the highestindependence and freedom”. Each of these inclinations can thereby reach itshighest enfoldment by the activity of the other. To bring about such asynergy, a third human ability can be called into action: the inclinationtowards play – which is directed against the suspension of time, by unitingcreation and being, change and identity. 67The object of the inclination towards matter is life, and the object of theinclination towards form is gestalt, whereas the object of the inclinationtowards play can be seen as living form, which signifies aestheticalappearance, or what we call beauty. Between the inclinations towards formor matter, therefore, there is need for a companionship, or an urge towardsplay, because only a unity between reality and form, between coincidenceand necessity, between free activity and passive receptivity can fulfil thehuman concept. Aesthetics and play is shared object for both inclinations.5.8.2 IntuitionThe human being shall only play with beauty, and it shall play onlywith beauty. Because – to finally say it in one sentence – the humanbeing plays only when it in the full meaning of the word is human, andit is only fully human when it plays 68 . (Translated by this author).Albert Einstein has said that “the really valuable thing is intuition” and calledhis thought processes “combinatory play”. Damasio holds that physical‘somatic markers’ support intuition, which he calls “the mysterious67 Schiller (1991) p.58-59.68 Ibid. p.70.150

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Smechanism by which we arrive at a solution without reasoning towards it” 69 .By assigning emotions to the right brain hemisphere he also addresses thefield which most research on the phenomenon called intuition has been basedupon. Research on the differences between the right and the left hemispheresof the brain has a long tradition as illustrated by Bogen.Figure 5-5:Dichotomies withlateralizationssuggestedBogen (1969)This research has basically been performed clinically through studies of onesidedbrain damages, and through resulting effects on behaviour. In hundredsof clinical experiments left hemisphere damages have resulted in destroyedlanguage abilities – and right side damages similarly have caused severedisturbances in body awareness and e.g. musical ability. Nobel Prize winnerRoger Sperry (1951, 1956, 1964) and Bogen (1969) initiated treatment ofsevere epilepsy through cutting the connection (corpus callosum) betweenthe right and left hemispheres. They found that if such a ’split-brain’ patientheld a well known object hidden from sight, for instance a pen, in the righthand, she could describe the object verbally, but if she held it in the left handno description was possible. And the right half of each eye was found todeliver impulses to the left hemisphere and the left half to the righthemisphere. Similar experiments have led to the insight that the lefthemisphere, which controls the right side of the body, is predominantlyinvolved with analytical, logical and linear thinking as for instance inmathematics, speech and word-based reasoning. The right hemisphere, whichcontrols the left side of the body is specialised for abilities like synthesis,orientation in space, artistic endeavour, crafts, body image and recognition offaces. The patterns are general but can change, for instance in left-handedpeople. Levy-Agresti and Sperry (1968) suggest:69 Damasio (1994) p. 188.151

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe data indicate that the mute, minor hemisphere is specialisedfor Gestalt perception, being primarily a synthesist in dealing withinformation input. The speaking major hemisphere, in contrast,seems to operate in a more logical, analytic, computerlike fashion[and] the findings suggest that a possible reason for cerebrallateralisation in man is basic incompatibility of languagefunctions on the one hand and synthetic perceptual functions onthe other.These generalisations seem to have relevance both for design and for thisproject. Western scientific tradition is preoccupied with left hemispherethought patterns, but the relations of right hemisphere seem to have moreimportance to the field of making, and among many others, Ornstein (1973,1983, 1986) has related this research to the topic of intuition.According to esoteric tradition, the “organ of perception” whichcan be tutored in the same fashion as is language, is what we callintuition. Although the phrase is often maligned, conventionallyused to indicate random guesswork or a mysterious combinationof elements, it should be properly understood as knowledgewithout recourse to inference. The diverse and seeminglyunconnected practices of religious and esoteric traditions centeraround the cultivation of what we might call nonlinear immediateunderstanding, in complement to the inferential, mediated,ordered sequence of “rational” thought. 70Instead of focusing research on damaged brains, Ornstein (1983) and hiscolleagues studied thousands of normal, uninjured people performingeveryday tasks – to a large extent based upon surface electroencephalography(EEG) which passively records brain activity. They found that “normalpeople do make use of the potential differential specialisations of the twocerebral hemispheres”. They were particularly interested in the righthemisphere, and as this mode of consciousness is not the focus of Westerntradition, they turned to the Middle and Far East cultures where they met aconglomerate of differentiated approaches relating to this aspect, but wheresome basic elements were shared. These traditions, he says, are “illogical byintent, employing music, dance, movement, specific body postures, creativespatial visualisation and techniques designed to defeat ordinary linear,sequential thinking, such as concentrative meditation, Zen koans, and theliterature of the Sufi tradition”. These patterns are not for the verbal,inferential apparatus, but for stimulation of spatial ability, grace in movementand those aspects of a comprehensive awareness of relationships betweenobjects or ideas which do not translate well into words. Instead of rationalanalysis of sequentially linked discrete elements they found that the intuitivemode of mind involves “a simultaneous perception of the whole”. In shifting70 Ornstein (1983) p.24.152

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Sfrom a logical mode of consciousness to an intuitive one, it is not theindividual objects or ideas in question which change, but the contextualrelationship between them. 71 Updated literature on mind control, forinstance Buzan (2000), focuses such similar kinds of mechanisms in order toenhance creative thinking.Levy-Agresti and Sperry (1968), Bogen (1973) and Ornstein (1986) basicallydifferentiate between two types of thinking or knowing, which they termdifferent mentalities and which are in no way competing with each other, butcomplementary. Rational thought and verbal reasoning patterns are wellknown in Western epistemologies, but this culture is largely unfamiliar withthe contents of intuitive perception. One aspect of the former withimplications to design is called automatisation referring to the mind’s abilityto make perceptual schemata automatic, also researched by Piaget (1971,1972). If new ways of seeing reality is our focus, then, the intuitive andperceptual mode of consciousness can be stimulated throughdeautomatisation techniques, which may “dismantle the automatic selectivityof ordinary awareness” 72 . Deikman (1973:221) suggests many procedures forhow this can be achieved through “reinvesting actions and percepts withattention”, for example in all sorts of rites, ceremonials, dances, plays,conventions, sports or similar activities which involve direct relationsbetween individual minds and physicality in engaged interaction and directrelations between many individuals. Another approach is through withdrawaland meditation.From these descriptions we can induce that what seems to be a generalcharacteristic of establishment of so called ‘intuitive’ states of mentality areenvironments or contexts of direct or unmediated engagement – or engagingatmospheres.5.8.3 AtmospheresOne contemporary philosopher who has engaged himself in the question ofatmospheres is Gernot Böhme. In Böhme (2002) he analyses the phenomenalaspect of perception (not the neural) in relation to the atmospheres in whichobjects are perceived – with high relevance to my problematic. He considersthe subjective position of perceiving, where I am in the world together withthe perceived object, and he holds that perception involves more than whatcan be assigned to the traditional sense organs, and it can involve manyorgans. For instance should feeling through the skin be expanded throughtouch sense, temperature sense, pain sense and sense of balance. If I, insteadof just affirming “I see a tree”, step into its shadow, smell it, touch it, feel itsuniqueness, I can experience many aspects of the tree as integral parts of myperception. Such notice of presence is the basis for all perception. At firstthere is unity in a perception act where I am one with the presence of the71 Ibid. p.26-34.72 Ornstein (1986) p.197.153

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Ntree, but eventually this unity is disassembled into an I-pole and presence ofsomething. For example an aesthetical experience is a perception based uponsuch an atmosphere phenomenon. Perception can therefore be seen asconsisting of stages; first the atmosphere, then bodily distinction andpresence, then united sense-experience which can be differentiated intoseparate senses and finally the distinction of objects and surroundings. Theact of perceiving is thereby before separation of subject and object and thesensing of atmosphere has a subjective component. This I-pole can beotherwise attuned than the perceived atmosphere. I can for instance enterfrom outside into an existing atmosphere of an on-going meeting (ingression)and I can be in e.g. a melancholy mood when I do so (discrepancy), but I canstill sense the atmosphere which is there already – as an ordinary object ofperception. Experiencing an atmosphere is something else than talking aboutone, for instance as being threatening, stressed, aloft, melancholy, hot etc.(the character of the atmosphere from an affective point of view) – when theI-pole comes in third person. Atmospheres can also be consciously producedthrough physicality (thing-pole) as in stage craft, cosmetics, internalarchitecture, design, films, TV productions etc.We can thereby distinguish between perception and production of physicalatmospheres, and in the latter the point of view of the subject is transmittedonto the physicality. But an atmosphere is neither a condition of the subjectnor a property of the object. It can only be experienced by a subject and iscreated through the “subjectivity” of a perceiving individual, and it is not acondition of the object either but it is created through object physicality! Inother words; atmospheres are something between subjects and objects; “Siesind nicht etwas Relationales, sondern die Relation selbst” 73 . The atmosphereis thereby the first reality of perception – from which subject and object canbe differentiated. After having experienced this reality I can say something ofwhat the perception and atmosphere is – but then not as a participator oratmosphere producer, but from the perspective of the whole. Then perceptionitself is a unity of subject and object – or they melt together in perception.The atmosphere is the animation of a shared state of being of subject andobject, or always the first which is, and distinction of these poles emerge aspartial detachments from this state. Bøhme accordingly holds that in afundamental understanding of perception in terms of its realness, thesedistinctions are only thinkable. This position has consequences for anunderstanding of aesthetics.Traditionally one has said that the theme of aesthetics is appearance,but appearance was always seen as apparition (Erscheinung) ofsomething as opposed to actual being. In order to honour thephenomenal realness that we experience in aesthetics, it wasnecessary to turn the traditional conditions upside-down. The73 Böhme (2002) p.33.154

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Srealness is for aesthetics primarily the immediate, thedistinguishable presence. 74 (Translated from German by this author).To increase understanding of this view he suggests a distinction betweenrealness (only that which exists in perception) and reality (the physicalitybehind perception). This dichotomy resembles the concepts suggested by theBauhaus painter Josef Albers, who called the physical colour on linen forfactual fact and the perception of colour for actual fact.This understanding of the connection between subjects and things is thenextended to communicative atmospheres between subjects (which mayinvolve things). He distinguishes between ‘external’ atmospheres of dawn,church rooms, stages in plays etc, which he calls “pseudo objective”, andinterpersonal atmospheres as acknowledged in a tense atmosphere of ameeting, a lively atmosphere of a gathering or a friendly atmosphere of aconference (e.g. between prime ministers). Several theorists have treatedcommunication between individuals in such contexts, for instance the‘Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns’ based upon Austin and Searle(Habermas 1982), where communication is treated as embedded exchange ofinformation. Although they concern relevant aspects of interaction, Böhmecriticises such approaches for treating subjects as ‘static’ entities, who areseen as what they are independently of how their own and other actors’utterances are made. In his view the contents of information are interactingwith the personal relations between the actors, and indicate thatcommunicative atmospheres may be something in advance of talking. Tofind support for such a ‘non-western’ thought, he quotes Bin Kimura whorefers to the traditional entity of Ki as a usable concept in Japanesepsychiatry. Ki can represent something “which lies pseudo in the air, of abetween intensity, which the individual person can only have a part of orwhich they can be seized by” 75 . In the study of communicative atmospheresit has been found to be more difficult to relate to how they are created than tohow they are destroyed. Easily understandable examples of the latter are howdepressive moods of family members can destroy family coherence, howbasic grounding in interpersonal relations can readily break down throughjealousy, suspicion and fright, or if shared understandings of meaning forsome reason disappear.From his enquiries, Böhme concludes that interpersonal atmospheres havehigh importance for communication through the connection they producebetween communication partners – as a kind of resonance ground for ownperception. Because one’s own disposition influences the interpersonalatmosphere, it is shared with the other actors – something which can producecreative atmospheres if the attitude is ‘right’ or destroy them if it is ‘wrong’.74 Ibid. p.35.75 Ibid. p.108.155

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N5.8.4 Reflection on between-world scenariosThe view that a ‘space’ between objective world and subjective impressionrepresents a scene where coupling between polarities can take place, hasthereby been expressed by many theorists. Schiller, who preceded thephenomenologists by roughly a century, saw awareness focused on aestheticsto represent a state of being where such reconciliation can take place, and hesaw aesthetics to be more or less synonymous with play. A similar butexpanded perspective, based in psychology and neurobiology from the 1970sand 1980s, is presented by Ornstein and his colleagues. They assign to theright hemisphere several states of awareness which are “illogical by intent”and appropriate for breaking loose from embodied automatic modes ofbehaviour and achieving experiences and insights which are “intuitive” andhave to do with “simultaneous perception of the whole”. Laterneurobiologists may have less categorical explanations of the physiology ofthis assignment, but they do not oppose the existence of the differentiatedmodes of consciousness. Again aesthetics, play, body movements,withdrawal and the like integrate environments and modes of consciousnessin contexts well suited to achieve deautomated insights, and these states ofbeing can be seen as intentionally staged.Böhme’s description of how a person is first unified with a material contextin perception and later separates I-pole and thing-pole seems to be anadequate account of the difference between engaged experience anddisengaged analysis. And his elucidation of atmospheres as wholenessexperiences between these poles extends usability of a between-worldconcept directly into design action, where creation of such experiences iscentral – with subjective and objective elaboration as its evaluative poles. Inline with the theoretical approaches of Schiller, Merleau-Ponty (who buildson Husserl and Heidegger), Ornstein et al. and Böhme, I will according to theabove analyses suggest that Merleau-Ponty’s between-world concept mayhave relevance for application to ‘intuitive’ aspects of design action. I will inthe following call experiences of wholeness for between-world experiencesand staging and acting of such experiences involving deautomated awarenessfor between-world scenarios.If wholeness experiences of atmospheres only can be experienced by andcreated through the subjectivity of a perceiving individual, this must havehigh relevance to design action. Maturana and Varela have the same view asBöhme in regard to communication between subjects, where transmission orexchange of information is seen as an insufficient explanation because itdisregards how utterances are made and received by subjects (structuraldetermination). Let us presume that a designer has succeeded in making a‘very good’ design solution – which must entail that it represents a wholenessexperience of the maker. As the physical aspect of this experience is the onlyaspect which can ‘transmit’ this experience to a user in another context, thething-pole becomes the ‘message transmitter’, but it will have the subjective156

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S Saspect embedded, for instance as aesthetic representation. But a transmissionof a wholeness experience can never be guaranteed by the object aspect alonebecause in the same way as the maker/object relation depends upon thedisposition of the maker-subject, the user/object relation depends upon theuser-subject’s constitution. Structural coupling via the thing-pole therebypresupposes some kind of attuning of reciprocal subjective awareness ofrepresented wholeness, where aesthetic appreciation can be a possible‘transmitter’ represented through the materiality of the product.Let us, by describing another scenario inspired from Böhme’s atmosphereexample,try to get a grasp of a design-related essence of what this chaptertries to address and which seems to be so difficult to get a basicunderstanding of. I am invited to a party and arrive late and in a bad mood.When I enter the beautifully decorated hall with a lot of well dressed peoplein engaged conversation, I experience an aloft atmosphere which I am notpart of because of my mood. Now I can either remain in this mood andcontinue to observe the others’ shared engagement from a distance, so tospeak, or I can try to change my state of consciousness and join in andbecome a part of the party atmosphere myself. I have a choice and I have toapply intention to break out of my own and approach some unity with theothers’ state of mind to get a good experience out of it and enjoy the sharedatmosphere of the party. If this scenario is changed into an analogy ofcollaborative design, where I as design actor join a well functioning designteam, my entrance into the team can give many results according to how Ichoose to attune myself to the existing atmosphere. I can try to catch on tothe creative team approach, I can contribute with analysis of the designproblem from diverging points of view – or I can easily ruin the capability ofthe group by being moody or self centred. Experienced designers know thatshared experiences can be negatively or positively influenced by howindividuals intentionally choose to attune their mentality to what is sharedand how important the resulting atmosphere can be for the project outcome.These descriptions exemplify the nature of the aspect of humanconsciousness which physicalism has difficulties in relating consistently to,but which the phenomenal aspect contributes to expose; an individualfreedom in relation to engagement in creation. According to the quotedauthors the wholeness of collaboratively or individually experiencedatmospheres involving others’ mentalities, behaviour and shared physicalityof staging and representation is possible and can be intended and achieved.To understand such between-world scenarios as possible important aspects ofdesign processes where inspiration and new insight is desired and sought forseems to be a relevant outcome of these theoretical approaches.5.9 Perception and consciousness as basis for building design theoryThe central objective of this chapter has been a search for an understandingof how humans through individual views manage to conceptualise an157

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nobjective world. It has appeared gradually that an essence of a humanconceptualisation pattern has to do with the merging of subject and object.There are according to the referred theories many relevant ways to achievesuch correspondence, but in general terms convergence of provisionalpolarities can occur through different kinds of wholeness experiences.Through studies of cognitive psychology in chapter 2 we have learnt thatmaking of physical representations for perceptual support play a fundamentalrole in human conceptualisation of artefacts and that the human constitutionthrough bodily perception has the ability to generate, inspect and transforminternalised mental representations or images of these. Through empiricalstudies of design action, reported in chapter 4, we have found many relatedindications of how (RP produced) physicality can support perceptualexperiences in design processes through facilitation of understanding. In thischapter we have, through studies of updated neurobiology, learnt that ourbody and brain represent a much more substantial basis for human actioninvolving intention, emotion and thought than has ever been acknowledgedhistorically, and that some physicalists hold the mind to be fully embodied.Through phenomenology we have further achieved an explanation of howour ability to focus consciousness at will cannot be explained throughembodiment alone, and how rich experiences can give access to ‘presubjective’and ‘pre-objective’ understanding. Through theories whichreconcile the two aspects we have then identified a foundation for designthinking. Through the above contributions we have finally tried to get somefurther access to what is meant by a state of being between subject and objectwhere ‘intuitive’ or ‘deautomated’ insights may be achieved and have foundexplanations relating to ways in which conscious awareness is attuned.Let us try to summarise some elements from these theoretical landscapeswith particular relevance for application to design action:A conceptualisation process can be seen as involving a) immediateexperiences of an object in its wholeness context, b) situations where onerelates to a personal impression and the object as separate aspects and c)situations where one searches for understanding by trying to make theseaspects converge.Immediateness of an experience can be ‘catalysed’ through rich,sense-based perception of physicality.Stable concepts emerge slowly over time through several repetitions ofsuch patterns.A subject’s experiences have a brain related aspect and an aspect of howa phenomenon is perceived.A subjective impression (with its phenomenal and physical aspects) anda perceived object belong to the same totality which also includes allsubjective views and all objects.158

C H A P T E R 5 : H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N A N D C O N S C I O U S N E S SA situation of conceptualisation can be seen to involve a state of beingbetween subject(s) and object(s) where atmospheres considered asfavourable for creation to take place can be intentionally staged.Different mentalities can be elicited through intentional staging andattunement.New ways of understanding reality may result from ‘deautomatisation’of ordinary awareness.Through theoretical analyses we have then found a way to describe humansubjectivity, so essential to design thinking, without considering it asuntrustworthy and without reducing it to nothing but matter. When anindividual approaches an unknown object and tries to conceptualise it,subjectivity is seen as the private view and impression (imagery) of the objectarising in his or her mind. But through consciousness intentionally focusedon many sense-based experiences of the phenomenon (object in context) andfollowing reflections on what has been learnt, the subject’s flexible view willchange and gradually converge towards a correspondence with the object –and a stable concept (knowledge) is finally achieved. Subjectivity is thereby anecessary position in a dynamic process towards knowledge, and thedynamic character of the process can involve many ways of achievingunderstanding. This understanding can be modelled as a landscape whereaspectual polarities interact dynamically with wholeness.SSubject aspectAtmosphereSOWholenessOObject aspectFigure 6-5: A landscape of human conceptualisationThis model can be linked to central aspects of designing not ordinarilyincluded in analysis/synthesis-focused design theory through the indicationsgiven through the reviewed theories. The understanding it depicts may proveto have importance for designing because it addresses sides of human actionwith high relevance to a field of making – those subtle and inaccessibleaspects of consciousness which can elicit individual engagement. In theiractive mode they are concerned with sense-based experiences which areintense, immediate and unreflected, and in the contemplative mode withpossible leaps of conscious processing which may generate new and originalimagery. The consequence of a non-dualistic world view which does notrestrict existence to nothing but matter becomes the co-existence of mentalityand materiality and the convergence of the two aspects in dynamic patterns.159

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NHave we thereby identified a human basis with relevance for application todesigning? The above model and summaries may contain some centralaspects of designing not emphasised in common design theory which is morefocused on the cognitive aspects of making. But they can hardly be employedfor our objectives as described, because they are mainly derived fromtheories concerned with how we relate to and conceptualise the given world,which is the general focus of the natural sciences and philosophy.As designing is primarily concerned with conceptualisation in terms ofworld-in-the-making, we must now change focus and turn our attention to‘objectivity’ which cannot be considered ‘as it is in itself’ according to aKantian notion. This is because materiality-in-the-making must be seen asrepresenting human consciousness, which according to the analyses of thischapter must be considered as flexible in a conceptualisation process. Havingthen established a platform for description of the flexible subject’s journeytowards correspondence with phenomena, let us now try to get a grasp ofhow the object’s journey towards representing a concept could be conceivedin a similar way.160

Ch 6:PHYSICALITY AS CATALYSER OF DYNAMIC HUMANPERCEPTION________________________________________________________In this chapter a dual-aspectual understanding is applied to thedesign cycle model. Through reflective comparison with a theory onexperiential learning two modes of design action are suggested, oneformative and one adaptive, with the material representation shared.To this pattern is added the observed dynamic structure of aconverging process and similar patterns are applied for collaboratingactors. A resulting model of a dynamic, iterative, playful andphysically catalysed design process is synthesised – where flexiblementality and flexible materiality will merge.161

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N6.1 An objective of visualisationWith an objective to identify basic conceptualisation patterns in contexts of realworld complexity based upon the achieved theoretical understanding 1 , manyvisualisation drafts have been drawn from this stage onward. In an attempt toachieve some simplified understanding, model suggestions have eventuallyresulted from this process, which have been found helpful in adapting a dualaspectaccount of perception to design action. But multi-dimensionalimplications of human perception with philosophical, psychological andphysiological aspects are challenging issues, and their illustration in twodimensions on paper naturally has severe limitations. I will in this chapterpresent my suggested illustrated elaborations of physicality supported designaction. The analyses are based upon (a) the referred cases of section 4, (b) the19 points experience summary list of the design group in section 4.7.3, (c) theactor group’s understanding of a design cycle (Figure 2-5) and (d) the referredtheoretical accounts with particular focus on phenomenology andneurobiology. The reflections are presented as they took place. Humanperception will be approached from two different positions. Individualperception is referred in sections 6.2 to 6.6, and shared perception is referred insections 6.7 to 6.11.6.2 A dual-aspect design cycleBased upon the theoretical contributions from neurobiology andphenomenology, let us now reconsider the group’s negotiated design-cyclesummary of section 5.1.2. What is the matter with it according to a dual-aspectway of thinking?1234[5]Figure 1-6:A design cycle(1) I perceive through my body a physical draft-model [5]. (2) Aninner representation of the perceived object is formed in my mind.(3) The mental representation is changed into some new (improved)form as inner vision or idea through involving memory and emotions.(4) I intentionally try, by means of my body, to reshape the old draftinto the newly imagined form, and in doing so the mental image andphysical reality are partly changed from what I experience in themaking process. [5] A new draft is now materialised - and the cycle isrepeated.1 See sections 1.3 and 5.1.1.162

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O NThe answer to this question is that it is a one-aspectual depiction. According tochapter 5 findings it contains both the neural and the phenomenal aspects ofperception, but does not account for a differentiation. A closer reflectionreveals that this must be a very common fault most of us make in everydayaction, because we do not recognise the differences. One way of visualisingthis is to redraw the circle with double lines, one representing each aspect.21Phenomenaland neural5Figure 2-6:aspectsAn extendeddesign cycle3 4This circle now depicts the phenomenal experience aspect (whole line) and theneural aspect (dotted line) of a design cycle, describing human perceptionaccording to the design team’s suggestions, and the numbers represent theidentified positions of focused attention of such a cycle. The two aspects aredefined according to Velmans’ and Chalmer’s dual-aspect theory ofinformation 2 . Position [5] is a physical model and of another nature than theother positions. Let us represent it as a square to signify the difference. In thisframing, how can we understand an individual’s ability to perceive wholeness?In Figure 6-5 this connection was depicted as a state of being between subjectand object aspects according to phenomenology. Another way to see theindividual’s affiliation to wholeness according to chapter 5 is to see it as anintegral part of the encompassing world whereby dualism is avoided. And asFigure 2-6 models a human being in the world, the wholeness to which itbelongs can be depicted as an ellipse enframing the model.21Phenomenaland neuralaspects3 45Figure 3-6:A dual-aspectdesign cycleIf we return to Velmans’ definition of the three possible kinds of experienceswe can have based on focused awareness 3 , we find:2 See section 5.5.23 See section 5.5.2.163

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N(a) experiences of the world with location and extension(b) experiences of the body with location and extension(c) ‘inner’ experiences with no clear location and extension in phenomenalspaceIn Figure 3-6 all these kinds of experiences are represented: (a) of the world inposition [5], (b) of the body in positions (1) and (4) and (c) of ‘inner’ kind inpositions (2) and (3). ‘Inner’ experiences signify that my attention isintentionally focused on mental imagery (only observable by me) and we canlabel them subjective. And ‘outer’ experiences with location and extension,where my attention is focused on objects on the body surface and of the worldenvironment, which can be observed by others, can similarly be labelledobjective. These categories are depicted in Figure 4-6.c215b3 4aFigure 4-6: Internal and external awarenessLet us now try to expand on the group’s negotiated design cycle and thereflections upon this in section 5.1.2 from what has been learnt in chapter 5 interms of phenomenal and neural aspects of perception.6.3 Reflection on the design team’s observationsThe design team observed in section 5.1.2 that the positions (1) and (4) “canappear as being both physical and mental” in referring to the experience of howimagery of mind and physicality of body interact in engaged action ofperceiving and making form. If we relate this observation to Merleau-Ponty,we recall him stating that the body has a very special position in engagedaction, because it can be seen as “the subject of the personality”. As the body isobviously part of the physical world, seeing it as subject displays that ourobservation of a dichotomised appearance may have relevance. It seems tosupport that the body has a ‘double agent’ nature which through its senses hassome kind of ‘privileged’ status between subjective mentality and the world theway Merleau-Ponty, Velmans and Böhme describe it. How shall this beunderstood in a design framing?164

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O NIn position (1), through the bodily senses view, smell, hearing, taste andfeeling 4 , I perceive the physical representation [5]. View and touch is naturallyof prime importance here. Touch is on the body surface (finger tips, hands) andcan feel form, structure, material properties, tactility etc. According to theneural aspect, as presented by Churchland, Damasio and Lakoff/Johnson, suchplaying with physical representations forms synaptic structures in the brain.Also observing the model lying on the table in front of me and not on the bodysurface will form brain imprints. The phenomenal aspect of the sameperception is how I react when I perceives the model – the experience I have ofit – and as Velmans emphasises this experience is where the model is (wherethe consciousness is focused, on the table for instance) and not in the brain.We now move to position (2), where a mental image of the sense-basedperception has been formed. This image is based, as the physicalists explain,upon synaptic brain structures which the object [5] in its worldly context hasproduced. But as experience of how the object was perceived was part ofposition (1), some of the phenomenal content of position (1) must also be partof the image (2). In other words; what the group considered to be ‘mental’ isphysical and phenomenal. It has two aspects according to Velmans.The ‘mysterious’ process of changing a conscious representation (2) into someimproved imagery (3) – as reflected in section 5.1.2, where imageries arecompared – must then in the same way contain both the neural synaptic aspectof bodily stored experience and the phenomenal aspect of how evaluation ofstored imagery is experienced. This reflection also follows from Velmans’dual-aspect theory.And likewise it must be in the process of intentionally changing the improvedimagery (3) into some new materialised form [5] by means of the body and itssenses in position (4). Here how the intimate contact between clay and fingertips is experienced when interacting with the imagined form (3) must be ofcentral importance – and deeply integrated with all the neural aspects involved.In phenomenological terms such completion of one cycle could be seen assome temporary relation reached between my intended imagery (3) (intentio)and the materiality I am trying to represent my imagery with, [5]. But the clay Iam trying to form cannot be seen as an objectively given intentium quite yet,because once I start observing and evaluating it from other perspectives than Ifirst had in mind in the forming action, I find several faults which do not fit myimagery – and I start reforming it. Again and again I repeat the same processand in these repetition cycles my imagery is also influenced by what I learnfrom the interaction with the material representation – until I finally approachsome contention or correspondence in a completed iteration. This description isin accordance with the content of the 4.7.3 list.4 The traditional five senses, where Böhme with references to Scheurle (1984) expands feeling through skinwith touch sense, temperature sense, pain sense and sense of balance (Böhme 2002:22).165

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe ‘subjective’ aspect of this scenario seems to closely resemble thedescription of flexible subjectivity relating to the given world in chapter 5, butthe ‘objective’ aspect does not. As the objective physical representation of thisworld-in-the-making scene is continuously being changed, it cannot beconsidered as stable, but must be understood as flexible in a similar way as thesubjective representation. In other words; subjective and objectiverepresentations must be seen as flexibly representing each other in designsequences.As further reflection along these lines readily becomes speculative, I nowchoose to turn to trying to find support for the above description in establishedrelated theory – as a triangulation attempt. Is our suggested design cycle arelevant depiction of design action?6.4 Verification through design theoryIn comparing Figure 1-6 with Gelernter’s mind/world-model 5 , we find that itresembles this model if we split up ‘mind’ into position (2) and (3), and see thebody, (1) and (4) plus physical model [5] as representing the world, whichseems reasonable since the body is physical.Knowing2 1Figure 5-6:mind world (5)3CreatingMind/world modelwith positioneddesign awareness4This is a traditional subject/object depiction, but represents a dualism if onecannot account for mind and world as having some unity. Nevertheless ourmodel represents an expanded version of the same structure because both mindand world is divided into basic entities, whereby the body can be understood asa two-way ‘transmitter’ between a subject’s mind and objective world.Roozenburg and Eeckels (1995) conceptualise a basic product designprocedure as iterations of Analysis, Synthesis, Simulation, Evaluation,(+ Decision). This model, which is based in engineering design, resembles oursif we understand evaluation as (1), analysis as (2), synthesis as (3) andsimulation as (4). If iterations are repetitive as in our case, a decision ispossible to postpone, and is therefore seen as structurally different. The basicpattern is therefore seen as supportive of our suggestion.A much more comprehensive ‘Process of Experiential Learning’ with itsintellectual origin in the works of Dewey, Lewin and Piaget is presented byKolb (1984), who describes it as “a holistic perspective on learning thatcombines experience, perception, cognition and behaviour” 6 . As commented by5 Figure 3-5.6 Kolb (1984) p.21.166

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O NLove (2002) it is still a valid model for design thinking. He takes a structuralapproach to learning and bases it on Piaget (1968,1970), whose ‘Model ofLearning and Cognitive Development’ has four positions: ConcretePhenomenalism, Internalised Reflection, Abstract Constructionism and ActiveEgocentrism. Kolb’s similar four intermediate concepts are termed ConcreteExperience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualisation and ActiveExperimentation. When this model is mirrored and angled 45 degrees, itresembles our model. He further focuses dialectic polarisation of externalisedaction and internalised reflection on an ‘operative’ axis between ActiveExperimentation and Reflective Observation, and a similar external/internalpolarity between apprehension and comprehension on a ‘figurative’ axisbetween Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualisation.ReflectiveObservationintentionConcreteExperienceapprehensioncomprehensionAbstractConceptualisationextensionFigure 6-6:ActiveExperimentationThe ExperientialLearning model(Kolb 1984)All four examples of models are seen to have the same basic structure, and theyare accordingly seen to support our basic suggestion. We have placed in ourmodel the physical representation of an internal image, which is of anotherkind than focused attention, but which can be seen as an external objectcatalysing the process 7 . Based on figure 1-6 with notes, I have suggestedsimplified concepts which are chosen to denote a process with particular focuson making form. It contains both the phenomenal and neural aspects ofperception as integral parts of a reflexive monism regime (Velmans 2002) andis depicted in Figure 7-6.2Consciousrepresentation1SensebasedexperienceConscious +unconsciousprocessingDual-aspectdesign cycle3Improvedimagery4Bodilycreation5 PhysicalrepresentationFigure 7-6:Neural and phenomenalaspects of form making7 See section 5.9.167

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NHow should this model be understood in comparison with Kolb’s model?According to the section 6.2 reflection, this cycle portrays a process ofinteraction between flexible subject and object representations in an act ofconvergence towards a final form. As described this process involves acts ofphysical representation of imagery and learning from sense-based perception ofthe made, which influences internal images as seeds for new attempts.According to what has been learnt from neurobiology this kind of learning inits basic modus is understood as production of pre-verbal and pre-intellectualformal imagery. But is this kind of learning what Kolb portrays?The Experiential Learning model holds that learning interacts with concreteexperience. An externalised affective experience mode is dialecticallycontrasted to an internalised comprehension mode, which refers to analyticconceptualisation and theoretical thought. There seems to be strong relationsbetween these models, the way they both are depicted with four foci ofattention in cyclic patterns (the physical representation is a catalyser). But Kolbdialectically polarises active experimentation with reflective observation andconcrete experience with abstract conceptualisation. This form of separationinitially does not seem to correspond with what chapter 5 has revealed of adesirable reconciliation of polarities through wholeness experiences in formingaction.As designer I know that the experience I have in the act of trying to form anobject to make it resemble some internal imagination is different from theexperience I have when I step back and observe that which I just made. Butthese modes of experience are intimately connected. Can this analogy help inrelating our two models to each other?6.5 Two modes of mind/world interaction in designThe two models have similar basic structures, and as cognitive, analytic andabstraction aspects by all means also belong to a process of designing, anintegration of the models was found to be desirable. How could sensual formmaking and analytic abstraction be integrated in the same framing? Anacceptable way of unifying them was finally found through asking where in aKolbian approach a catalyser which stimulates learning should be placed. Thiswas found to be between Active Experimentation and Concrete Experience.By flipping the model over I found them to be almost mirror images of eachother with the shared physical representation as mirroring device.In further reflection upon such a unification attempt, their differentiation andintegration seemed to portray exactly the understanding I was searching for ifsome missing links were added to the Kolbian model. His approach is modelledfrom a traditional view of psychology which separates subject and object – letus call this urge centrifugal in a cycling context. My analyses indicate thatcentral aspects of design action should be understood as moving in the oppositedirection, namely in centripetal cycles towards a unification. Thereby the168

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O Naspect of dynamics is emphasised in converging conceptual patterns. If we addto this picture the above reflection that phenomenal aspects should be seen asintegrated parts of all phases of perception in addition to neural ones, then aslightly revised understanding of Kolb’s model seems to portray quite nicelywhat I see as the traditional emphasis of design theory: the adaptation of formto contextual world. This side of designing is highly focused in cognitiveaspects of designing. But still this seems to represent only one aspect of formmaking.In the other aspect, which has been the main focus of the research group informative action and reflected in section 6.2, the cognitive aspects were nothighly focused. They were there and participative, but the way consciousnesswas attuned in the engaged act of direct forming of material representationsfrom mental imagery was not understood as centred on analyses. Consciousstates of form making seem to be more related to the scenarios of‘deautomated’ awareness described by Schiller, Ornstein et al. and Böhme inchapter 5. All three authors among other issues assign this state of awareness toaesthetics or perception of gestalts. The aspects which relate to tentativelymade form, however, immediately follow the formative action and are therebyintimately integrated in the same process. This distinction allowed me to definetwo interactive modes of product design action. By a formative mode Iunderstand cycling patterns in a designer’s process of attempting to approachgestalt-oriented correspondence between a flexible object representation(drawing, model etc.) and flexible mental imagery. By an adaptive mode Iunderstand cycling patterns in a designer’s process of attempting to approachcorrespondence between a flexible object representation adapted to a physicalreality and flexible mental imagery. These modes can be depicted with a sharedobject representation which connects them.2Consciousrepresentation1Sensebasedexperience1’ 2’Concrete Reflectiveexperience observationFormativemodePhysicalrepresentationAdaptivemode3Improvedimagery4Bodilycreation4’3’Activeexperimen-AbstractconcepttationualisationFigure 8-6: A dual mode model of interactive design actionThe right side of Figure 8-6 depicts a situation where the adaptive mode of adesign process is seen from the perspective of an individual designer in a169

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nsimilar way as earlier described for the formative mode in section 6.2, but theattention of the designer is here turned towards the world and not towards theown creation process. As an example the physical representation [5] can beperceived from the perspective of use in (1’). The object of reflection in thisprocess, between (2’) and (3’), is how an imagined solution (3), represented ina physical model [5], will adapt to the physical environment in which it issupposed to be used. In this kind of reflection, the designer tries to ‘objectify’her view. She tries to see the (future) solution through the eyes of an externalobserver, the future user. But the interactive aspect of this process implies thatshe also sees such application from the perspective created in her ‘improvedimagery’ (3). In other words the designer here attempts to integrate own viewsand views of other actors. In the same way as in the forming mode, we musthere envision a perception process involving neural and phenomenal aspects ofcomplex nature. The process between (2’) and (3’) will involve severalevaluation and judgement measures where old experiences, rational knowledgededucted from ‘knowledge banks’ of the world, emotional reactions/values/norms and functional aspects will mix. This process will result in someabstracted, improved solution idea suggestion (3’), which will be applied tophysical reality in (4’) – and eventually included in the next forming attempt.In the formative mode body and mind are focused or absorbed in the act ofcreating form. If this is done by an inspired or deeply engaged individual, mind(conscious and unconscious) and body (including limbs and neural system) canbe seen as integrated in the act of perceiving and forming the aesthetical gestaltof the object. If the act is done by a less engaged individual, mind and bodywill be less interactive. In the adaptive mode a related but not equal scenariocan take place. A mathematician or engineer calculating or constructing theproduct in question can also be totally engaged, but in this mode which isattuned towards intellectual analysis, full integration with bodily action is notseen as equally probable. A designer seeing the emerging product from the sideof the user can, however, become deeply engaged in this mode as well – forexample in scenario play.The position that there are two differentiated ways of focusing awareness indesign is supported by Warell (2001:80). With references to Sonesson (1989),Goldman (1990), Vihma (1995) and Monø (1976,1997) he distinguishesbetween a sensuous, non-interpretative mode (experiential appreciation ofform), and a semiotic, interpretative mode (attribution of meaning to form) indesigning, and his work is dedicated only to the latter. 8One reflection which Figure 8-6 brings to our attention is that it seems to be theadaptive mode which Kolb, design theory in general and similar third-personperspectives are modelling. This is not so strange, since it is the objective oftraditional science to approach understanding of external world – also inlearning procedures. The perspective of a subject creating external world has8E.g. Monö (1976:15) distinguishes between the aesthetical and the practical experience of a product.Goldman (1990) distinguishes between aesthetical relations within and outside works.170

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O Nnot been similarly focused in science, and it is therefore an interesting thoughtthat this is a perspective which a developing discipline of making couldcontribute to shared epistemologies, because the subjective perspective and itsgrowth process into some objective reality is a central issue in design.We can observe a structure in the above descriptions where a dynamicalternation between modes or perspectives becomes the central pattern of howconvergence between the two ways of approaching reality is addressed. Howcan the dynamic patterns of this process be portrayed?6.6 The dynamics of design patterns of physical representationAs argued, the awareness of the designer is free to move between internallyoriented processing of imagery, bodily perception and externally orientedthought patterns. In closer observation of such a description one finds that thischanging pattern of awareness from ‘inner’ to ‘outer’ destinations may easilybecome mixed up with understanding of ‘subject’ and ‘object’, and I suspectthis possibility is a substantial source of confusion in this landscape ofcomplexity. In my framing both formative and adaptive modes represent thesubject’s conscious awareness and unconsciousness which relates to objectiveworld through the body in both modes. But in one mode attention is directedtowards sensuous form-aspects ordinarily related to the subject’s personalviews, which are usually called ‘internal’ – and in the other to the subject’srelation to ‘external’ aspects of form application.In approaching a depiction of a harmonisation pattern between a formative andan adaptive mode of design action, let us try to approach Figure 8-6 in a moregeneral way than that which results from the above detailed reflection. In suchan attempt the phenomenal aspect of consciousness will be given priority ofattention as this aspect, which is assigned to how awareness moves, isconsidered to be formative of the dynamics of the process.MentalprocessingInternalorientation32Bodilyperception141’4’Physicalrepresentation2’Externalorientation3’MentalprocessingFigure 9-6: A basic dynamic design pattern171

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NA generalised dynamic alternation structure between the formative andadaptive modes can be drawn as a lemniscate 9 figure representing a flowpattern which alternates between the aspects of internal or external orientation,but where the stream crosses itself when changing from one mode to the other.A closer look at this intersection zone reveals that it represents the scene wherethe physical body interacts with the external world, and a particularlyinteresting interaction point is where the body interacts with the physicalrepresentation. In the formative mode interaction between body and modelinvolves positions (1) and (4). In the adaptive mode there is similar interactionin (1’) and (4’). How should this physical representation, which is the object ofparticular focus of this project and which interacts with mind and body in thisintersection zone, be understood? If the representation is a material model andwe understand it as a ‘concept’, then the desirable flexibility space seems to‘freeze’ to something which is not open for change. Models should, accordingto the suggestions of the 4.7.3 summary list, be made as iterations, and I am sofar only considering one stage. How can we understand one modellingiteration, which is not seen as a concept, but as some flexible physical entitywith the ability to represent what is going on inside a designer when herawareness is turned towards the process of representing imagination?According to what we observed in the cases, a leminscate pattern is only arough draft of what we are searching for. After having had experiences ofexternal orientation, the designer turns the awareness towards ownimagination to try to transform these experiences into an artefact which insome way has an objective of improving the quality of earlier adaptiveexperiences. As described in section 6.2 the transformation processeventually results in a mental image (3) which through the body (4) is soughtexpressed in physical shape, and ‘high frequency’ cycling in this formingmode is the process which should result in some correspondence betweenintended imagery and physical model [5]. In this fight between intention andrepresentation both are continuously changed until sufficient contention ofthis stage is reached. According to the above reflection such a convergencepattern can be seen as a spiral of centripetal movement with continuouslydecreasing amplitudes as contention is approached.Figure 10-6: Dynamic pattern of a formative mode9 The properties of the lemniscate (also called Bernoulli’s lemniscate) were discovered by G. Fagnano in 1750.172

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O NNow the physical representation is sufficiently prepared to serve as an aidingdevice for externally oriented evaluation meaning seen from the perspectiveof the external world, and the designer’s focus is changed into this mode ofawareness. The intentions from the forming mode are still part of thisevaluation, but attention is on all the adaptation criteria which will be takeninto consideration in this mode. These criteria are of multiple nature rangingfrom possible shared values (will the future user share the designer’saesthetical evaluation?), possible shared unconscious or conscious norms ofthe world, cultural impulses, aesthetical evaluations, trends, functionalrequirements, rational requirements (production, material, economy,distribution, sustainability) and much more. The model, which temporarilyrepresents the level which the idea development has reached at this stage,activates and stimulates all these analyses which can be seen as parallelstreams and which invariably will lead to different suggestions ofimprovements between (2’) and (3’). In the present illustration, the individualdesigner is responsible for all these parallel evaluations, but in collaborativedesign they will be represented by different individuals, a problematic whichI will return to. As these streams also will tend to converge towards somecorrespondence between intention and representation, they can be similarlyillustrated as in the formative mode.Figure 11-6: Dynamic pattern of an adaptive modeTaking the individual character of each mode into consideration, and bearingin mind that these are rough principal suggestions with room for variation innumber, frequencies, ‘visits’ to the other side during one main cycling etc,the forming and adaptation modes can now be depicted in one illustration –with the expressed reservation that individual patterns may not be as ‘neat’ asthe depicted one.173

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NBodilyperceptionFormativemodeAdaptivemodePhysicalrepresentationFigure 12-6: A dual-mode interactive design processInternally oriented creation of form, physical representation of form andexternally oriented adaptation of form are thereby all processes which are seento be flexible and changeable by stimulation. The formative and adaptivemodes denote conscious awareness states of the designer. The physicalrepresentation itself is of non-perceptual nature but is placed in the diagrambecause it stimulates both modes of awareness through the bodily senses. Allentities stimulate each other in a developmental pattern where learning fromexternally oriented world applications influences internally orientedrepresentations and their reformulation into renewed physical form. Eachiteration thereby represents a dynamic strive towards correspondence betweensubject and object in both modes according to the principles formulated inchapter 5. Whether such correspondence is reached or not is not seen asimportant, but the force which drives this process forward is – the engagedawareness of the actor. Such a framing of a dual-mode perception structure inmaking may contribute to an understanding of the potential of the physicalrepresentation in such a process – its ability to stimulate or catalyse dynamicperception of the individual ‘maker’. Such stimulation is achieved both withinthe formative and the adaptive modes and between them, and physicality canthereby be seen as a communication vehicle within and between internally andexternally oriented phenomenal awareness and physical world. This physical‘communication vehicle’ could be described metaphorically as a sponge whichextracts the different components of the fluid contents of the flow patterns. Itcan be understood as a collector of flexible personal impressions andexperience represented in externalised form – but also as absorbent of all otherviews and relevant knowledge related to the maturing concept – with an abilityto reveal its content visually to participating actors.In Figure 12-6 the pattern of decreasing amplitudes of the cycles signifies thatthe actor’s formative and adaptive processes centripetally approach someagreement or correspondence, which is eventually expressed in the physicalrepresentation. If they should finally collapse, it would signify that fullcorrespondence between intention and reality is reached – a situation which is174

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O Nrather illusory in real world making – but which nevertheless can be seen as anultimate goal, inspiring action through its possible existence.In this first half of section 6 I have tried to model a dynamic interactivedesign process of an individual designer. In the real world of today theadaptive mode of product designing is usually much too complex for oneindividual to handle on his or her own. Therefore several individuals withdifferently schooled specialities plus individual values and preferences arefrequently chosen to represent different aspects of reality in collaborativeprocedures 10 . Can a group of collaborating design actors be seen to approachdesign problems in a similar way as an individual – and if so, how can such astructure be visualised within the framing which is now established?6.7 Approaching shared experienceAs our empirical cases have shown and as all designers know, there are goodand bad collaborative design processes, and the difference of process qualitycan mean a world of difference to the outcome – in the sense that goodprocesses often result in good products and vice versa 11 . Descartes held thequalitative nature of subjective views to be the reason for rejecting them as abasis for scientific ‘knowledge’, a position which has dominated science forfour hundred years. Contrary to this view and as now demonstrated throughreference to phenomenology and neurobiology, the manifold qualitiesimplicit in immediate subjective experiences need not represent anyhindrance towards acquiring knowledge if such an approach is seen as adynamic process of subject adapting to object. On the contrary it will supporta convergence. In designing where both subject and object must beconsidered to be flexible and where their unification is seen as the centralobjective, the aspect of the quality of the subjective experience inapproaching flexible objective representation thereby becomes a centralissue. How can the quality of an individual design process be seen toinfluence the quality of a shared process?In ordinary product design terminology a concept means some physicalrepresentation of one or more ideas. In the light of the above reasoning andthe definition of section 5.1.1, let us instead hold a concept to mean achanging understanding which can have a physical representation. Aconceptualisation process thereby becomes a process aimed at convergenceof changing understandings and representations towards a final agreementbetween them – physically represented. In such a process ideas, experiencesand phenomena are meant to converge.It seems reasonable that if an experience of some temporary approximationof a phenomenon shall have any chance of maturing an understanding of thephenomenon, then certain claims must be posed to the quality of the10 See section 2.6.11 See scenario example in the last part of section 5.8.4.175

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nexperience. As flexibly modelled experiences in design action can be seen torepresent the phenomenon-in-the-making, good resemblance between themshould be strived for, or else a convergence between them seems to be out ofquestion in the quality-critical application of a design solution 12 . In otherwords; in cyclic design processes aimed at convergence, rich experiences ofimagined phenomena should be intended at least towards the end of theprocess. And rich experiences are in our context stimulated through flexiblephysical representations which can be seen as catalysers of sense-basedperception – or influencing the quality of such perception. Now, whathappens if more than one individual is involved – can such experiences beshared?As adaptive modes of designing are almost invariably exposed in designtheory as third-person perspectives, I have seen it to be important to try tomap the I-perspective first, and to depict introspective understanding beforeapproaching the complexity of the collaborative aspect understood aspossible shared understanding between more than one actor. Anyparticipation by a designer in a design team is phenomenally experiencedfrom the perspective of the individual, the subjective position. Acollaborative design process starts out from a situation where manyindividuals try to face some shared design problem, which is initiallyexperienced by all subjectively. As the objective of a product design team isto agree upon one solution, it should be desirable to find an approach to sucha situation whereby the structure of the process itself could account for allcomplex variations – and simultaneously establish a working pattern with anability to converge initially diverging intentions and views towards somecorrespondence, in terms of its inherent dynamics so to speak.In an attempt to approach an understandable depiction of such a process, letus now envision a collaborative situation between only three (to reducegraphics) individuals with different backgrounds, schooling and values, forinstance one designer, one engineer and one future user. They will all havetheir individual presuppositions and ways of working, and Figure 12-6 isconsidered to be sufficiently flexible to map their individualities – if wedepict three lemniscates instead of one. Let us illustrate the situation inFigure 13-6 by labelling the formative modes of the designer, user andengineer Fd, Fu and Fe respectively (awareness in forming) and the adaptivemodes Ad, Au and Ae respectively (awareness in adaptation). All threefigures depict individual processes, and all processes include a physicalrepresentation which for all individuals is shared in both formative andadaptive modes.Individual representations should be understood as being different becausethey portray the individual understandings. The collaborating actors of thecase projects in chapter 4 were observed to make early individual forming12 See Kavakli and Gero (2001) in section 2.9.176

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O Nattempts, but even if these attempts must be considered as subjectivecontributions initially, each suggested model can be seen as physicallyshared when it is experienced simultaneously by all. Our observations fromthe case projects show that in collaborative praxis the actors very soon startto make shared representations as well – or the initially individual ones weresoon negotiated into shared ones. As the objective of collaboration is to reachshared understanding this observation seems to be quite understandablebecause the physical representation is not only shared in a material sense.Since a collaborative physical model shall represent all actors’ individualimageries, it can be seen as a meeting place for visualised individual views(mentalities) – thereby also potentially representing shared understanding.These two simultaneously represented and shared functions of the modelseem to give it some very special capabilities in collaboration which will beevaluated below. A shared physically represented model portrayingindividual views can be depicted in the crossing point of the three individualprocesses. To harmonise the drawing, the physical model is now illustratedby a coarsely patterned circle instead of a square.FdAeFuAuFePhysicalrepresentationAdFigure 13-6: A basiccollaborative designprocess modelEach actor of this scenario is searching for an understanding of his or herindividual contribution to the formative mode and adaptive moderespectively. But not only are they different personalities, they also representdifferent professional aspects of the design problem they are trying to createa shared physical solution to. The even patterns of Figure 13-6 musttherefore be somewhat distorted, because the designer may have a lot ofsubjective ideas of what the result should look like and he will contributemuch to the forming mode, and probably less to application, whereas theengineer may have a lot to contribute to analysis and application andsomewhat less to forming. The future customer has probably much tocontribute to application and little to forming. Their individual processes willaccordingly have different quantitative and qualitative contents and differentfoci in each mode.177

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NAeFdAuFuFeAdFigure 14-6:Collaborative processmodel with individualpatternsA main objective of bringing them together in a team is to make the most ofeach person’s individual qualifications. But collaborative relations are notnecessarily harmonious. When individuals with diverging values andbackgrounds are brought together for some shared creation, collaborativeconstraints and problematic communication can arise which severely disturbsthe attempts to harmonise the group’s way of working together (Lerdahl2001, Brandt 2002). A situation of cooperation should accordingly betailored to maintain the differences. But to optimise such a process and avoidthe stumbling stones involved in dissimilarities, one should simultaneouslytry to find a way of working together which could illuminate and emphasisethat which has a potential of uniting them in spite of their differences.Figure 14-6 is an attempt of depicting a process like the one which led to thesection 4.7.3 list. It shows a collaborative process between our threeindividual actors trying to agree upon some shared understanding of theirindividual processes. If they are to agree, then not only must each actor try toconverge inner/outer cycling in formative and adaptive modes, but all actorsmust simultaneously try to integrate their individual processes – and therebyall their likes, dislikes and professional views of their particular knowledgefields. When presented in this way, this looks like a very complex process,and content-wise it is so because it really contains all their dissimilarities.But in a life-world understanding of such a situation any experienced designactor knows that in well-functioning design teams such processes can veryoften be easy-flowing, enjoyable and inspiring in spite of (or probably partlybecause of) individual differences of team members. Section 8.8.2exemplifies such a process.The objective of trying to approach some shared understanding orcorrespondence of views in the central part of the process is understandablein Figure 14-6, but what happens between the individual actors in successfulinteraction is not accounted for. Is it possible to characterise a wellfunctioningcollaborative interaction process, and if so, how could suchcharacterisation be understood and illustrated? I will first reflect on such acollaborative situation seen from some different perspectives derived fromthe 4.7.3 list – before returning to an illustration.178

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O N6.8 Shared physicality as catalyser of understandingIn addressing generative effects we have assigned to physicality in anindividual design process, we recall:catalyser of experiences in cyclic formative and adaptive modesouter representation of ‘inner’ imagery of both modes‘communication vehicle’ between the interactive modesrepresentation of growing understanding of diverging perspectives ifflexible enough to represent those perspectivesIn trying to relate these general statements to a collaborative context, wemust focus whether they can be extrapolated from one to many individuals.If individual physical representations can be seen as catalysers of individualunderstanding – can shared physical representations be seen as catalysers ofshared understanding? Early in a design process one subject has limitedunderstanding of the design problem and the understanding he or she has is‘subjective’ and must be made to approach some ‘objective’ reality. But notonly is this individual understanding fuzzy seen from the subject’s aspect, itis also initially invisible seen from the aspect of the other subjects – andtherefore difficult for them to relate to in an attempted interaction. If physicalrepresentation generally can help to catalyse and mature understanding of thedesign problem for one subject, it must follow that the same will be the casefor all the other subjects. Still all the subjects seem only to understand thedesign problem and the other subjects’ understandings from the position ofown mind.The very possibility that all subjective views can be represented perceivablyfor all other subjects in a physical representation seems to imply that all canhave an identical source for achieving understanding. This means that if thecollaborating individuals intentionally choose to perceive the same physicalobject simultaneously in the same context then their experiences must beseen as shared in a physical sense because the physicality and context isshared by all. From these reflections it follows that if this representation canbe prepared to contain and represent all individual understandings‘harmoniously’, then this representation can be seen as an externalisedexpression of shared understanding. Further, this seems to imply that if aphysical representation can catalyse individual understanding, a sharedrepresentation can catalyse shared understanding. The option that physicalitycan represent all individual views externalised and perceivably for allcollaborating actors thereby emphasises the process oriented strength ofphysical modelling as a design tool because it will have an ability to enhanceshared understanding of design problems between individual actors. Such‘conclusions’ follow from logical reasoning, but is it the full story?According to a Kantian notion shared understanding is non-existent; we canonly have our own. Also phenomenology holds that the view which results in179

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nme from a physically catalysed experience is my own, but in the immediateengaged experience I can perceive the wholeness of a contextual relationbetween me and the surrounding world nevertheless. If there is wholenessand I and the other subjects are parts of it – could that also include ourunderstandings? Herein lies the mystery of it all. All theoretical analysis upto this point indicate that in order to acquire some (shared) meaning orunderstanding of that which is in the process of becoming something (something), we must involve (at least) two different ways of approachingexperiences involving physical and mental representation. Even Kantsuggested that in his differentiation between aesthetical and other kinds ofjudgements 13 . How, then, does neurobiology relate to experience ofnewness?The referred physicalists describe synaptic patterns from earlier experiencesas ‘frozen’ and they will vary from individual to individual – also inexperiences of the same physicality. If designing is understood as creation ofunderstanding of new environments, we should thereby distinguish betweenold and new experiences, because old experiences are firmly embodiedwhereas new experiences are not (yet). And if old embodied understanding(conventional thinking) shall be exchanged with new understanding ofimproved reality, then old embodiment must be overcome in some way. Thisis because new understanding is not reached and exchanged with old unlesswe are convinced of the superiority of the new. Damasio and Lakoff/Johnsonhold that frozen synapses can be ‘melted’ again, if new experiencessufficiently contradict those which produced the old ones. But this is hardwork and contradicting ‘evidence’ must be repeated over and over againbefore the physicality of our being gives up what has been earlier laboriouslyacquired. How can ‘frozen’ experiences be ‘melted’?A required integration of diverging individual claims can be approachedfrom two opposed views; ‘harmonisation’ or ‘survival of the fittest’. Thelatter approach is often emphasised in neurobiology as the principle of howsynapses are formed, whereas the harmonisation of fluid attitudes issuggested as a better metaphor for assessment of individual dissimilarities.This is because it is seen as the only possible principle of approaching anunderstanding of the other – meaning integration of properly attunedindividual views through structural coupling in Maturana and Varela’s senseinstead of a fight between them. The difference of approaches can beassigned to individual attitude.Trying to understand one’s own and simultaneously the others’ experiencesof the design problem and the made approximation to a solution of it,requires shared experiences to create a shared foundation for elaboration andcommunication between the actors about their individual reactions to theidentical basis. Verbal language is the usual means for such communication.13 In Critique of Judgement Kant distinguishes between determinate, indeterminate, sensual interest,teleological and aesthetical judgements.180

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O NThe research team’s observation that physicality could be understood as “alanguage without words” 14 , indicates that communication via sharedphysicality, collectively formable by all participators, may be seen as a moredirect form of connection between them than via formulation of wordsdescribing the experiences – at least when awareness is focused on theformal aspect. Damasio and Lakoff/Johnson support this view when they saythat formation of language is a secondary phenomenon compared to theformation of imagery, which directly results from perception of things. Theestablishment of rich experiences first is thereby seen as a condition forestablishment of language communicating such experience, not the other wayaround.In attempting to depict the above reflections on shared experiences, we findthat in the same way as one physical representation catalyses individualformative and adaptive modes, it can be seen to catalyse the same modes inshared processes. Such a shared process resembles an individual process ofFigure 12-6, but is according to these reflections over-layered and integratesthe individual ones. A well-functioning collaborative process involvingappropriate flexibility of mentality is thereby seen to converge, in bothformative and adaptive modes, towards some shared correspondencebetween the involved actors in the same way as an individual process.Repeated attempts of integration of views, all catalysed by shared physicalrepresentations, will in this view eventually result in an agreed-upon resultwhere all individual views are represented in negotiated form.Flexible sharedphysical representationdesigneruserConvergingsharedexperienceengineerFigure 15-6: A shared design process with shared representationIf understood mechanically simply as a number of individual convergingprocesses alongside each other, a dynamic and interactive structure of thesepatterns will hardly be illuminated. As indicated above, one aspect of designaction means imagining and exploring new realities, representing these andexperimenting with representations and emerging new imagery. Thisinvolves breaking loose from old conceptual patterns and intentionally14 From the 4.7.3 list.181

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nforming new ‘creative’ kinds of relations with other people and things. Thesesorts of scenarios will involve intentional focusing of phenomenal awarenessaway from that which is embodied and automated in our behaviour. In theempirical cases the staging of shared playgrounds was observed to stimulatecreative solutions 15 . Can this observation give some further access to theinvolved patterns?6.9 Physicality as catalyser of deautomatisationIf we return to Schiller’s theory in section 5.8.1, we find that he holdsaesthetics and play to be of the same nature. His presentation of the humanmind may not agree in all respects with modern neurobiology, but the way hedescribes play as situated between mind and bodily senses with an ability tounite them in aesthetical work still seems to be in accordance with the teamexperiences and updated theory; “only play makes the human being completeand lets it enfold its double nature” 16 . A playing sculptor, he says, can changea lifeless block of marble into living form. In his framing that which happensbetween matter and mind, between world and imagination, has an ability toreconcile polar aspects towards correspondence if it happens in a state ofenjoyment.Schiller is the first to suggest bringing the field of aesthetics into such abetween-world of play. This is what Ornstein and colleagues in section 5.7are doing as well, from other perspectives. Based in studies of physiologyand psychology, Levy-Agresi and Sperry (1968) assign parts of the brain togestalt perception and synthesis, for instance concerned with artisticendeavour and craft. Ornstein (1973, 1983, 1986) addresses intuition seen as“knowledge without recourse to inference” centred around cultivation ofnonlinear immediate understanding (complementing inferential, orderedthought) and assigns this to mentalities focused on two kinds of body actions,“illogical by intent”: those which are referred to movement in dance, music,rites, acts, sports and creative spatial visualisation, and those which arereferred to withdrawal in meditation and contemplation. Ornstein andDeikman (1973) suggest many approaches to how such deautomatisationfrom ‘ordinary awareness’ can be achieved to reconcile body and mind.In his approach to atmospheres, Böhme (2002) expands on such scenarios.I and thing are integrated aspects of perception of threatening, stressed, aloft,melancholy, hot or friendly atmospheres, but these poles can be separatelyidentified in production of such atmospheres – as in design. The atmosphereis thereby neither a condition of the subject nor a property of the object, butsomething between, and it can only be experienced by a subject and createdthrough the subjectivity of a perceiving individual plus object physicality. Anessence of this view is related to aesthetics when he turns the traditionalunderstanding of aesthetics as appearance or apparition (Erscheinung)15 Pt. 14 of the 4.7.3 list.16 Schiller (1759/1991) p. 68.182

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O Nupside-down and assigns actual being or immediate, distinguishable presenceto it instead.Whether or not these positions have been inspired by Merleau-Ponty is hardto tell, but their approaches all support the existence of a pre-subjective andpre-objective between-world – as experienced in play. For play to take placewe do not necessarily need toys, but all human experience indicates thatthrough employment of material toys imagination is activated and stimulated.With basis in the above theories, which relate to immediate dynamicinteraction between world physicality and mind, it seems to be a small stepforward to suggest that physicality involved in playful deautomatisationscenarios can be seen as a catalyser of play. In other words; temporaryphysical representations could be seen as toys in design action ifconsciousness is attuned to having fun. And as play and aesthetics accordingto the referred positions are intimately related, such a mix seems to have aninteresting potential as to how creative designing could be understood.If an understanding of human abilities of perceiving atmosphere wholenessbefore analysis and of uniting perception of gestalts and play in betweenworldscenarios is related to an individual interactive design process, we canalso include them in earlier illustrations. Such abilities seem to apply well toa formative, aesthetically oriented mode of design action, where states ofdeautomated awareness could be depicted between bodily and mentalprocessing (between 1/4/5 and 2/3 in Figure 7-6). Aesthetics is not restrictedto the making of form, but naturally includes application of form toenvironment as well, and must therefore be similarly assigned to this mode.As observed in our empirical cases, consciousness can be attuned toplayground staging – which according to the above reflections can involveengaged enjoyment both in the act of forming and in the (integrated) act ofadapting aesthetically oriented mentality – and these aspects can now beincluded in Figure 12-6.Bodilyperception”Toy”physicalityFormativemodeAdaptivemodePlay andaestheticsFigure 16-6:Individual processwith between-worldscenario of play183

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NToys, as we all know, have an ability to catalyse imagination not only in anindividual’s play, but probably to an even higher degree in shared play,where personal contributions to experiences shared by many are importantaspects (Kibsgaard & Wostryck et al. 1999). Based on the above reflectionsit is suggested that shared play could be seen as a relevant metaphor for awell functioning collaborative design scenario. A scenario seen as a stagewhere what happens between the actors in Merleau-Ponty’s sense has highrelevance because it is important that all actors share an engaged anddeautomated awareness of the plot (the whole) and their particular role andcontribution to it – regardless of individual differences, or rather to includedifferences as integrated parts of the whole. Shared (physical) toys could insuch a framing help the actors catalyse their engaged participation andcontribution – and eventually their intellectually verbalised understanding.In early phases of the student projects reported in section 4, where theobjective was to identify creative approaches to mouth hygiene, scenarioplayincluding very abstracted physical representations, in accordance withLerdahl (2001), Ehn (1988) and Brandt (2002) and organised by Lerdahl,was extensively used. But according to the negotiated observations list in4.7.3, there seems to be no need to isolate an understanding of suchrepresentations as toys to early stages, if physicality can be efficientlyproduced in later and more concrete phases – which can involve aestheticalaspects of initially deautomated but eventually increasingly automatedawareness, as perceptual learning increases. These observations indicate thatideas, which can emerge through deautomatisation of individuals andbetween individuals, and be represented in shared objects can be played within many phases and stagings of developmental action.As according to Merleau-Ponty and Böhme experiences of gestalt,atmospheres and between-world scenarios can also be shared, the additionsto an individual process of Figure 16-6 can now be added to a collaborativeprocess, Figure 15-6. A resulting depiction, Figure 17-6, then illustrates howboth individual and shared cyclic patterns oscillating between imaginationand material representation in initially deautomated but gradually moreautomated (to approach idea grounding) cyclic patterns can be made toapproach some correspondence. We have thereby reached a total scenariowhich tries to depict how three dissimilar subjects participating in acollaborative design process can see both their individual experiences andshared experiences converging towards some shared or negotiatedunderstanding through catalysation by shared physicality. The condition forsuch a depiction is that the (idealised toy) catalyser has an ability to absorband represent physically what the subjects experience individually andbetween themselves in this dynamic process. And such representation, as weknow from playing, can contain imaginative mentality and materiality in anengaging mix.184

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O NFlexible shared physicalrepresentation (toy)designerConvergingsharedexperienceuserengineerSharedplayfulatmosphereFigure 17-6: Collaborative process with engaging between-world scenarioThis process does not relate to real world stumbling stones, difficulties or‘solution leaps’, but is seen to have value as an idealised pattern ofcollaborative design based upon the described understanding of humanfaculties. As such, we can picture the shared physical representation as asponge, which is able to absorb the fluidness of individual and sharedexperiences. With all experiences absorbed and chemically harmonised(given some chemical luck), it could eventually be ‘frozen’ into a finalisedcomposition. This metaphorical depiction hardly functions in everydayreality, and we must try to find realistic approximations to it, but once anideal exists, a direction is established for the practical search. One suchapproximation which was identified in the 4.7.3 list is to approachunderstanding stepwise and choose physicality suitable for each step. I willreturn to an analysis of different sorts of suitable physical representations,but presently let us face the identified basic principle of iteration.6.10 Iteration of catalysed stagesAs argued, old experiences are hard to overcome and experiences of the newmust be repeated and be approached from many new angles (included testingof upcoming alternatives) in order to convince us of their superiority.Therefore, as observed in our case studies and analysed theoretically, realworld convergence can be approached through iterations.In an attempt to visualise what happened in two of the empirical cases, a‘soft quantification’ regime of qualitative evaluation was established in theBalance Sledge and the Mouth Hygiene projects of chapter 4. With no claimof any exactness, other than a principal depiction of developmental qualitylevel plotted against iterative attempt, the following variables were graded:(1) moulding technology, (2) production technology, (3) aesthetics, (4) userfunctionality and (5) originality. The grading of these variables werenegotiated between all actors and given a final score between 1 and 10 – and185

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nthe average value of all variables for each iteration is depicted in Figure 18-6for two of the reported cases. Documentation is enclosed in appendix A8.LevelClick brushIteration no.ElectrobrushIteration no.Figure 18-6: Graphical display of negotiated votes of quality level ofeach of four iterations for two of the case projects of section 4.6.2.To illustrate the resulting growth, a spline curve is drawn through thequantified gradings. Although they are rough approximations, these curvesdepict general quality growth patterns of each project. If such illustrations aremade of all attempted representations in real world development projects,including all upcoming ideas and alternative solutions, they will eventuallyform a visualised and easily understandable history of the development.Breakdowns and experiences of failed alternatives, which were particularlymentioned in the 4.7.3 list as potential ‘opportunity revealers’, will show upalongside successful attempts. Included in such an illustration will be‘innovative leaps’ if they occur.Each iteration will have a principal structure in accordance with Figure 17-6,where number of ‘leaves’ on each side represent number of actorsparticipating in its forming and adaptation. It may be one or many. The‘flexible’ physical model represents the level the collaborative efforts havereached at each stage and all participators contribute to its content. But sincereal world physical modelling hardly is as ‘spongy’ as desirable and sinceeach subject finds him/her-self in a ‘turmoil’ of seemingly contradictingexperiences of emotional, rational, neurally stored, newly acquired andculturally influenced character (conscious and unconscious in a bewilderingmix), which all have to be harmonised with all other actors, it seemsreasonable to allow perspectives and integration of them to mature beforeagreements can be reached. Temporarily formed states of physicality (asflexible as practically possible) help each individual to understand throughsense-based perception of that which is emerging – as a ‘language withoutwords’. Through forming attempts, analysis, evaluation and adaptation,discussions and contemplation each iteration is finally agreed upon andproduced – as the material catalyser of the next similar iteration, and the next186

C H A P T E R 6 : P H Y S I C A L I T Y A S C A T A L Y S E R O F D Y N A M I C H U M A N P E R C E P T I O Nand the next – until final agreement or practically obtainable correspondencebetween individual and shared experiences of the phenomenon and thephenomenon itself (which has emerged through its own modelling) isreached. Such correspondence or negotiated agreement can be depicted as aflower with fruit (the materialised concept) containing seeds for nextgeneration. Thereby we have created a way of illustrating developmentalcharacteristics of each individual design project, its trial-and-error-basedmetaphorical conceptual iteration plant.Figure 19-6:A conceptualiteration plantThis depiction, then, summarises the illustrative analyses up to this point of adesign process based upon the referred understanding of human perception.It is derived primarily through what has been learnt from a number of casestudies and an attempted integration with phenomenology, neurobiology anddesign theory – with some contributions from other fields. According to themethodological objectives of section 3, these patterns must be considered astheoretical suggestions resulting from interpretations of this researcher.How should such an iterative conceptualisation process be understood ingeneral terms?6.11 The process more than the productTo see the emerging physical representation simply as the developingconcept, which is very common in design contexts, may represent an ungenerativeunderstanding of a concept. If it is instead understood as acatalyser of human perception, then the perceptual interaction processbetween imagination and reality becomes the important issue and not therepresentation as such – which in no way reduces its relevance. On thecontrary, in such a framing the physical representation is seen as an elementwith unique capabilities for enhancement of human engagement – as aprecondition for phenomenal experience. From such a perspective theprocess and the way it is catalysed or nourished can become the clue to187

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nsuccessful development. By catalysing the development process, flexiblephysical representations may stimulate generative cyclic interaction betweenindividual imagination and the world and between individuals. But as thecyclic interactive process converges towards some correspondence betweenexperiences and phenomenon, the representation iteratively changesappearance until it finally ends up as a physical expression of our satisfiedimagination. However, this conceptual agreement can be understood as onlytemporarily finished since it can similarly catalyse a later process leading tothe next generation.The analyses and suggested understandings of this chapter should be seen asan idealised theoretical/graphical approach to a physically catalysed designprocess. How can this framework be applied to real world design processes?188

Ch7:PHYSICALLY CATALYSED COLLABORATIVECONCEPTUALISATION_______________________________________________________In this chapter the suggested theoretical understanding and modelsare related to the practical question of how materiality is used forperceptual support of design action in diverse design-related fieldbasedapproaches. Large differences in employment of physicalconcept modelling are found. To embrace all the fields and integratevalue-laden and rational thought-patterns, a strategy of chopping upand mixing abstract and concrete approaches throughout issuggested – to elicit perceptual experiences of theoreticalpossibilities for making. Practical strategies integrating diversity andspecificity through playful experimentation with alternatives areproposed.189

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N7.1 Flexibility of mentality and materiality.How, then, can a ‘flexible sponge’ metaphor be changed into somethinguseful in a context of collaborative design? The sponge, according tochapters 5 and 6 reflections, is supposed to represent flexible mentalitiesflexibly through its materiality in different representation techniques.Required flexibility of mentality must relate to both professional andindividual sides of a person’s mind. But as the former is easier to characterisethan the latter, I have chosen to present some selected descriptions ofdiverging approaches to product development in contexts of different fieldsfrequently represented in design projects.In the following outline we are basically searching for an understanding ofhow physicality is used and related to mentality in conceptualisation patternsof different fields and professional approaches which are supposed to interactclosely in collaborative design.7.2 Creative approaches to designAccording to section 2.7 reviews, theoretical approaches to creativity arehighly diversified and generally very difficult to relate to a topic of physicalrepresentation. Lerdahl (2001:101) suggests a more general model for avision-based approach to creative design divided into four levels rangingfrom the abstracted to the concrete. At the abstracted spiritual level, thedesign intention is represented through business philosophy, myths, andvalues which are attempted to be communicated through the product concept.At the contextual level an (immaterial) concept expression is related to thesocial environment it is intended for. At the principal level the elements ofthe concept are focused through their function and form. At the material levelone approaches real life conditions, constructional features, details andchoice of production procedures.Figure 1-7: A visionbasedapproach todesign (Lerdahl 2001)190

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O NPhysical representation, which is suggested for catalysation purposesparticularly on the medium two levels of this regime, should not tie upimagination, but on the contrary stimulate and enhance all kinds of fantasies,possible ways of doing things, alternative structures, basic principles, ‘wild’ideas and unorthodoxy in ways of thought. Another factor of high importancehere is doing things ‘on the spur of the moment’ – when ideas pop up theyshould be represented immediately and while they are in the mind, so tospeak, before they disappear into new ideas. First on the lower part of theprincipal concept level, things gradually ‘materialise’ and eventually findtheir final solution on the material level. The development process resultingfrom this approach is non-linearly and unpredictably passing up and downthrough the diagram, eventually producing alternative, concrete solutionswhich can be physically modelled with increasing consistency on the lowestlevel.7.3 Aesthetical approaches to designThe term aesthetics comes from the Greek word aisthetes, one who perceives.Monø (1997:27) defines design aesthetics as ”the study of the effect ofproduct gestalt on human sensations”. This includes all the senses, not onlysight, and he contrasts aesthetical knowledge obtained through the senses toknowledge obtained through the mind. Theorisation of aesthetics is acomplex matter – which has resulted in differentiated theories describingdiverging aspects of the field. Appreciation of aesthetical values of visualform is part of the field of perception psychology, but I have chosen todisplay theory illuminating its three-dimensional modelling aspect, which hasa long tradition of being understood as ‘intuitive’.One of the influential pioneers who has approached aesthetics and modellingtheoretically is Rowena Reed Kostellow, professor at Pratt Institute, NewYork for fifty years. She did not write books, but her biographer Hannah(2002) describes how she insisted that an understanding of abstract visualform was at the heart of good design. She developed a methodology whichwas called the structure of visual relationships aimed at abstract analysis ofvisual complexity. Her students were discouraged from working in twodimensions and instead advised to start out from “3-D sketching” meaningphysical representations (clay, cardboard, plaster, wire etc) of formalstructures emphasising volume, space, depth and all-aroundness. From quick,spontaneous sketches a step-by-step procedure was formed whereby manyvariants of visual expression themes emerged and gradually, through manyconsecutive models, ended up as a final ‘visual statement’.Make as many sketches of the abstract relations as you can. Theabstract relations express the relation of the parts to the whole apartfrom any material embodiment. They reflect the direct visualexperience of the thing, how forms and spaces and movements191

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N‘speak’ to one another. Let your sketches be uninhibited. Lateryou’ll put the saddle on them. The sketches are the most fun. That’swhen you can be creative and adventurous as you like. I believe insmall sketches. If they’re small, you make more of them, and youdon’t get stuck too soon. Having ten ideas is like having tenchildren. You’re not likely to spoil one to death. So let your ideasflow. Let them come out. But let them come out threedimensionally.Stand back and react to what you’ve done. Alwaysreact to your design sketches first. You can analyse them later. 1Proportion sketches are aimed at mapping proportions and balance of design,and space sketches are made to explore grouping of forms and the awarenessof ‘negative form’. The analytic approach is based upon a number ofelements: rectilinear volume, curvilinear volume, recti- and curvilinearvolumes, fragments, planar construction and lines in space. These elementsare analysed in their relationship to each other. Volumes must be divided intodominant, subdominant and subordinate forms. Dominant is large anddramatic in character, subdominant adds to the character of the dominant bycontrast and position, and subordinate forms complete unity of the design bysensitive contrasting and diverging axes. Proportions are inherent (length towidth to thickness), comparative (one form in relation to another) and overall(the character configuration of a group of forms). An axis refers to animaginary line through the centre of a volume’s longest dimension, indicatesthe form’s strongest movement and orients the volume in space. To composevisual expression means to balance a lot of factors relative to each other andthe design must always be conceived from all positions. Elemental factors arefor example: the joining of volumes (through piercing, edging and cradling),contrasting and complementing of dominant and subdominant forms, creationof unity from essentially opposed forms, structural joining of forms,balancing of directional forces. “The design should look interesting andthree-dimensional from every position. It should achieve an effect of unity inwhich every part relates to every other part, and every design relationshipcontributes to the whole “ 2 .Such basic structures are now assembled and integrated into advanced studiesin form, which consist of construction, convexity and concavityconfigurations and studies in space, where main elements are space analysisand space design. Construction, for example, is approached throughabstraction of concrete solutions, whereby the abstraction is ‘pulled out’,explored and the emotional content is captured in 3D sketches. These arethen developed as parallel concepts through organisation of contrastingforms, grouping of forms, balancing of directional forces and tensional forcesin space – and one is finally chosen as the best alternative. Convexity is “theexpression of positive volume pushing into negative space”, whereasconcavity is “the expression of negative space pushing into positive1 Hannah (2002) p.46.2 Ibid. p.56.192

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O Nvolume” 3 . Organic patterns are often the source of inspiration, for instanceerosion for convexity, but these are gradually changed into visual expressionsin accordance with the total framework of balancing relationships.Reed Kostellow grounds her approach on the philosophy that basic aestheticrelationships are behind all art, industrial design and architecture. Severalworld famous designers have participated in her classes and used herapproach to aesthetics in their professional careers.Figure 2-7: Physical model examples of form relationships (Hannah 2002)Akner-Koler (1994) has expanded on Reed Kostellow’s basic action patterninto a pedagogic framework for “three-dimensional visual analysis”. It buildson the same way of approaching visual relations, but is more systematic andcovers a wider diversity of formal structures. Both authors base theirframeworks on manual modelling in different flexible materials like clay,plaster, cardboard, foam, wood and wire. Forming is mostly done throughcarving with light hand tools (files, grinders, sandpaper etc.), application ofplastic materials directly by hand or with appropriate light tools. Theirapproaches to aesthetical design are based upon the principle of directfeedback from the material and interaction between material and designerthrough the senses in the making mode. This concerns all phases of a designprocedure; early, medium and late.An important field within design aesthetics, related to hermeneutics, is gestaltperception, which originates from German/Austrian ‘gestalt psychology’ oflate 19 th century. Monø (1997:33) defines gestalt as “an arrangement of partswhich appears and functions as a whole that is more than the sum of itsparts”. He explains how form, colour and material structure is notexperienced as isolated factors, but work together and influence each other;“the colour changes the form and vice versa”. Gestalt is not limited to form,but includes the experience of wholeness of perception, e.g. form, shape,configuration, pattern or ‘organizational essence’ as description of meaning(McKim 1980). This human ability is basic in aesthetical appreciation ofform and establishment of simplicity and order in making. Baxter (1995)explains how a first encounter with an object, which he calls pre-attentiveglobal processing, involves an over-all judgement of attractiveness, and howthis is later followed up by an attentive mode where details are focused.3 Ibid. p.106.193

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NSeveral authors have described gestalt perception in relations of aestheticalevaluation. Warell (2001:61) summarises the following relations from Tjalve(1979), Kløcker (1980), McKim (1980), Uttal (1988), Bruce and Green(1990), Baxter (1995) and Monø (1997): the proximity factor (closeness/clearness), the similarity factor (principle of common properties), the rule ofgood continuation (grouping of objects in uniform curves), the symmetryfactor (symmetry in distorted objects), the geometric rule (easy detection ofsimple forms compared to complex forms), the relative size rule (smallrelation to other figure supports own identity), the rule of surrounded-ness(easy perception of one figure surrounded by another), the rule of orientation(easy perception of figures at distance from vertical or horizontal plane), therule of figure and ground (distinction between a part of image as figure andrest as background), the inclusion factor (lines enclosing area seen as awhole), the factor of common movement (elements with similar movementseen as gestalt), the experience factor (perception of gestalts based onprevious experiences), and finally the phenomenon of rhythm (visual effectscreated by combination of many gestalt rules).7.4 Semiotic approaches to designA product sends messages to potential and actual users, which are formulatedin a ‘language’ consisting of signs that we can see, hear or feel. These signscontaining forms, colours, sounds etc. are the subjects of semiotics, which is“the study of sign and sign systems and their structure, properties and role insocio-cultural behaviour” (Monø 1997:58). Product semiotics placesmeaning into what we perceive, and this field is based upon the subfields ofsemantics, which is the study of the sign’s message (the meaning of thesign), syntax, which is the study of the sign’s relation to other signs and theway it interacts in compilations of signs and pragmatics, which is the studyof the sign’s use in different cultures and contexts.Vihma (1995:23-24) builds on Bense (1971) and divides a product into fourdimensions. Its hylectic dimension includes the analysis of a product’smaterial qualities. The syntactic dimension includes technical constructionand functioning of the product such as the relations between technicalcomponents, but not yet its form. The semantic dimension is the dimensionof the product’s form, which communicates understanding of the product’suse to the user. Finally the pragmatic dimension embraces the otherdimensions and concerns the use aspects of the product and includes itsmeaning and intentionality. The semantic dimension of a product is seen asimportant in design because it has to do with development of a distinctproduct message on the producer side and an ‘attractiveness’ on the userside, which includes aspects like self-evidency, cultural meaning andcharacter – all being aspects of subjective or inter-subjective nature. Not onlyfunctions and properties of use are important product characteristics, but alsoadded values, which do not have to do with its functions, but are nevertheless194

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O Nseen as important. Based upon an original division by Peirce (1931/66) of thesign into three interrelated aspects, Vihma describes these theoreticalcategorical concepts as central in all semiotic relations; the representamen(R) or sign vehicle which is the appearance made possible through materialsand technology, the object (O) or sign meaning which signifies culturalphenomena, categories and principles and the interpretant (I) or sign in themind representing the effect of the sign (its significance for individuals)when the sign carrier is connected to something. 4 A material thing can carrysigns of certain significations, which are not only cultural, but also resultingfrom materiality per se – the way it can be produced and exists as reality.Materiality has its own way of being exposed; it has its own object. Theproduct’s object is seen as that which the form represents, its content asexperienced through our senses, and thereby it includes the product’s abilityto communicate cultural meaning. When a sign carrier (or appearance form)and an object (or that which it represents) together cause an effect inindividuals or groups, then this result is termed the interpretant. Thislandscape is called product semiotics.ROIFigure 3-7: The Peirciantriadic sign structureThere is, however, a basic difference in approaching an existing productwhich is used and known in an existing context – and approaching the act ofdesigning new interpretants through new objects resulting in new signcarriers. Therefore we must distinguish product semiotics from designsemiotics, which is the field of making new realities based upon semioticanalysis.Søndergaard (2000) describes how, in this procedure, the appearance form isunknown, and the designer’s task is to define what shall be represented(object) and its effects and moods (interpretants), and eventually representthese into material sign carriers. This means that the designer(s) mustimagine what an object shall be and what its effect may become in a futureexperience if theoretical objectives are included – and strive towardsmaterialisation of sign carriers which can produce such effects in otherindividuals. The way these imaginations shall be represented is throughabstractions, for instance words. Each of the categories can be seen asindividual semiotic systems. The interpretant system can be defined throughconcepts describing its nature, e.g. glad, sad, serious, funny etc – notvisualising form. The object system can also be defined through words assign carriers for the objects, e.g. sports, luxury, practical, hygienic etc, ascarriers of cultural principles (Mc Cracken 1990). The sign carrier as4 Ibid. p. 64-73.195

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nsemiotic system involves a material exposure of concrete, visual materials,formed constructions and assemblies as defined by technology, but also thewords describing the concepts. Søndergaard shows how e.g. the product’sinterpretant must be understood as spanning over more categories andrevealing itself both as primary interpretant (of the whole) and as interpretantfor the object- and sign carrier-categories. Thereby other planes representingthe same functions emerge; effect-plane (interpretant), content-plane (object)and expression-plane (sign carrier). He represents the whole structure in amatrix where the product is seen as resulting from analyses starting in theupper left corner, moving back and forth, but proceeding gradually throughthe diagram and ending in the lower right corner in a product expression. Inother words; through diversified abstractions which finally end up in thematerial, concrete.7.5 Ergonomic approaches to designErgonomics or Human Factors is a cross-disciplinary field, usually seen toinvolve psychology, anthroponomy, technology and sociology – with highrelevance to design. Sanders and McCormic (1993) use this definition:“Human Factors discovers and applies information about human behaviour,abilities, limitations, and other characteristics to the design tools, machines,systems, tasks, jobs, and environments for productive, safe, comfortable, andeffective human use”. The design process of products with high usabilityinvolves studies of function, safety, use properties, appearance and costs. Incompetition situations, when the buyer has a choice of alternatives withrelevant technical specifications, the experience of quality relating to userfriendliness and appearance is usually decisive. Vavik and Øritsland (1999)present man-machine systems as hierarchically structured with humancontrol on lower levels and the machine supplying power, information andcontrol on higher levels. Signals from the machine are first interpreted by thehuman and decided upon. Then messages are sent back to the machine viacontrols. Such procedures are handled on the premises of the machine. InUser Centred Design this order is attempted reversed, and the systems arepreferably tailored to human preconditions. Here usability is not restricted tothe user interface and is associated with learnability, efficiency,memorability, errors and satisfaction (Nielsen 1993). Redmond-Pyle andMoore (1995) describe how, in user centred design, the designer must indetail relate to the end user. An active participation of the user is advised inevery activity in the analysis- and design process, and the designer and enduser “must together evaluate the usability of the propositions as early aspossible, and modify the design (many times) according to the feedback” 5 .In this regime ergonomics is involved in all phases of the productdevelopment process and must be considered from the very beginning, notthe least because the costs of discovering usability problems raiseexponentially late in the process.5 Vavik and Øritsland (1999) p.34.196

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O NThe most basic procedure in user involvement is testing of the productproposals in their right context, but any test evaluation should beaccompanied by instructions, check-lists, interviews and data collectionfocusing technological properties, functional properties, safety properties,environmental properties, usability properties or aesthetical propertiesrespectively. Rubin (1994) divides testing into four different categoriesassigned to different phases: informal exploratory tests are used to map userneeds and conceptual models, comparison tests are used to compare specificfunctions and properties in dislike proposals or competing products,assessment tests are usability tests of representative parts of the product’sfunctionality and validation tests are used towards the end of the project tocompare the product with standards and specifications for control of whetherobjectives are achieved. Test criteria are understanding, handling andoperation – exemplified through visibility, readability and understanding oftext and symbols, relations between form and function, logics and groupingsof operational organs, feedback of activation and function, feedback ofcondition, operational instruction, preparation before use, positioning and useof operational organs, handling of openings and doors, execution ofoperations and accessibility. Roozenburg and Eeckels (1995) distinguishbetween material (physical) and symbolic models. Modelling for ergonomicevaluation can be performed with drawings and paper prototypes, 3D models(scaled or full size), sketch- and functional models from easily formablefoam/balsa/wood etc, mock-ups (preferably full scale), technicalfunctionality models (can be combined with use functionality), visualappearance models, presentation models and prototypes. CAD-based 3Dvirtual reality- and simulation programs are also increasingly beingemployed.An aspect of ergonomics is the differentiation of users, e.g. into primary,secondary or unwanted categories. Users are individuals and can have specialneeds, for example children, elderly and disabled. Methods forcharacterisation of users are for instance according to product life cycle,interest analysis, user profile and user character (e.g. Kirwan and Ainsworth1992). Another field with special relevance to physical modelling isanthropometry, which is based upon functional anatomy and operationalunderstanding of the human senses (Croney 1980, Benum, Rokne, Bolstad1992). Design of tools and operation organs is e.g. based upon understandingof the hand as a gripping tool and sense organ. Power grips (as holding ahammer) and precision grips (as holding a pen) are characterised byactivation of different muscle groups and finger positions. The hand has forinstance a functional initial position for operational optimum of strength andprecision (Wikstrøm, Bystrøm, Dahlman 1991). 66 The above descriptions and references are collected from Vavik and Øritsland (1999)197

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NFigure 4-7:Basic grips,(From Vavik andØritsland, 1999)7.6 Technical/functional approaches to designIn Scandinavia the so-called WDK-school 7 has, during the past two decades,grown into a widely applied approach to product development. This platformis based upon the theory of technical systems and theory of properties(Hubka and Eder 1988), the theories of systems and domains (Andreasen1995) and the theory of form design and model of product synthesis (Tjalve1979), and lately the framework of design syntactics (Warell 2001) into anencompassing theoretical landscape covering comprehensive aspects ofengineering and industrial design. A system in this framework “is separatedfrom the surroundings by a borderline, and has a structure consisting ofelements and their relations” 8 . Properties assigned to a system can be definedas structure (product as a whole), form, material, dimension and surface. 9The central elements relating particularly to immaterial and physicalrepresentation are found in the four domains structure (Andreasen 1980): theprocess domain (transformation which takes place), the function domain(effects to be created), the organ domain (function carriers to create effects)and the component or construction domain (how organs are realised) – eachsystem having two degrees of liberty from abstract to concrete and simple tocomplex.Figure 5-7: Thegradual growth of aconcept through fourdomains (AfterAndreasen 1995)7 The WDK school (Workshop Design Konstruktion) is a society for the science of engineering design.8 Andreasen (1980)9 Tjalve (1979).198

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O NThe idea behind this structure is that a product can be completely defined interms of the process it is performing. Or it can be completely defined interms of its functionality, or its organs, or its components and their propertiesplus the constructive structure of the components. The domain structure ishierarchical, going from abstract to concrete. The purpose of a product is its(abstracted) function, which is performed by means, meaning concretesolutions (Hubka 1988). If abstracted, openness to possibilities of means issupposed and communicated on this level, and designing becomes the task offinding practical means to fulfil functions. Organs are non-physical ‘activeunits’ producing functions (Andreasen 1995). Tjalve (1979) defined‘functional surfaces’, which are the isolated active surfaces of a designconcept without supportive material, can be seen as organs of the solution. Inthe component domain the concept is finally materialised as finished parts orconstruction elements in a real product. In a theory of form design, Tjalvefurther suggests systematic methods for design of form, structural variationand form variation based upon application of material to the functionalsurfaces. These frameworks are much used within both engineering andindustrial design.In this structure all the higher domains can be seen as theoretical models ofthe part or component domain which comprises the materiality of theproduct. This means that the design problems and constraints are assigned toan appropriate level of abstraction, and approached there, preferablytheoretically, as models. When the problem is solved on one level, it can beassigned to a lower level – striving towards an ever increasing degree ofspecificity. Kjellberg (1995:106) lists different purposes for modelling:creation, design, detailing, learning, teaching, explanation, presentation,visualisation, communication, prediction, verification, analysis andsimulation. And also types of models: mental (thoughts), physical, scale,arrangement, clay, mock-ups, mathematical, logical, geometrical, structural,topological, behavioural, heuristic, descriptive and prescriptive. In all thesekinds of models many technical structures are important issues – likeprincipal support structures, assembly regime, material/process choice,strength, parts/process integrations, maintenance functionality, internalstructure, mouldability, tooling structure, solution economics etc. In generalterms the engineer can be said to structure the process from inside andoutwards towards environment and s/he will need many forms ofrepresentations to approach convergence of specifications. This principalmodelling structure is integrated in an operational framework of integratedproduct development (Andreasen and Hein 1987).Engineering oriented, primarily deductive approaches to design have manyadvantages as far as knowledge integration, efficiency and handling ofcomplexity is concerned, today mainly because of the enormous capacity ofintegrated data-based design systems. An example is the international STEPapproach (Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data) in ISO 10303describing numerous integrated models within three main categories; basis199

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nmodels, application models and models for life cycles. The Design for X(DfX) regime specifying different demands and issues of integration (designfor function, stress, production, cost environment, ergonomics etc) is anothermuch referred example (Meerkamm 1995:26). Through such CAD-basedframeworks product designers have very powerful and efficient tools forintegration of specifications. Very high CAD modelling accuracy, scalingcapabilities, calculation capacities and integration possibilities have created amultitude of ways in which design action can be performed. Iterative stagingwithin this paradigm will primarily need many different forms of abstractedmodelling. They will eventually result in virtual 3D modelling (even virtualreality modelling), which in detail can specify an emerging concept beforeany materiality is approached.7.7 Integration of design approachesSome attempts to integrate differentiated field-based approaches to designaction have been made 10 , where physical representation is involved.A technological framework of engineering design, which is closely related tothe WDK school is the widely accepted framework of VDI 11 2221 (1985) and2222 (1977). Gebhardt (1996) presents an integration between this approachand the recommendations of the Verband Deutsche Industrie Designer(VDID) regarding definitions and employment of physical models. Withinthis system, the objectives of time compression suggested in variousSimultaneous Engineering (SE) or Concurrent Engineering (CE) approaches(Blankenburg 1994) are central aspects.Figure 6-7: Framework for modelling in a productdevelopment process (from Gebhardt 1996)The recommendations of VDID define the following six categories of models(abbreviated). Proportion model, depicting external form, main proportionsand motives of the product idea for the purpose of communication, and madecheaply, fast and roughly. Ergonomic model, displaying handling- andusability-properties, the most important part functions and having a mediumdegree of details. Design model, which displays an externally highly finished10 See also section 2.6.11 Product development methodologies from Verein Deutsche Ingenieure.200

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O Nsurface resembling a finished product including construction and productionsolutions, and communicating the concept to the outside world. Functionalmodel, which allows early testing of functions (assembly, service,kinematics) integrated in external form aspects, and which builds the basisfor usability and tooling aspects – with high degree of detailing. Prototype,which is an early version of the finished product with internal and externalexactness of solution and which allows early testing of all aspects of theproduct. Pilot sample, which is the first sample of a production series andallows final testing.Warell (2001) has addressed the shortcomings of the WDK school in regardto aesthetics, and has suggested an approach to integration betweenengineering design and particularly semantic and semiotic aspects ofindustrial design – with an objective of establishing a platform for conceptualanalysis of visual form. His suggestion is denoted in accordance withMortensen (1995) and is called design syntactics consisting of differentmodes. Form functionality is based on the domain theory and describesvisual form on function and organ levels. Form syntactics describes form onorgan level (form entities) and material level (form elements). Design formatrelates form to pragmatics and design philosophy on corporate level. In linewith Hubka (1989) and Andreasen (1980) and the ‘law of vertical causality’,one function cannot be decomposed into sub-functions unless a means hasbeen selected to realise the function, and this principle is applied toaesthetical aspects as well as technical aspects.Figure 7-7: Form entities in Electrolux vacuum cleaner ( Warell 2001)In the form functionality approach a designer is seen to search for formsolutions through realizing the aesthetically determined functionality of thevisual form. Similarly (abstracted) decomposed aesthetic organs are seen tofulfil (abstracted) form functionality in the organ domain, and such organsare finally realised materially as form entities which synthesise physicalityand aesthetic organ reasoning. In form functionality modelling functions aredivided into technical (internal product functions) and interactive, the latterbeing ergonomic and communicative (semantic and syntactic), and aestheticorgans are the form solutions which create the desired communicativefunctions. To realise this abstracted platform, he has established severalexemplified and illustrated procedures for form syntactics modelling,201

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nestablishing and combining concrete form elements and form entities.Finally, in design format modelling he suggests how the framework can beapplied to the design management perspective of a company by integratingcorporate design philosophy and coherent form language and identity. 12These are short examples of attempts of collaborative interaction betweensome different fields which involve physical modelling. Could relatedattempts be extended to embrace all the fields in one framing?7.8 Reflection on perceptual catalysation in design action7.8.1 Objective of collaborative interaction.I am not suggesting that collaborative interaction between all fields is adesirable approach for all kinds of design projects. But if we relate thefindings of chapters 5 and 6 to a need for improved practical approaches tocollaborative design 13 , it appears that a scenario involving all fields couldrepresent some basic premises for shared action. I will accordingly in thissection try to investigate what practical principles could interactivelyembrace design actors from all the referred fields. Earlier theoreticalreflections will now be related to concrete action patterns.It can be observed from the above presentations that the mentalities behindthe field-based approaches to design appear as being quite disparate. But allrepresent valuable perspectives and should be given appropriate conditionsfor contribution to a collaborative process, and individual differences comein addition to professional ones. In addition to focus on own perspectives, thementality of each actor should, in Merleau-Ponty’s sense, be directedtowards seeing the design problem from the position of the other – eventhough basic disagreements may exist. The possibility is always there thatdisagreements may become sources of new exploration. An appropriateobjective should therefore be to search for a design process which, within itsown framework, is able to produce an appropriate integration of positionsand contributions in a final result. If such a process is performed by onedesigner alone, there is no principal difference if the other in this casesignifies other perspectives than his or her own.7.8.2 Abstracted versus perceptual conceptualisation.The approach of Warell (2001) above to integration between aesthetics andengineering has resulted in a very useful and highly needed foundation forarticulation and verbal-intellectual reasoning in design action. But since itconcerns only the interpretative aspect of designing and not the noninterpretative,sensuous aspect, it fails to address the relational tensionbetween making form and adapting form, which according to chapter 512 Warell (2001) p.83-111.13 See section 2.5 and 2.6.202

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O Nimplies different kinds of mental focus. From the above presentations appeardifferent thought-patterns and focus of mind behind technologicalapproaches to design as represented in the WDK school, the VDI frameworkand CAD-based systems like the STEP approach on one side and creativeand particularly aesthetical approaches on the other. But what appears from acloser observation of the semiotics field, is that although it is aestheticallyoriented, the mentality behind it is related to engineering approaches becauseof its focus of abstraction and intellectual reasoning. To a large degree thesame is the case in ergonomics, but this field also has relations to theaesthetical approaches in the way it is focusing sense-based testing ofconcrete solutions. Two seemingly basically opposed positions are therebyapparent in the descriptions; let us call them verbal-intellectual elaborationon one side and perceptive-material elaboration on the other. The verbalintellectualapproaches to designing can according to the above analysis becharacterised through high focus on abstraction, thorough analysis throughdeductive reasoning and evaluation and postponement of material synthesisuntil towards the end of the process. The perceptive-material approaches cansimilarly be characterised through focus on formal diversity, inductiveelaboration of concrete alternatives, need of direct feedback from thematerial even early in the making process and nearness all along to sensebasedperception of reality aspects.If one approaches the interpretative, verbal-intellectual aspect of designing asan activity isolated from perceptive feedback, an inappropriate asymmetryseems to emerge, which becomes visible in Søndergaard (2000) above. It canbe observed in the difference between product semiotics on one hand, wheresemantic, syntactic and pragmatic dimensions are perceivable throughhylectic representation, and design semiotics on the other, where themateriality aspect does not exist yet, and where sign vehicle, meaning andmind representation are supposed to be abstracted. At first sight creation ofinterpretative form parameters, which in such a framing are intentionallyabstracted from immediate bodily perception, to this researcher seems tocreate a tension between verbal-intellectual and perceptive-materialapproaches which is seen as counter-intuitive and which seems to oppose anobjective of interaction between the two. In reflecting upon this view wefind, however, that the separation is the whole idea behind the abstractionand that this mode of thought represents a way to be flexible. But if we fromthis perspective approach the frameworks of Reed Kostellow and Akner-Koler, who also suggest interpretative abstractions concerning the act ofmaking form, we can observe that in aesthetics these abstractions seem to bedynamically interwoven with bodily perception. The content of formalabstractions thereby seems to be dependent upon and created through thebody in actual acts of sensing. Another way to express this is that abstractionand sensing can be seen as two aspects of the same. It seems that we mayhere have met Descartes in a new disguise. He separated these modes ofunderstanding the world, which according to the above perspective is quiteacceptable in order to stay flexible and assess other ways of understanding.203

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NBut the problem seems to emerge if the aspects are kept separated – whichaccording to chapters 5 and 6 analyses should be conceived as dualism. Asimilar conclusion results from seeing product aesthetics as “the effect ofproduct gestalt on human sensation” 14 – or as a structure of visualrelationships according to Reed-Kostellow. In other words these reflectionsindicate that abstraction of form making in design should concern real acts ofmaking form which involve bodily perception, a principle which is partlyadapted in ergonomics as well.If consequent employment of the theory of technical systems and theory ofdomains is approached from this position, we find that the process domain,the organ domain and the function domain are basically abstractionsseparated from the component domain (how organs are realised) until the endof the process. In the three first domains the product is modelled, butbasically abstractly. Similarly we find that in CAD-based development, forinstance according to STEP, there are several abstracted systems connectedinteractively – which end up in a virtually assembled 3D models,materialised only towards the end of the process (prototyping). As argued, asimilar action pattern is recognised in theoretical design semiotics. Withinthese fields, then, a separation between formative and adaptive modes isgenerally recognisable, whereby disconnection between abstraction andreality is maintained throughout central parts of the development process,where the conceptual integration of constraints is basically performed.According to the analyses of chapter 6 such intentional disconnectionbetween polarised aspects is exactly what should be avoided if weunderstand wholeness experiences of world-in-the-making to be a relevantaspect of designing. From this perspective, as depicted in Figures6-5, 16-6 and 17-6, mentality and materiality should be merged throughwholeness experiences and relationships in both adaptive and formativeapplications. And verbal-intellectual reasoning and perceptive-materialforming seen as separate but interactive modes of designing should be madeto converge gradually through the connection between them which dynamicand flexible material representation can stimulate.Applied to interaction between different fields in a shared activity ofdesigning, these reflections will imply that we should take care not to leavethe perceptual aspect out when we are theorising or abstracting designproblems. The practical significance of this view will gain leverage if seenfrom another and equally important polarity in the presented fields.7.8.3 Diversity versus specificity in conceptualisation.On one side we observe the urge to remain open-minded, un-prejudiced,fluid, flexible and accommodating towards impulses as long as possible14 Monø (1997) p.27.204

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O Nbefore choosing alternative and starting to go into details. This urge, asemphasised particularly in the creativity and aesthetics approaches, but alsothrough abstraction objectives in the other fields, has to do with theprobability of identifying and creating original solutions to the problems ifthey are seen from many aspects – and can be termed diversity. The otherobservable urge is to be goal directed, fast, efficient, solution focused,concrete and economical and is related to the concurrent engineeringparadigm of time compression resulting from market mechanisms andcompetition – and can be called specificity. Both are claims of highimportance in a search for relevant product development processes. Sincethese urges seemingly are opposed, indicating a problematic of choice, theyshould be given some further attention.Cross (1994) explains how a search space for ideas (diversity) is graduallydecreased as a development project converges towards final solution(specificity). Such a space represents a freedom to search for differentpossibilities and it will vary with varying intentions of creativity (flexiblementality) of individual projects. A registered trend in structuring of updateddesign projects is to loosen up on pre-specified claims, thereby increasingover-all freedom compared to what has earlier been the tradition withinproduct development – in search of the most innovative solutions (Cooper2001, Lerdahl 2001, Brandt 2002). In a graphical representation of creativeconceptualisation I see moving linearly from start to solution to represent alowest limit of mental flexibility and some upper curve of decreasingamplitude to represent a highest realistic diversity limit. The space betweenthese limits can be seen as a freedom space depiction. As any process haspractical and economical limits, a decreasing pattern of such a space must bemaintained. If time-to-market shall not be increased in creative search, thenthere seems to be only one way to obtain both high freedom space andremain goal directed, and that is by defining high levels of creative intentionsor diversity. A diagram can then be drawn in Figure 8-7, which definespractical growth limits for the iteration plant in Figure 19-6, and three levelsof creative ambition and a generalised illustration of level of abstraction/wholes and detail/parts can be included.The freedom space of design action thereby contains the seemingly opposedpolarities of verbal-intellectual reasoning versus perceptive-materialelaboration on one hand and between specificity versus diversity on theother. All aspects are seen as important contributions to an interactionbetween collaborating but different design actors.205

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NLevel andflexibilityPractical flexibility limits(alterantive levels ofcreative intentions)SolutionFreedom spaceLinear development(theoretical lower level)Figure 8-7:Practical approachto enhancement offreedom spaceearly medium late stagesAbstractions/wholesDetails/partsTimeAn action pattern, which seems to be implicit in fields connecting to thetheory of technical systems, is that when the level of materiality is reached,diversity is left behind, which will decrease the freedom space in Figure 8-7.In the aesthetical approaches we find an openness to diversity and change allalong – even towards the end of the project. If diversity approaches aremaintained too long in a real world project, they will prolong and complicatethe project. From own experience, what very often happens in designprojects is that the really good ideas may appear towards the end whenperceptual experiences have become rich, which is too bad since the timelimit for changes was passed three months earlier! Traditional productmodelling is far from having a sponge nature, in other words. Once an idea isagreed upon, one is generally forced to face specificity, which rapidlydecreases freedom space and possibilities of coming up with the ‘best’solution.In ‘bad’ examples of engineering oriented projects one builds the structurefrom inside out, leaving the shell design (of the designer) until the end. In‘bad’ examples of aesthetically oriented projects, one builds the structurefrom outside in, leaving internal problems (of the engineer) until the end. Theproblem in these examples according to chapter 6 analyses seems to be thelack of flexibility in mentality and materiality. The sponge nature ofrepresentation is absent and reality seems inflexible. According to thisresearcher’s experience, real world design projects of some complexity havefew problems directly connected to the positions of each profession. It is inthe integration between them that problems arise. It is when engineeringclaims collide with claims of aesthetics, when ergonomic functionality doesnot agree with semantic expression, when user understanding does not fit totechnological preconditions that things become problematic. When all claimsand constraints of physical reality meet ideas of human imagination, there isvery seldom agreement. And in addition to all professional challenges comeall problems stemming from individual differences. When all claims and206

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O Nfights are synthesised in one bright individual’s mind, as for example can beobserved in the much used design examples of Santiago Calatrava (educatedartist, architect, engineer and researcher portrayed by Tzonis 1999), aharmonisation of diverging constraints seems to be more easily achievable.Our challenge can be seen as resembling such a process in a collaboratinggroup of individuals with diverging mentalities.From these reflections follow that both diversity and specificity should beintended and maintained in an attempt to embrace all field-based approachesin one framing – if our objective is one of arriving at original conceptualsolutions. How can both aspects be achieved in a shared practical process –which also integrates perception and abstraction?7.8.4 Merging mentality and materiality in deautomatisation.My suggestion of how an integration of all relevant aspects could bepractically performed is based upon earlier findings. A summary of anachieved understanding is depicted in Figure 19-6, which is an attempt torepresent interaction patterns of many collaborative aspects of designing in agraphical form (hopefully demonstrating an advantage of visual perceptionover abstraction). A summarised verbal-intellectual representation of thesame will be attempted in the following (hopefully demonstrating anadvantage of abstraction over visual perception).Let us briefly review some earlier findings and reflections. From the studiesof neurobiology in chapter 5 appeared that the human constitution is capableof handling unbelievable amounts of neurally stored data resulting frombodily perception, which seemingly effortlessly supports development ofstable concepts. Could that represent a more direct approach to understandingthan verbal-intellectual elaboration? From our empirical data we haveobserved that although ideation readily departs from preconceptionsaccording to Hillier et al. (1974), perceptual experimentation with physicalitytends to catalyse many new ideas and new conceptual understandings. Couldthis represent an indication that diversity and specificity can be approachedsimultaneously? Neurobiology also describes how old repeated experiences(understandings) are ‘frozen’ in the body as synaptic patterns which are verydifficult to change. Could this represent an indication that in order to open themind to emerging new possibilities, rich perceptual experiences are needed tosupport realistic understanding of the new compared to the old? Thesequestions are difficult to answer directly and consistently for this researcher,but having asked them and having reflected on them has maturedinterpretations which indirectly and combined with other findings mayindicate practical approaches to achieving shared understanding.It was shown in section 6.9 how ‘deautomatisation’ of ordinary awarenesscan result from staging of physical surroundings and conscious attuning ofmentality to non-rational action patterns – as described by Ornstein et al. and207

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NBöhme. In accordance with these theories, the summarised case studyobservations of section 4.7.3 and the above reflections, I propose thatintentional establishment of scenarios and atmospheres suitable for playfulexperimentation may represent an interesting possibility for interactionbetween diverging field-based mentalities – if such scenarios can beintegrated with abstraction as well. There is no intention of such a strategy totry to channel different mentalities in one direction. They are supposed torepresent dislike aspects of reality and should remain as individualisedepistemologies and contribute to collaboration by the tension created throughtheir differences. What should be the objective of such an approach,however, is to create a shared stage built upon a principle of generativeinteraction between mentalities and materiality. The flexible mentality aspectof such a stage can be seen as the establishment of a shared atmospherewhich may result from a focus on play – where there is room for alldiversities which in spite of differences are able to unite in shared, activeenjoyment – as we know it from children’s play. But what is the flexiblemateriality aspect?Material ‘toys’ were in section 6.9 suggested to have a catalytic effect in thestaging of such scenarios. I have not made any inquiry into the question ofbasic differences between children’s play and grownups’ play, but our casestudies indicate that apart from initial stages where maximum abstraction isstrived for, the materiality aspect of use of toys easily takes a direction ofexperiment in grownup play (pts. 8 and 9 of the 4.7.3 list). This implies thatgrownups’ play – at least in a framing of product development and if givenappropriate opportunities – is easily directed towards playful physicalexperimentation with possibilities, which fits as a description of ourobservations of what happened in the case studies. ‘Appropriateopportunities’ then relates to physicality suitable for such play (the materialcondition) and minds focused on such play (the mental condition).Given that fast means of making physicality which is suitable forexperimentation is available, new ideas can easily be materialised andthereby perceived bodily. If the mentalities of the actors are focused on play,these materialised ideas can be used like toys for experimentation with forexample basic product ideas, combinations of principles, engineeringsolutions (detailed or rough), ergonomic solutions, semiotic effects of severalalternative kinds, aesthetical experiments and form variations – or whateverthe focus may be. In other words, such a tool would open the possibility toplay with all kinds of ideas in physical reality whereby stimulation ofperceptive feedback through the senses can be produced all along in a project– from rough approximations towards more and more detailed solutions. It isnot seen as a precondition of the above description to call this kind of stagingplay. A less colourful concept of shared experimentation could suffice, butwould cover the same reality, only with different ambition of creation ofnewness.208

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O N7.8.5 Alternative solutions.This scenario depicts flexibility of mind fairly consistently, but no concretepractical suggestion of how physical representation could be solved in orderto comply with a requirement of flexibility has been presented yet. I haveshown, however, how going into specificity in concrete solutions seeminglyleaves objectives of diversity behind, because physical representation isinflexible once ‘frozen’. But in order to achieve sense-based feedback ofdesign solutions, it is given that we have to go into specificity – a principlewhich is best illustrated in the aesthetical and partly in the ergonomicsapproaches to design in sections 7.3 and 7.5. If we dispose of means forcheap, fast and efficient production of physicality, this problem can besolved through development of alternatives. This suggestion is partly derivedfrom pt. 8 in the section 4.7.3 list.In reflection upon the basic capabilities of the principle of alternativesolutions, we find that such a strategy could be seen as a very efficient wayof representing diversity of mind physically – while simultaneouslymaintaining focus on specificity. This strategy also complies with myreflections on how physically perceived preconceptions combined withflexible mindsets will bear new ideas and should do so if our objective ismaximum freedom space in search of creative solutions. But it does notrestrict creative search only to early phases, which is a common result ofbeing ‘goal directed’. By specifying details in parallel suggestions andtesting them physically in parallel with abstractions, an action pattern couldbe achieved in accordance with the achieved understanding of humanpreconditions for conceptualisation. Through development of alternatives,which do not have to represent complete solutions (can also be partial andthereby open for alternative combinations), basis for perception supportedcomparisons is established. These could in turn give the best grounding forintegration with theory – as well as for creation of new imagery. Such astrategy would also satisfy the earlier proposed objective of maintaining highfreedom space also towards the end of the project, because it could postponethe final choice of alternative. 15Having then suggested approaches to flexibility of both mental and physicalrepresentation, the probably most important problem still remains: how dowe practically integrate opposed positions in such a context of flexibility?7.8.6 Simultaneousness of experiences.As argued, it is first when it comes to specific physical reality that individualfield objectives have a tendency to collide. This has to do with the fact thatpractical conflicts are often not visible in abstractions. The design team’s15 These reflections are referred to Figure 8-7.209

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nexperience was that simultaneous experimentation with different aspects ofdesign problems (pt. 9 of 4.7.3) is a convenient method of collaboration.The basic idea behind such shared simultaneousness in experimentation withphysical suggestions is that all participating positions must be represented ineach attempt – or else there would not be a complete solution. This principleimplies that all actors have to agree upon one and the same solution in eachiteration, simply because only one assembled solution can be made at thetime. Alternatives will follow in following iterations.This principle represents a practical way to visualise an integration of partsand whole – whereby the gestalt will always be materialised and thereforebodily perceivable by all. Thereby each actor’s contribution is not only moreeasily understood by him- or herself, but its relations and accordingly itsconflicts with the other actors’ contributions will be perceivably revealed.Each actor’s part contribution will then automatically be related to the wholeaesthetically and functionally, because it has to be negotiated and revealed inevery iteration. If this integration were merely of technical nature, it couldeasily be solved through CAD-based virtual means alone, but as it in designusually includes aspects of aesthetical and/or body-based functionalperceptualnature, its materialisation is seen as a great advantage because ofthe sensual feedback this strategy offers.In principle this suggested process resembles the main aesthetical formingstrategy outlined in the referred works of Reed Kostellow and Akner-Koler 16through the way continuous sensuous or perceptual feedback of each stage isintegrated with theory. But it also integrates the principles of all theapproaches which focus theoretical abstraction in large parts of the processeslike for instance the WDK school 17 prescribes – only in more fragmentedform than in the usual approaches where abstraction stages mean onlyabstraction. In such a framing perception and theory is supposed to becontinuously integrated to a much higher degree than is the case today inmost design oriented fields. Theory then in an iterative, step-wise mannerbecomes an interactive part of all making stages. But theory and perceptionare intentionally kept together, and not separated as in most individual fields,because if they are not, a Cartesian split between internal and external worldmay easily result.Such an interdisciplinary development strategy is in essence based upon theidea that if a product design concept involves effects of product gestalt onhuman sensations, which indeed design products should, sensations shouldnot be postponed until the end because of some fear of ‘inappropriate’subjectivity. Since sensations from the start must be seen as individual, theyshould instead be displayed and perceived in all their colourful variations allthe way through, so that the flexible relationship between them, or theiremerging gestalt, can become perceived visually and functionally through the16 Section 7.3.17 Section 7.6.210

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O Nbody – on the way towards some unity. Thereby this strategy can be seen asembracing all the different disciplinary, field-based and individualapproaches to design.But haven’t we then just created a framework with another inappropriateclaim of universality? In approaching a summary, let me briefly try to relatethese suggestions to a possible objection of fields having other basicpreconditions than individuals.7.8.7 Reflection on individualityNot only fields have different mentalities – different individuals do as well.What some like to let emerge in their hands, others like to let emerge in theirheads and there are several medium positions. Also; because we aredifferent, what we experience through shared physicality is different. Jung(1923) distinguishes between individual dispositions of introversion orextraversion and divides individuals into types of different modes accordingto dialectic differentiation: extrovert/introvert, judging/ perceiving,sensing/intuitive and thinking/feeling. Based upon these distinctions, Kolb(1984) has researched into individual orientations towards learning, and hassuggested examples of learning style profiles, tracking inclinations towardsthe variables of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstractconceptualisation and active experimentation 18 .Figure 9-7: Learning-style profiles of femalesocial worker and male student (Kolb 1984)These figures depict great individual variations of learning styles in a sharedcontext, and they illustrate that we cannot know how individuals react basedupon inflexible preconditions. What we can know, however, is that if aphysical model is experienced simultaneously in the same context by many18 Section 6.4.211

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nactors, its materiality is the same for all. Another thing we can know, if weshare the beliefs of phenomenology, neurobiology and psychology, asdemonstrated, is that human beings conceptualise the world (produce sharedconcepts of shared reality) by dynamically changing focus between physicalreality and own reactions to this reality until these ‘poles’ correspond. Thispattern actually implies that minds can be flexible in spite of individualdifferences. We can therefore consider an ability of being flexible as basic, orshared regardless of individual mentality (or how we subjectively react tonew realities and form them from individual views).But if humans can be flexible, fields could be flexible as well because theyare built on humans. Even though bending field-based approaches todesigning basically will involve some fights, the above attempt of seeingfield-based approaches in one framing in order to approach some commonground for engaged perception of the design problem, does not seem to haverevealed any unmanageable obstructions for such an objective to occur. Thesmall changes of mentality needed for chopping up traditional approacheswithout basically changing them do not appear as subversive to thisresearcher. The objective is not to ‘even out’ differences, but rather to createframings where differences, through shared patterns of behaviour, can bearimpulses for shared understanding of newness.7.9 Establishment of relationships.In closer observation of what has been analysed in this section, we find acorrespondence between the suggested approaches to design action. Theconcepts atmosphere, play, aesthetics, gestalt perception, sharedexperiments, simultaneousness, alternatives and comparison all seem to havesomething to do with how actors attune themselves mentally to the act ofcreating ‘newness’. What these concepts have in common is that they areconcerned with relations between subjects and objects. If practically orientedapproaches to collaborative design should be characterised in one concept, itcould accordingly be termed establishment of relationships. This observationturns our attention back to a concluded focus of chapter 5, which waswholeness experience. Wholeness experiences were here, particularly withreference to the phenomenologists, assigned to immediate, initial, unreflectedperception. But such experiences were also, in chapters 5, 6 and in thischapter, assigned to that which is between polar analytic aspects of subjectand object (I-pole and thing-pole in Böhme’s terms) in converging processesof trying to reach correspondence between them. Our original single modeconceptualisation pattern of Figure 6-5 could then more specifically bedepicted as a cycling pattern departing from immediate and convergingtowards matured relationships via repeated ‘visits’ to aspectual poles offlexible nature.212

C H A P T E R 7 : P H Y S I C A L L Y C A T A L Y S E D C O L L A B O R A T I V E C O N C E P T U A L I S A T I O NI-POLEMENTALITYRELATIONSHIPSTHING-POLEMATERIALITYFigure 10-7: Single mode basic conceptualisation patternThrough a ‘between-world’ of relationships, an individual in this framingconnects to the wholeness to which s/he, the other individuals and allphysical representations belong. This understanding of an individualconceptualisation pattern, which is reached through combining practical andtheoretical approaches to design action, can now be seen as an expansion ofthe basic conceptualisation patterns of chapter 5. And it can further beimplemented in all the illustrative depictions of dual-mode character andshared contexts of chapter 6.7.10 Integration of theoretical and practical approachesIf we now try to integrate the empirical learning from chapter 4, thetheoretical understanding from analyses of chapter 5, the visual depictions ofimplicit patterns of chapter 6 and the practical applications of the achievedunderstanding from chapter 7, a framework for understanding physicallycatalysed design action from the suggested new angles emerges. If thefindings of this chapter are ‘cut to the bone’ and integrated with earlierfindings, a list of practically applicable intentions aimed at an effectiveapproach to collaborative design action can be concluded:1. Approaching correspondence between experience and phenomenona) cyclic convergence patterns in formative and adaptive modesb) active interaction between mental and material representationsc) harmonisation between I-poles and thing-poles throughiterative wholeness experiences2. Establishment of good and creative atmospherea) mental attunementb) intentional arrangementc) deautomatisation and aesthetical approach through playd) playful experimentation with possible and ‘impossible’ solutionse) excitation of perceivable breakdowns213

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N3. Integration of diverging traditionsa) intentional attunement on the other’s viewsb) splitting up but maintaining traditional field-based abstractionc) mixing in perceptions of theoretical possibilities4. Merging of diversity and specificitya) development of parallel conceptsb) perceptual comparisons between many alternativesc) combination of alternatives in new ways5. Initiation of shared simultaneousnessa) perceptual sharing of representations in contextb) integration of subjective contributions through having to agree onone solution in each iterationc) sharing of engagement, atmosphere and experiencesAchieving such objectives in a development process will hardly happen byitself, because these goals have to do with how participating actors choose tocondition their mentality in their relationships with other actors and theirshared context 19 . By combining a shared basic way of learning and sharedphysicality, a shared stage suitable for approaching potential ‘newness’ canthen be created. If this stage is arranged to embrace individual mentalitiesand their external expressions (not shared) through creation of a sharedatmospheres, perceived newness of emerging concepts should have a fairchance of becoming shared as well if the involved minds are flexible enoughto represent new learning and the shared physicality is flexible enough torepresent the flexible minds. Some reality, more substantial than the sum ofeach contribution, could thereby emerge.These concluded intentions can be seen as a suggestion of a process strategywhich addresses the importance of sense-based perception in practical designaction – and thereby the importance of physicality which can produce suchperception. Since the efficiency of such production is a precondition forpracticality of the approach, we now need to expand on how the suggestedphysical catalysers can be produced realistically according to therequirements of the framework. We need an appropriate and practicallyadaptable tool for conceptual catalysation.19 Improper conditioning by one individual can ruin a whole group’s endeavours. See Böhme, section 5.8.3.214

Ch 8:RAPID PROTOTYPING AS A CONCEPTUAL CATALYSATIONTOOL_______________________________________________________In this chapter all proposed process models and practical aspects arerelated to the capabilities of the Rapid Prototyping tool. Criteria forappropriate modelling and experimentation procedures areestablished and the performed case projects are evaluated againstthese. Very good capabilities are found for all but rough up-frontmodels and remodelling, where remodelling is found to beproblematic. Scanning and advanced surface software is suggestedas a solution to the problem, acquired and tested in a final actionphase study – which eventually gave very good results. RapidPrototyping and scanning with surface correction is concluded to bea very good tool combination for the suggested strategy.215

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N8.1 Practical requirements to an appropriately catalysed processRapid Prototyping technology has brought some possibilities into thelandscape of design and product development which historically have neverbeen available to man; the capability to materialise complex humanimagination – fuzzily or exactly at will, cheaply and quickly. In this chapter itwill be evaluated to what extent physicality produced through thistechnology can be used in ways which can support human conceptualisationpatterns according to the theoretical analyses and practical suggestions ofchapters 5, 6 and 7.If the process intentions of last chapter, summarised in section 7.9, aresuccessfully staged, we need to organise rational and effective ways ofworking within such a framing. We can accordingly establish certainrequirements to the way physical process catalysers should be produced inorder to be practically acceptable. Based upon experiences acquired duringthe referred case studies of chapter 4 and the reflections of chapters 6 and 7,I propose that in order to support a design process according to the describedprinciples and patterns, a technology for production of appropriaterepresentations should be able to produce materiality suitable for:A. Fast and cheap model building of:a) rough modelsb) detailed modelsc) freeform modelsd) functioning assembliese) many parallel solutions with small changesf) weak models for manual grinding/reformingg) strong models for final testingB. Experimentation with:a) conceptual solutionsb) technical solutionsc) ergonomic functionalityd) aesthetical evaluationse) part/whole relationsC. Maximisation of bodily perception in:a) adaptive modeb) formative modeIf these requirements are related to Figure 17-6, we can see the toolcapabilities as the means for the flexible minds in both formative andadaptive modes to produce shared flexible material representations.216

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O LFlexiblesensuousformativementalityTool supportingmaking of sharedflexible materialitydesigneruserengineerAtmosphereof relationsFlexibleinterpretativeadaptivementalityFigure 1-8: Tool supported production of material representationBefore referring these specifications to the RP tool, let me briefly relate tohow some alternative tools for production of physical representations can becharacterised, with focus on their perceptual feedback properties.8.2 Catalysation through established representation methodsDrawing has always been seen as one form of physical representation with aseemingly unchallenged ability to be flexible and to rapidly create frames ofindividual and shared understanding among the design actors. Drawing canalso be focused on high degree of specificity (Skjønsberg 1996, Perry andSanderson 1998, Henderson 1999). This project has no intention ofchallenging the position of drawing as a primal design tool – in all our casesrepeated quotes from the actors supported its unique abilities. But as conceptalternatives emerge, the shortcomings of two-dimensional drawing’s abilityto arouse sufficient understanding of spatial form and all kinds of integratingconnections between dissimilar components become evident. Drawing thenneeds to be supplemented by physicality capable of representing threedimensionalreality. Accordingly, and supported by the observations in ourcase studies, for the rest of this elaboration drawing is seen as a means ofphysical representation which supplements other forms of three-dimensionalrepresentation in all stages of product development.Manual modelling techniques of several different kinds, resembling thereported techniques of Reed Kostellow (Hannah 2002), have traditionallybeen seen as the most relevant modelling techniques in design processes.Plastic materials for manual modelling techniques have many of thedesirable ‘sponge’ qualities we have been looking for and are very wellsuited for creation of both flexibility and specificity. In principle they givemaximum of sense feedback to the designer in the formative mode, becausethe material is formed through handwork or with light hand-held tools and217

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nthereby gives direct ‘backtalk’ to the senses. It can also be fast to work withso that initially vague new ideas can be represented before they are lost orchanged. Plastic materials can in principle be added or removed and they canalso be combined with stiff materials with higher resistance to grinding tools.There is a great variety of manual modelling materials available withvariable characteristics as to tactility, stiffness, hardening capacity, strength,temperature dependency etc.In spite of all their superior qualities regarding sense feedback and flexibility,manual modelling techniques and materials have a number of drawbacks aswell in practical design work. Modelling with high claims to surface finish isvery time consuming. It is hard to transfer constructive specifications withaccuracy onto manual models. Assemblies of differentiated components andtheir integrations are difficult to model. Forming of complex details can beproblematic. If many variants of a theme are desirable, which is very oftenthe case in designing, the copying of the best parts and multiplication of themcan be very complex to get right. In short; the capacity of intuitive and fastapproximation is high, whereas the capability of producing high specificity isavailable, but impractical.Our case projects showed that in practical modelling and to a large extent inearly project stages or for the purpose of remaking, manual modelling wasfound to be very frequently used even though more advanced techniqueswere available. Particularly the employment of easily addable or removablemodelling clay was extensive.Traditional computer-based modelling or data-based simulations of diversekinds are today widely used 1 , partly to overcome the drawbacks of manualmodelling. The extreme accuracy of CAD modelling techniques and theirunique capacities of scaling, their precision in integration of differentiatedpart problems, their calculation capacities and their fascinating graphicalinterfaces all add up to a way of approaching design problems which hasbasically challenged and changed traditional methods. Nevertheless, thisproject has revealed that CAD modelling techniques have shortcomings asfar as sense-based feedback to the modeller in the act of forming isconcerned (pt. 17 in the 4.7.3 list). The computer’s capacity of precision canalso be seen as counter-intuitive in regard to aesthetics, as commented byLoveday (2002:1): “the return of the æsthetic of representation as an æstheticof precision is the result of the denial of pleasure of drawing. It is a drive tofind pleasure in the concept itself through precision of representation asmeasurement of the design as material; an æsthetic of precision”.The problems of inferior user interfaces are, of course, well known to thecomputer industry, and they are trying to solve them in several ways. Forinstance, one approach to the problem is exposed in the development of the1 See section 7.6.218

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O LFreeForm modelling system, also called the ‘phantom pen’ 2 . The solutionsimulates manual modelling techniques through a ‘virtual clay’ interfacewhere a ‘pen’ fastened to a manipulator arm is operated by the modeller andproduces ‘force feedback’ resembling the material resistance experienced inmanual forming. Technically this example offers impressive characteristicsresembling real world materiality. But as its user interface cannot matchreality, an objection against such an approach can be raised; why not use thereal thing instead when it is possible?As analysed by Röhmer, Weisshahn and Hacker (2001), severalrepresentation tools are interchangeably used in design conceptualisationprocesses, but drawing, manual modelling and computer modelling are themost popular methods 3 . What distinguishes computer modelling in relation tothe other methods is that its representation is a two-dimensional data pictureon a screen – or a Vitual Reality (VR) depiction in space. Related to theproblematic of this project, where maximisation of perceptual feedback isemphasised, data simulation must thereby be considered as having a limitedcapacity for sense-based stimulation in comparison to traditional manualmodelling. But data simulations in the form of screen pictures cannevertheless be seen as flexible (semi)physical representations (illuminateddots). Related to my illustrations of chapter 6, for example Figure 17-6, theywill be depicted in the crossing point between formative and adaptive modeslike other representations.8.3 Fast and cheap RP modellingLet us now finally return to where started, and evaluate the capabilities of theRapid Prototyping technology closer, in relating them to our experiences ofthe case studies and the requirements raised through the theoretical analysesof human perception. To what extent is RP technology appropriate forsupport of design processes based upon dynamic perceptual cycling patternsas suggested in chapters 6 and 7? In closing in on this question, let us start byaddressing the proposed technology requirements regarding the materialityaspects in section 8.1 and relate them to what we experienced in our casestudies of chapter 4.Fast and cheap characteristics of RP refer to basic capabilities. As reportedin section 2.2, RP modelling is both very fast and very cheap compared totraditional physical modelling methods. In a typical high-end RP machinelike the DTM 2500 the model depicted in Figure 2-8, with max dimensions46x30x19,5 mm will have a market cost of approximately 13US$ per piece(97US$ rigging cost) 4 . Other technologies and price policies will divergesomewhat to these figures, but be within the same range. If modelled throughother techniques, the cost of this example would have been of another order.2 See www.sensable.com/freeform3 See section 2.8.4 2004 prices in the Norwegian market.219

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThese figures are based upon an existing file, which may take a long time tomodel the first time. But in our context this time cost is not directlycomparable with other methods because the following iterations will readilyneed only small changes and thereby simplify the whole process. RPtechnology can be considered as unchallenged and substantially better thantraditional modelling methods as far as time consumption and price isconcerned (Gebhardt 1996, Wohlers 2001).Figure 2-8:Example of a Rapid Prototyped part with max dimensionsNow, how do our experiences with fast and cheap physical RP-based modelmaking comply with the requirements of a flexible catalysation tool ofsection 8.1? In this evaluation I will employ a ‘soft quantification’ grading infour steps: very bad, bad, good or very good.Rough models or mock-ups are usually used for up-front approximations ofvolumes, alternative assemblies, vague illustrations of technical solutions,basic form structures, proportion outlines or similar applications. Suchmodels are basically intended for maximum diversity and flexibility ofmentality and minimum physical specificity in order to give perceptualfeedback without suggesting too strongly any specific solution (see Figure8-7) and leave freedom space open. They are typically employed in earlydevelopment and particularly creative phases as for instance described byEhn (1989, 1991), Lerdahl (2001), Brandt (2002), and Hannah (2002). Thesemodels have traditionally been built by hand from easily available materialslike foam, wood, wire, paper and the like, and fast production time is animportant characteristic. But they can easily be produced through RP, asthere is no limitation in the technology other than possibly size. According tothe 4.7.3 summary, the waiting time for CAD modelling and RP processingmust then be seen as an obstacle in comparison with manual models, becauseimmediateness of perceptual feedback is an important issue in ideation, asrefelcted in chapter 7. And as roughness of the model readily is desirable anddetail capability is not needed, manually produced models will usuallysuffice and be preferable for cost and immediate feedback reasons.220

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O LIf, however, any basic structure, strength capacity, principal solution etc. isneeded, which calls for some sort of detail or assembly capability to befollowed up later, then RP models can be very useful also in rough up-frontcases. For instance, in the Polimoon/Nice Ice Lantern project of section 4.2.3rough up-front RP models were used to get a ‘feel’ of aesthetics/functionality of freeform thin-shell form designs which were impossible tosimulate manually. In the Jordan Mouth Hygiene project of section 4.6.2 arough up-front RP model was used to illustrate a brush principle equippedwith a foldable soft-part casing.For rough early stage modelling when the concept is uncertain, RP will notordinarily be the preferred choice. But if solution approximations exist at theoutset, and in particular if these contain some level of complexity, RPtechnology can be considered as a good modelling alternative.Detailed models, containing all kinds of finely formed ribs, fasteningstructures, aesthetic integrations, functional devices, cooling aids, offsets,screw/fastener attachments (or any level of accurateness which is difficult tomodel manually) are ideally suited for RP. Our empirical material of chapter4 has shown that this capability of the tool becomes highly important whenthe objective of the design project is collaborative, because in real worlddesign processes the integration of aesthetics, functionality, strength,producability, material properties, assembly, logistics, economy etc. is highlydependent upon details. For instance, what the analysis of gestalt andpart/whole relationship of section 7.3 often boils down to in practicalcollaborative design action, is how aesthetical/ functional requirements andambitions can be materialised in a reality of constraints. These constraints toa very high degree originate in details which do not initially comply withconceptual ambitions, and this is a procedural spot where an interactivechallenge of good design arises. If necessary details are overlooked orpostponed for long, overall gestalt ambitions very often have a tendency tocollapse sooner or later.If an overall design results from adding realistic details together, which is avery common engineering approach, an aesthetical gestalt will hardly appearin the first place. As a result, and according to the findings of chapters 6 and7, the whole point of establishment of a process of flexibility in mentalityand materiality must be to let details and overall relationships emerge asintegrated entities. That means that details should be approached as part ofwholes from the beginning – as both build upon and presume each other.Modelling methods which do not allow physical detailing will therefore haveproblems in adaptation to this sort of developmental philosophy – whereiterative perceptual feedback of integrated part/whole relationships is seen asa condition for emergence of understanding.In the case projects of chapter 4 this unique capability of the RP tool wasrealised early (pt. 8 in the 4.7.3 list) and employed excessively in all the221

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nprojects. In the Sidewinder project alternative detailed technical solutionswere physically modelled all along and the final concept was functionallyand aesthetically dependent upon perceived learning from these models – aswas the Orchid project. In the Ice Lantern project the most convincingdemonstration of detail influence on form choice took place when physicallytested early models revealed corners of negative slip in organic form patternsin the student D case – unnoticed in the CAD model. The Balance Sledgeproject was totally based upon physical testing of hinging details whichrevealed strength and tooling geometry problems – as well as severalaesthetical and functional weaknesses. All the Mouth Hygiene projects weresimilarly based upon repeated attempts of detail/whole form integrations ofseveral diverging concepts-in-the-making, as the depictions of section 4.6.2show.According to the shared experiences of these projects and the abovereflections, the RP tool can be seen as having very good capabilities forproduction of physical details in a flexibility context.Freeform models are characterised by containing irregular forms, doublecurvatures and surfaces of complex geometrical nature, and they often alsohave uniform thickness thin shell structures where the interior willcorrespond to the exterior. Such models are traditionally made from handformingof plastic materials like plaster or clay. The advantage of manualfreeform modelling is easy form making, technically speaking, withmaximum perceptual material feedback. But drawbacks are severalinaccuracies, for instance in integration with technical structures or inreplication. Except for size limitations, RP technology has very high capacityfor production of freeform physical models from finished CAD files. Someperceptual limitations lie in their making, which will be evaluated in sections8.8.5 and 8.9, but at this stage, and presupposing that files of desirable formand quality have been made, we find that RP technology can produce close toideal copies of the files physically – quickly, cheaply and exactly andregardless of form complexity.Freeform capabilities of the technology and its importance to designing wasdemonstrated in the flower/leaf analogies of the Orchid project, in theorganic form experiments of students D and F of the Ice Lantern project, inthe Click Brush, in the Electric Brushes and particularly in all the Messengerbrush attempts of the Mouth Hygiene project. In these cases final formsemerged slowly after several CAD modelling/RP materialisation/ physicaltesting iterations.Given that a form exists as a CAD file, RP is according to these experiencesseen as a very good tool for production of physical freeform geometry inproduct development. The produced models in their turn are very well suitedas basis for production of perceptual feedback needed for evaluation andredesigning of improvements in accordance with the analyses of the222

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Ladaptive mode in chapters 6 and 7.Functioning assemblies are physical models consisting of two or more partscharacterised by their static or dynamic functions and attachments relative toeach other. Such models can be made manually or semi-manually, but asthey are often complex, manual time consumption can make them expensive.As commented in the questionnaire answers of section 4.7.1, physicalmodelling is conventionally scarce or postponed until a final concept isdecided upon. If physical models can be made fast and cheaply through RP,there seems to be no reason why functioning assemblies should not bematerialised for adaptive perceptual evaluations, testing and adjustmentsmany times during a project. As a CAD model is often modelled as anassembly anyway for relative adaptation of individual parts, and as the RPtechnology has the capacity to materialise such an assembled unit (even withe.g. complete hinges or screws in place if desirable), the required more-costof frequent materialisation and testing is small, whereas the potential forimportant learning is seen as great.One interesting potential for design of functioning assemblies is that workingmechanisms are available as standardised 3D CAD models in pre-modelledsoftware 5 . Adjustments, materialisation and physical testing of suchmechanisms through RP is fast and inexpensive and can offer interestingpossibilities of up-front studies of alternative principal solutions to a designproblem. And those models can later be redesigned for actual applicationsand form adapted to the case.Functioning assemblies of temporary drafts were readily used in the caseprojects. In the Sidewinder project they were used for dynamic testing ofmock-ups of a ‘planetary gear’ solution, an assembly containing ‘universaljoints’ in rod ends and a complete adjustable assembly. In the Orchid lampproject dynamic function testing of the assembled complex unit was decisivefor final choice and decision upon basic principle. In the Student E IceLantern project, assembled units were used for testing in two iterations. Inthe Balance Sledge project functioning four parts assemblies were employedfor testing in all stages. In the Electric Brushes project several generations ofall-parts assemblies were tested out, and in the Messenger project all stageswere arranged as two-material functioning assemblies of some cartridgemechanisms and bristles.Based upon all these experiences and countless illustrated similar examplesfrom conference proceedings 6 , RP can be considered as a very good tool forproduction of functioning assemblies.Many parallel solutions with incremental changes were in our case studiesfound to be a very useful approach to perceptual analyses aimed at5 For example in Catia Product Engineerng Optimizer.6 E.g. the TCT 1999 and 2000 Conferences and AFPR: 8th European Conference on Rapid Prototyping.223

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Noptimisation of a design problem – particularly with regard toaesthetical/functional experimentation. When a CAD model exists, and whenboth redesigning details and their materialisation is fast and cheap, thereseems to be no reason why many parallel attempts should not be made. Asdocumented in chapter 4, it was found that physical production ofalternatives, which could be compared through perceptual testing, side byside and simultaneously, gave a best possible grounding for deciding on thebest solution. Another aspect from chapter 7 is that the development ofseveral alternatives makes it possible to maintain diversity and specificitysimultaneously, whereby freedom space and flexibility of mentality andmateriality can be supported. Such experiments would readily conclude along search, shared by all collaborating actors, where experiences wouldfinally converge – as reflected in chapters 5 and 6.The realisation of the importance of this principle of parallel incrementalchanges emerged slowly during this research project. It was more or lessconsciously attempted in some cases, but they turned out to be inadequatelyorganised for a thorough exposition of the potential of the principle. It wasnot until the establishment of the Electric Brushes and the Messengerprojects that we really got around to testing it out in properly organised, fullscale cases, as described in section 4.6.2. The experienced results regardingperceptual understanding resulting from physical modelling in these projectswere strikingly positive, as reflected in the summing-up exercises includingall actors of chapter 4.Based upon these results and seen in combination with the theoreticalanalyses of chapters 5, 6 and 7, the RP tool is seen as very good in relation toproduction of many parallel solutions aimed at maintenance of mentality andmateriality flexibility and solution optimisation in design action.Weak models have the advantage to strong ones that they, in addition tobeing faster and cheaper to produce, are easy to reshape manually after testbasedrevelation of weaknesses. This kind of modelling, which is generallycalled concept modelling, was acquired for this project after earlyexperiences of their usefulness in conceptualisation, and turned out tobecome by far the most employed RP method in our case projects. As one ofour main objectives eventually became maximisation of perceptual feedbackin the formative mode, the reforming capability of the models became moreand more valued as our understanding of the importance of this propertygrew. Our Z-Corp machine was based upon cheap plaster bonded by glue,and the models had to be reinforced by fast-hardening glue after processing.The resulting properties of this mix material were easy grinding by filing orsandpapering, and easy adaptation of plastic formable material, for instanceclay, plaster or Plastic Padding to the main RP body.This modelling method was particularly employed in all the case projectswhere perceptual feedback in the formative mode was decisive for sensuous224

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Lappreciation of form, ergonomics (anthropometry), body related functionalityand semiotic expression. Again all the Mouth Hygiene projects were wherethese capabilities of the tool were best demonstrated, and particularly in theMessenger project.From the experiences acquired in these projects and the summaries ofchapter 4, we can conclude that RP three-dimensional printing technologyhas very good capabilities for production of weak physical concept modelswhich are well suited for manual remaking, and thereby for perceptualfeedback primarily in the formative, but also in the adaptive mode.Strong models have the advantage in relation to weak ones that they can beused for applications which require loading capacity in addition to accuracy.Such models are frequently applied when there is need to investigateusability of technical solutions, functionality of ergonomic solutions, strengthof design suggestions, usability of parts exposed to moisture, applicability ofparts relative to each other and similar issues. This is the high-end RPtechnology from which it originally has its name prototyping, signifying theoriginal type or characteristic specimen and usually of an agreed-uponsolution. Strong laser-sintered SLS models, mainly in polyamide, were usedin the case projects whenever high strength and accuracy were needed.In the Sidewinder and Orchid projects SLS was used all the way throughbecause of the need for accuracy and strength in the testing of actual solutionalternatives. In the Ice Lantern project the same approach was employedbecause of the need for actual freeze testing. In the Balance Sledgedevelopment it was used for the final stage when accuracy was needed forexact assemblies, strength and testing of functionality. But in the MouthHygiene project it was employed only when there was need for practicaltesting of basic geometry and for the final round of prototyping, because herethe emphasis was more on formal aspects.From all our SLS-based experiments which, in addition to the reported cases,include six years of experiences and delivery of many hundred parts to oursponsors and Norwegian industry in general it can be summarised that strongRP models can be characterised as very good in relation to testing ofsolutions with high claims to strength, accuracy and functionality, and inrelation to the perceptual feedback such tests can offer in adaptation of thedesign solutions.8.4 RP- based experimentationConceptual solutions can be seen as design solutions of original or basicallyearlier unknown kinds in which most aspects of the design suggestions areincluded, but in approximated ways.225

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe Sidewinder project represents such a solution, where a three-rodparallelogram mechanism moving in all directions within the reach spacewas based upon the company’s conceptual strategic policy of parallelogram,but extended into and extra dimension. As this principle was not earlierexplored, and theoretical analysis gave no convincing impression, physicalexperimentation with it was seen as a condition for engaging the designers,the sponsor and the advisors for further search. A conviction that somethingcould be achieved from this basic solution was not reached until manyiterative detailed experiments had been completed, each time with improvedresults. A similar development took place in the Orchid project, where thingsinitially looked much too complex to convince anyone, but where thestudent’s stubborn playing with possibilities eventually showed thatgeometry complexity could be simply solved in production, if all joints,fasteners, connecting members and aesthetical structures were moulded intoone integrated flexible piece. Physical RP experiments proved its usability.In student E’s UFO Ice Lantern project a similar situation appeared when theleak critical dividing plane between main form and cover had to be placedbelow the water surface because of form constraints. The only way to avoidleakage in this low-accuracy technology was to introduce an ‘extended’dividing plane and heighten the form top above water level – a solutionwhich seemed too radical for many reasons to be accepted without physicalRP experiments with water.All the Mouth Hygiene projects were conceptual solutions which were highlydependent upon physical experiments for functional adaptation andacceptance. For example the many Messenger brush alternatives wereexcessively RP tested, in particular with regard to sticker/containerfunctionality with either many or few remaining stickers – an aspect whichwas impossible to evaluate functionally without realistic experimentation.Technical solutions are partial or aspectual solutions contained in a fulldesign, but particularly dependent upon specific technical aspects and focus.In addition to being conceptual, the Sidewinder and Orchid projects includedaspects of a technical nature, for example with regard to producability of theflexible joints, where the former had a three-dimensional and the latter a twodimensionalmovement pattern. Both solutions were dependent uponfunctionality, realistic assembly, durability, strength and realisable geometryof the tool – in addition to aesthetics. The interdependency of technicalaspects of these solutions was found to be so extensive that their developmentneeded both physicality to facilitate a harmonisation between them andexperimentation to find out if desirable geometry could be realised – whichdid not succeed until after several RP-based attempts.In the Balance Sledge concept the technical aspects of strength of the assemblyand complex geometry of the injection moulding tools were similarly highly226

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Lfocused. The basic polyethylene material had limited strength and the highlyloaded steering column accordingly needed to compensate material weaknessthrough large dimensions of loaded joints. The resulting dimensionalrequirements of the joints had to be adapted to the cooling restrictions ofdepth/width relations and slip claims of the moulding tool – which in its turngave premises for aesthetical and functional integrations. As all these divergingintegration aspects were unknown in advance, the way we approached themwas through physical experiments in three consecutive iterations based uponRP concept models and a fourth experiment in laser sintered models – whicheventually gave a harmonisation of all the individual constraints.Ergonomic functionality, relating to Human Factors in technical appliances, isparticularly well suited for RP-based experimentation. As described in section7.5, many types of tests are assigned to establish grounding for understandinghandling- and operation-criteria, for example basic grips analysis according todepicted in section 7.5.The best example from our cases appeared in the Mouth Hygiene project, whereexperimentation with anthropometrically based variables was excessive in allcases, but again best exposed in the Messenger project. Tooth brushing, whichinvolves both power grips and precision grips in diverging dynamicapplications and positions, has for the past years in Jordan’s framing beenexposed to ergonomic/aesthetical adaptation in grown-up brushes – with asignificant resulting market success. Similar evaluations were now attemptedtransposed to an end user group of children from 1 to 10 years of age. But inthis group verbal-intellectual reasoning about usability parameters is obviouslyproblematic – unless immediately resulting from sense-based experimentationwith physical models. Basic functional aspects were evaluated in RP-basedexperiments, as described, where particularly grips in several positions wereevaluated as a function of repeatedly changed incremental grip form variations,both in concept models and immediate improvements through grinding/clayapplication. Principally the same kind of anthropometrical grip experimentswere performed to the extraction of stickers from the containers, where theconceptual aspect of the same is described above.Aesthetical studies of three-dimensional form are performed in several differentways and usually supported by manual ‘sketch models’, as described in section7.3. One sort of aesthetical analysis which was found to be particularly usefulwhen supported by RP models was comparative experiments. This assessmenttechnique employs development of physical alternatives, elaborated in chapter7, and builds on immediate sense-stimulated perception which presupposessimultaneous alternatives in order to create comparable basis for evaluation.This principle was readily used with good outcome in our cases studies, asindicated in pt. 8 and 9 of 4.7.3 list, and for evaluation of aesthetical issues itwas found particularly helpful – in accordance with (Hannah 2002). The bestsingle illustration of such a study, made during the cases, is shown in Figure227

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N31-4, which depicts sixteen detailed RP produced last stage design alternativesof the Messenger brush. These alternatives were found invaluable in the finalform analysis and as a basis for inter-subjective communication among thedecision-makers. But the same perceptual comparison principle was alsoemployed in earlier phases experimentation, as depicted in Figure 12-4, andessentially in most of the referred projects.Part/whole relations represent another and more focused aspect of aestheticalstudies, in which product gestalt, proportion and balance are constituted amongmany variables, as described in section 7.3.Basically in all the referred case projects aesthetical/functional evaluations ofthe relations between constitutive parts and assembled wholes werecontinuously performed by means of fast and cheap RP experiments – anditeratively improved. In both the desk lamp projects integrated gestaltevaluations were consciously focused all along, but the above evaluationsdisplay how part problems to a large extent established premises for theaesthetical aspect. All three Ice Lantern projects were particularly focused onaesthetics, but experiments showed that many form attempts were impracticalproduction-wise and functionally. Similarly gestalt evaluations of all integratedelements were performed continuously in the Balance Sledge and in all theMouth Hygiene projects.Breakdowns, which means experiments that collapse for some reason andthereby reveal impossible conceptual solutions, can easily follow from RPbasedexperiments where integration of many of the above aspects areattempted.In the Sidewinder project suggested parallelogram mechanisms experiencedbreakdowns when physically tested, and the best example was the parallel rodscollapse of the planetary gear assembly in a position perpendicular to the gearbase plane (section 4.2.1). Breakdowns were also experienced in physicalexperimentations with the Ice Lantern projects, primarily assigned to freeformsurfaces colliding or resulting in insufficient material dimensions – notobservable on the computer screen. In the Messenger project severalbreakdowns were experienced in physical testing of the many differentcontainer principles and of the combined form suggestions and containerprinciples, where integration of form, function, ergonomics and toolingtechnology was attempted. In the first two iterations of the Balance Sledgeproject we also experienced geometries which in assembly and evaluation werefound to be impossible because of physically colliding parts and toolingconstraints.In all these experiments the physically experienced breakdowns were found tobe very helpful. This was because the basic weaknesses they revealed generallyopened the minds of the actors to search for alternative solutions, which in latercomparative experiments could prove to solve the revealed problems.228

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O L8.5 Perception in adaptive and formative modesAs reflected in section 6.4, the adaptive mode of designing resembles theexperience a designer has when s/he steps back and watches what s/he justmade – an experience which can be shared with collaborating design actors andadapted to the world it is intended for. The formative mode, on the other hand,denotes a designer’s experience in forming matter – an experience which isbasically his or her own, which happens in the act of making and which onlysuperficially can be communicated to others in retrospect. But other actors havesimilar individual experiences in similar making processes. The adaptive modeis considered as what is usually called a design process 7 , which in a commonframing involves occasional ‘visits’ to sensuous forming, for instance seen asform synthesis, and which further involves all kinds of analyses of differentkinds, called field-based aspects above (theoretical aesthetics, semiotics,ergonomics, technology, marketing etc.). The formative mode, the way it hasbeen elaborated in this thesis with its basis in individual perception extended toshared perception, is usually not emphasised specifically in similar processterms. In my framing it becomes central as an integrated aspect of a productdevelopment process, but it must be understood on its own premises. Physicalmodelling through application of Rapid Prototyping technology is here relatedto both design modes. In the analyses of section 8.3 and 8.4 above, wheredifferent capabilities of the resulting physical RP models are characterised inconcrete case projects, the relation to the adaptive mode is the central issue. Inthis context the RP models according to chapters 6 and 7 proceedings appear asdiversified catalysers of communication between collaborating actors. Throughreferences to the cases it is shown how actors can hold the models in the hand,observe them in different situations depicting future real applications, play withthem in different use approximations, relate parts to wholes, experiment withrough and basic or detailed formed alternatives, evaluate all kinds of variablesof rational or value laden nature, and how these experiences can produce acomprehensive grounding for field-based and integrated analyses. And hence,what is learnt and negotiated in one iteration is integrated in the next until aconcept can be finally verified. All this is adaptation, and according to theabove analysis bodily perceived RP models are very good at supporting theseapplications.In the formative mode, however, we face a situation of how models are made.In terms of chapter 6 and 7 analyses this includes how a designer manages tochange perceptual experiences from the adaptive mode into new and improvedimagery, and how s/he further manages to change these mental ideas intophysical form, a process which should involve intimate perceptual interactionbetween material and mental aspects. If this latter action is actually done by aRP machine, and not through hand-forming, we have identified a missing linkin a desirable process of maximised perceptual experience, which in turn moves7 See e.g. Roozenburg and Eeckels (1995), Ulrich and Eppinger (2000).229

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nour focus from the machine to how the designer makes the machine make themodel – the human-computer interface. If this interface is a mouse operating avirtual picture of a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional computerscreen, which was the team’s early approach to modelling in the referred casesof chapter 4, our maximisation objective collapses because the perceptualfeedback in this situation is seen as very bad. This realisation is illuminated inthe quoted questions no. 6 and 7 of the collaborating actors’ questionnaire ofsection 4.7.1, where the negative answers were reflected as “the mainperceptual problem” revealed in the empirical studies. The problem of aninferior feedback from the material in the designer’s sense-based perception ofthe emerging form in computer-based modelling can be called alienation, likethe design team of the section 4 cases chose to call it (pt. 17 of the 4.7.3 list).This alienation effect in material/designer interaction was a clear negativeconclusion of the making mode studies of the initial cases, and this view wasonly strengthened in the following cases as described below. How can thisproblem be overcome? A suggestion of a solution will be attempted in thefollowing.8.6 Reflection on RP as a catalysation tool for perceptionThe 8.3 analysis assigns very good tool capabilities of RP to all but the first ofthe outcome categories rough models, detailed models, freeform models,functioning assemblies, parallel solutions, weak models for remaking andstrong models for testing. The descriptions in section 8.4 of RP as a tool forphysical experimentation with conceptual solutions, technical solutions,ergonomic functionality, aesthetical studies, part/whole relations andbreakdowns further displays capabilities which can also be characterised asvery good. In section 8.5 RP is evaluated in regard to the adaptive mode of adynamic design pattern, and its abilities to support perceptual grounding foranalysis are characterised as very good in this situation as well. But in theformative mode the making of RP models has considerable limitations, asshown above. With an objective of maximisation of perceptual feedback to adesign actor in the act of designing, I have chosen to characterise amouse/screen interface as having very bad tool properties. We can therebysummarise these evaluations, with reference to the section 8.1 list.A. Fast and cheap modelling of:Rough up-front models Bad or goodDetailed modelsVery goodFreeform modelsVery goodFunctional assembliesVery goodParallel models with incremental changes Very goodWeak models for manual reformingVery goodStrong models for testingVery good230

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O LB. Experimentation with:Conceptual solutionsTechnical solutionsErgonomic functionalityAesthetical evaluationsPart/whole relationsProvoked breakdownsVery goodVery goodVery goodVery goodVery goodVery goodC. Maximisation of bodily perception in:Adaptive modeVery goodFormative mode Very badIn the summary of practically oriented intentions of section 7.10, centralmentality-oriented issues relating to conditions which will stimulate interactionand flexibility of collaborating design actors are listed. The above listsummarises relevant materiality aspects which are intended to support thementality aspects. Point A above characterises a variety of different kinds ofmodels and their possible applications – all with very good correspondencewith the suitability requirements except for the fast/intuitive aspect of up-frontmodels, which is not seen as any serious limitation. These descriptions are alsoseen to correspond with the requirement of flexibility in physical representationthrough their high variety of reported characteristics. In point B the RP tool isfound to be very well suited for all aspects of experimentation. But in reality RPproduces solid and basically inflexible physicality. How can this be understoodas flexible representation? This question can be approached from two aspects.Firstly, as reflected in the analyses of this section, flexibility can be achievedthrough experiments with alternative solutions, which can be perceivedsimultaneously by all collaborating actors and compared on equal terms,thereby producing a neutral sense-based platform for evaluation. As suchevaluation is shared by all actors by the nature of its physicality, this strategy ofcomparative experimentation is seen as an appropriate way to integrate flexiblementalities and simultaneously represent materiality flexibly, because diversitycan be maintained through modelling of many alternative solutions wherebydiverging aspects become specifically represented. Repeated experiments willeventually identify the best combination of alternative aspectual possibilities.Thereby flexibility in RP-based physical representation can be achieved in spiteof inflexible materiality of the models, and the referred cases show that the RPtool has very good capabilities for support of such experiments. (Section 7.8.5).But there is another and probably more direct way to achieve materialflexibility, and that can be approached through a natural state of physicalityitself. As plastic materials are basically flexible, this material property seems tobe an obvious candidate for making of physicality representing flexible minds.And our empirical results have revealed that manual forming of plasticmaterials can supplement basically solid RP materiality in very useful ways –which fundamentally supports our objective of flexible physical representation.231

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NCan such an understanding help us solve the serious problem of very bad toolcharacteristics of perceptual support in the formative mode of point C above?8.7 Integration of RP and manual modellingIt seems unlikely to this researcher that a technical man-machine interface willever be able to produce a perceptual feedback to the maker of form comparableto what a flexible plastic material can do through its own physicality. So insteadof developing technical feedback interfaces, why not use technology to supportbasic human making-patterns indirectly? This sort of reasoning, as indicatedalready in the chapter 4 summary, eventually produced the idea that in order toproperly support bodily perception in both adaptive and formative modes andsimultaneously to maintain the flexibility of both mentality and materialrepresentation in design action, RP technology ought to be married to manualmodelling in an interactive process. The objective behind such a unificationshould be to integrate the best perceptual feedback capabilities of bothprocesses, and master of ceremonies should be one with an ability to understandboth equally well.In our search for an appropriate unifying candidate, we found that thedevelopment within optical scanning had reached a level which seemed tocomply with our high claims of sophistication. As the basic forming principlewhich is reflected in all elaboration up to this point is one of remaking ofadaptation experiences, the clue to a solution was found in clay- or plasterbasedmanual remaking of weak RP concept models already physically tested inthe former adaptive experiments. We had learnt in the section 4 cases, whereremaking was mainly based upon robot-arm scanning, that obtaining good,manipulable 3D models from approximate manually remade RP/clay-modelswas time-consuming and difficult. The search was accordingly focused onappropriate software/hardware combinations with good ability to solve thisproblematic operation. We finally found a very accurate optical scanner withrotating scanning table and integrated software-packages with capability of fastand efficient free-form manipulation of the model and straightening capacity ofcrooked surfaces – which was acquired for the unification attempt (see section2.2). A concluding iterative process based upon (a) manual plastic remaking ofa weak RP concept model, (b) optical scanning of the combined result, (c)repair and manipulation of the resulting 3D model and (d) production of a newRP iteration was now structured (further referred in section 8.8.3)232

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O La. manual plastic remakingb. optical scanning of combinationc. manipulation of 3D modeld. materialisation of new RP modeldesigneruserengineerCreativecollaborativeatmosphereFig. 3-8: One RP/manual/scanning modelling iterationWe eventually found, however, that although very stimulating, the arrangedmarriage was not without problems. Empirical results from the concludingexplorative case projects will be presented in the following.8.8 Action phase C case projectsFrom the experiences acquired through the initial case studies, participation inseveral iteration sessions, panel debates and a seminar where the project waspresented to marketing and development staff, Jordan’s responsibledevelopment manager had found the trial-and-error based strategy so interestingthat he invited the initial student design team to use the process in their diplomacase for the company. The group minus one, in collaboration with theresearcher, now structured a project which built upon all experiences andanalyses up to this point. The intention was to focus concept modelling, claybasedremodelling, optical scanning and use of different software possibilitiesfor 3D model manipulation and rebuilding according to the above suggestions.The research objectives of this case project were to explore and evaluate acollaborative design process based upon interaction between individual actors –supported by Rapid Prototyping, manual modelling, 3D scanning and remaking.8.8.1 Case objectivesJordan Steps, which was partly built on the experiences from the MessengerBrush case of section 4.6.2, was a design project with objectives to focusmotivating factors for children’s mouth hygiene, suggest conceptual designsolutions in specified age segments according to the corporate profile, anddesign brushes based on the above process oriented objectives. Thecollaborative and cross-disciplinary aspect of the project was establishedthrough a development team which in addition to the candidates consisted offive company employees representing market, distribution, dentistry,233

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nengineering and tooling expertise plus a professional tooth brush designer andthe researcher as institute-based advisors. The design team core group hadproject meetings averagely every fortnight through the autumn semester of2002, and the results were finally presented to a company assembly at theJordan head office in Oslo. To secure precision it was agreed that the processresearch data should be collected through the written project report (in partenclosed in appendix A9) and a concluding video-taped discussion (appendixA10) in addition to observing participation by the researcher during designaction. To avoid the negative reaction of over-emphasis on RP reported inchapter 4, the students and Jordan staff were this time left to freely arrange theproject according to actual needs and employ RP, manual modelling andscanning only to the degree which was considered natural and useful at anytime, but with focus on exploring positive and negative application aspects.The objective of the project’s initial phase was to analyse a market need for aproduct series appealing to and engaging children from 0 to 12 years of age –with motivation as prime mover. A market survey encompassing analysis of alarge number of own and competing products, brainstorming sessionresulting in some hundred creative suggestions, mood-board displays, expertdiscussions and elaboration of a lot of associative ideas resulted in aseparation of the market into four segments: (a) 0-2 years, (b) 3-5 years,(c) 5-7 years and (d) 8+ years and registration of value differences betweengirls and boys in the last two segments. In the following abbreviatedsummaries of each segment the concept development processes will bepresented – first seen from the adaptive mode aspect and later from theforming mode aspect. The iterative process started with a conceptual sessionwhich was followed by four or five form phases, where all four concepts inprinciple were developed in parallel. Each main phase turned out to involvesidesteps, which will not be referred, as interesting ideas evolved and gavethe impulse for new experiments. At the end of the project some two hundredmodels in all had been produced – eventually resulting in four final designs.8.8.2 Adaptive modeThe Baby concept was based on babies’ sore gums and need for chewing on allobjects within reach – and the idea of integrating a chewing/playing device witha soft brush which could also be operated by grown-ups, in order to getacquainted with brushing early. Through phase 1 brush-bite-toy evaluations bysketching and building rough physical models (bite- worm/maggot,toy/attachable handle, parent-brush) a new concept emerged based on a bitechew-brushcombination. Five form alternatives were first clay-formed and/or3D modelled and then concept modelled. Through hand-held experiments,version 2 was chosen as most promising and three alternative formapproximations of this version were 3D modelled and concept modelled inphase 2. Hand-testing, where the parent inference was evaluated, identified theelliptic version as the preferred alternative. In phase 3 evaluation, adaptation toseveral packaging and production constraints lead to a slimming exercise. This234

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Lversion was then selected as basic overall form, materialised, developed furtherfor harmonisation of family resemblance to the parallel higher age concepts,and adapted to all functional, aesthetical, production, tool and cost-relatedaspects of integration with a soft second material. Three alternative crosssections and soft patterns were now developed as 3D models, evaluated andversion B was chosen for further development. In phase 4 colour, aesthetics andfunctionality was given high focus in tests and the resulting design was nowmaterialised as one concept model which was finished with logo and twocolours before presentation. In hand-held tests with all actors involved smallform changes were agreed to, the logo was decided moved to the rear, alltooling and technical claims were integrated, and the unit was laser sintered for5th phase adaptations.Figure 4-8: Stages from theBaby concept developmentThe laser sintered version was now integrated with all detailed toolingspecifications and wall thickness adjustments. A two-material final version wasbuilt by laser-sintering the main body and the soft material separately, buildingsilicon tooling, moulding out the latter and finally joining the two. User testingalong the way was done with laser-sintered units and evaluation forms werecompleted by the test case parents.235

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe Capsule concept for the three to five year olds similarly started with twoinitial phases where four conceptual solutions were evaluated throughsketching and rough modelling. The resulting concept idea was based upon aprinciple of a soft transparent capsule which could be filled with liquid byparent/child or factory-filled and containing semi-floating objects. Threealternative capsule configurations were evaluated in first form phase, basedupon different fastening principles. They were 3D modelled, conceptmodelled and tested. Experiments with these excluded the employment ofself-filling, which was found to be impractical and concluded with the casein-the-bodyversion as the best alternative. Second form phase included clayexperiments, 3D modelling, concept modelling and physical experimentswith one unit. This test gave only need for small adjustments and led to athird phase where three alternative capsule geometries were built andevaluated, with a combination of two as a result. In fourth phase the chosenconcept was tested out from phase three models with clay adjustments,changed and re-materialised.Figure 5-8: Capsule process stagesIn the parallel development of the Sticker concept for five to seven years thewinning conceptual idea with identification stickers was inherited from theMessenger project. But instead of the stack of stickers, which in themeantime had been found to be too expensive, a limited series of stickerswould follow each brush and be selected for application by the child. Firstform phase was an analysis of basic sticker structure and included four236

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Lphysical concept models with basically different solutions. Physicalexperiments led to the choice of a large front plus a small rear sticker aspreferred alternative. To communicate semantically that the brushes weresupposed to have stickers now became the formal objective for a series ofphase 2 experiments including concept models and manual clay forming.Experiments and shared evaluations resulted in preferred solutions whichwere transferred to following attempts over and over until contentment wasreached. When the front had been solved, a 3D evaluation of rear alternativeswas undertaken as phase 3, and a final harmonisation of front, rear andsticker shape as phase 4 which was materialised, tested and accepted.Figure 6-8:Sticker process stagesThe Youth model for eight + years was developed from a main objective ofindividual identification, flexibility and ‘un-childish’ image. The conceptualanalysis involved changeable heads and integration of grown-up brushfeatures. It ended up as a concept with exchangeable high quality graphics ortexture and with the flexing principle from a grown-up brush integrated. Firstform phase was aimed at analysis of alternative attachable covers. Conceptmodels were built for experiments and an enveloping cover was selected.Second phase aimed at approaching an appropriate form - aesthetically,functionally and semantically, which was achieved through new concept237

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nmodels and remaking through clay-experiments. In third phase the main formwas adjusted and optimised through physical experiments and soft/hardmaterial form combinations were also experimented with. In fourth phasethis physical harmonisation process was continued. In fifth phase severalhard/soft part combinations were analysed and materialised for final testing,evaluation and choice, and particular emphasis was put on technical detailsand flexing capability adaptations and finalised graphics.Figure 7-8: Development stages of the Youth conceptThe Jordan Steps children’s mouth hygiene product series matching anupdated corporate design strategy and consisting of Baby, Capsule, Stickerand Youth models was now finished. In parallel to the brush seriesdevelopment a packaging design project had been completed based on a238

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Lsimilar process, where clay models were used as point of departure, scanningof them gave geometry of vacuum forming tools and iterative repetitions withconcept models/clay eventually led to a finalised packaging design.Figure 8-8: Jordan Steps toothbrush series for childrenThe whole project had been completed in five months by three studentssupported by RP/scanning technology – which is extremely efficient. Theproject was evaluated as outstanding by an external diploma jury andawarded the highest grade in the history of the institute. The team candidateswere later engaged by the company – as professional designers – and theirfirst job was to commercialise the Baby, Capsule, Sticker and Youthconcepts.Figure 9-8: Presentation and round table discussion with usable models8.8.3 Formative modeObservations and report summaries of the forming modes of each stageclearly show that they resembled each other. Each phase contained a large239

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nnumber of iterations, as described. Each iteration started with some physical,remade representation of the former – except for the very first one. Thisrepresentation could basically be a pure clay model, a concept model, aclay/grinding-modified concept model or a laser-sintered model. After havingperceived the model through observation, touching and experimenting with itand learnt how it adapted to external claims and personal expectations andopinions, an improved version would be materialised through hand-operatedaction – either as a new clay model or as the last concept model which wasmodified through grinding or clay application.Each manually remade iteration was produced by one of the design actorsuntil s/he was pleased and then tested and evaluated by all three in discussionsessions. This dialogue could produce a wish to change it or to make a newversion by the maker – or it could produce a wish to produce somethingsimilar by the other actor(s). The new versions would be treated similarly,and the process was continued until they felt that the theme of the phase hadbeen matured and some concluding, shared opinion had been reached. Bythen many physical variants had usually been produced, which could beplaced beside each other and tested in comparative adaptation analyses.Figure 10-8: Manual forming of alternativesThese observed actions were performed in accordance with the intentions,our earlier experiences from the section 4 cases and the theoretical analysesof chapters 6 and 7. But according to the objectives of sections 8.6 and 8.7, asuccessful integration of RP and hand-making would need a smooth anduncomplicated interface between this stage of rough approximations and thefairly accurate 3D model needed for the following iteration. This was wherethe abilities of the optical scanner and the software packages were supposedto be integrated in the manual procedure. What were the experiences fromthis unification attempt?Optical scanning and model processing needed instruction and practice inour framing, and the three students participated in a course together withresponsible institute staff. The 3D scanner was equipped with a scannerprogram, Easy Scan, which can assemble the optical data from the scanner toa point-cloud that can be exported. These free-form clouds can be furtherprocessed in the Rapid Form program which can generate polygon and Nurbssurfaces. Polygon surfaces of the employed software are quickly created andcan be easily adjusted, straightened and changed, but have certain limitationsas far as surface structure and manipulation characteristics are concerned.240

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O LNurbs surfaces are generated as ‘wrappings’ of the point clouds and areeasier to manipulate to desirable, finely detailed form, but they are more timeconsuming to produce. What was needed was an ability to generate suitablesurfaces which could be partly manipulated and partly copied, but wheremanipulation of large surfaces should not ruin or basically change details. Ormanipulation of details should not change neighbouring surfaces. Thestudents agreed to employ and evaluate the tool capabilities with focus onthese characteristics and applied to their cases.Manual remodellingRP materialisationSTL fileEasy ScanNurbs surfacingOptical scanning Point cloudPolygon surfacingRapid FormFigure 11-8: Integrated iteration loop of a RP/manual /scanning processThey used scanning for all four phases and documented their experiences intheir report. These are their written evaluations, summarised and translatedfrom Norwegian in the final project report, partly referred in appendix A9:After the instruction course: They had bad experiences from using the Mayapolygon tool from section 4 cases, but felt initially that these new tools had amuch higher potential. They were partly disappointed that the instructor didnot know the critical surfacing part better than he turned out to do. They wereimpressed by the ability to translate point clouds to Nurbs mesh surfaces.They were worried about the tool’s tendency to early develop an‘unintelligent’ file and that one by the exactness of the technology hadproblems in properly getting rid of the inaccuracies of the hand-made models.“If one simplifies, one very soon loses valuable and desirable information.For our purpose we need to generate clean logical models which allow ussimply and controlled to make variants in sections and main form. Thischange to exactness ought to take place early, because very much of thedesign is decided though the small details.”After phase 1: First they sketched experiences from last phase andimprovement suggestions. Then they made clay models of the newsuggestions by hand and painted for reflection. After some learning, scanning241

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nfunctioned very well and gave fast and exact models. They had someproblems with some too slim top parts, expected to be due to mechanicalinstability. The files were exported to Maya where the shape tool was used tomanipulate the polygon surfaces. “Global straightening led to simplificationof the geometry, but simultaneously rounded the whole brush. Difficult tomake cuttings because of bad geometry. Had to make time consumingdetours.” And further: “we soon lost track of the totality, difficult to controlthe overall form. Difficult to evaluate dimensions and create roundings orsharp corners. The brushes soon lost their form and the lines from the clay.”Straightening of large surfaces functioned well, but control of details waseasily lost.After phase 2: Modifications of the concept models from phase 1 were thistime made through clay modelling of all the four model categories in manyvariants and following group discussions. This method functioned very wellfor basic forming. The best models were selected and the scanning this timeworked quite appropriately with the new scanning program. The files werethen exported. They now chose a strategy of designing new Nurbs surfacemodels wrapped over the scanned model – in order to avoid the phase 1problems. “We could check visually that the surfaces corresponded with thepolygon model. By regulating the ‘clipping plane’ we could also extractsections from the polygon model for drawing of rail curves. Through thismethod we made 3D models with very good correspondence to the claymodels and which were very precise and detailed.” After Z-corp conceptmodelling the physical models were adjusted through grinding and paintedwhite for presentations.After phase 3: Modifications were again done through clay modelling, whereresponsibility for family structure, sections for dislike designs and adaptationto a second soft material and also modelling of packaging plugs wasdistributed between the three. Three to four clay modified alternatives per agegroup were chosen out and prepared for scanning and remodelling. In thisphase several practical problems with the equipment like disassembledscanner and poor coordination obstructed a smooth processing. But necessarymodels were eventually finished and no basic problems were reported.After phase 4: New models for vacuum forming of packaging wereprepared in clay and modifications of brush form alternatives were mainlydone through adaptation of the existing Nurbs models. The adjusted modelswere this time laser sintered and built as strong functioning prototypes. “Thistime the system functioned well. The first models gave information aboutgrip and the experience of holding in the hand. Feedback on width, lengthand handle form was achieved – if there was room for the thumb, if headangle was right etc. Early in the process one is focused on keeping open allpossibilities about what is possible to produce. Concepts which are probablytoo expensive are continued because one does not consider cost. Detailedmodels give another feedback. When all details are physically represented in242

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Lthe model one gets needed information about aspects like production andprice – probably because it is not possible to evaluate those variables earlier.”These written reflections were further assessed and double-checked through avideo-taped concluding discussion between the Jordan project leader T, thestudent actors J and K and the researcher R.8.8.4 Summary discussionThe objective of the discussion was to sum up experiences with the integratedprocess and try to identify clues to how remodelling could preferably beperformed. Again, quotes are transcribed from the video-tape and translatedby the researcher (appendix A10). I have chosen to give unbroken reports ofthree selected sections to give a covering account of the shared views.A considerable part of the discussion was focused on remodelling techniques:R: I have suggested that there is a high potential in making the scanningfunctional – so that you can avoid using a lot of time in front of theCAD screen in each new iteration.J: That is a complex issue. What you can say is that – for tooth brushesfor example – the neck of the brush, exactly how it bends is veryimportant for Jordan, and if it bends badly, you will have to create anew geometry, more or less, to correct that.T: The symmetrical issue and the issue of stiffness too, for theindividual case ….R: Yes, when the software is so advanced, and you can straighteninaccuracies?K: That works fine, but the way things are made is intelligent. Thescanner is dumb as a bread, but what you make has an intelligence;how surfaces are connected and how the whole geometry isconstructed. There is a bottle neck there, you must ….J: …you must construct new surfaces. This donut dispenser, forexample – that you define the outer surface of a certain radius, andthe inner one with another radius. And when you scan it, those twowill be connected.R: You cannot have them divided when you adjust the model?K: It is starting to come now, but it is not much faster than to model itanew.R: So, what you are saying is that there is a high potential in thepossibility, but before the program is capable of dividing the modelaccording to how it is programmed, one cannot employ thepossibility fully?K: Right. Up until this point at least, you will use the scan as a basis formaking the new model as exact as possible, like the model you havemade. And for that it is very good.243

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NJ: But then we have another problem which is part of the picture, andthat is….If you scan a model and that works well and you canstraighten the surface, then you will still not manage to straighten itquite well. If you want a cylinder for example, you never manage tostraighten up a clean cylinder. Then you can say, when you go forproduction at least, it must be correct.T: I agree that scanning must be the thing as far as organic forms isconcerned.K: Yes, that is exactly it …..T: .... except for that, it is not so preferable. It is for the organic formsthat one can get the most out of it.K: Yes, it is best there, if you have made a form which is difficult totranslate, with your hands, right.R: But I have imagined that these brushes to a high degree are madefrom organic forms?J: Yes, they are very organic, but organic form is also quite defined –they are not undefined, right? But they are defined in another way,for example in the meeting between two surfaces – that they meeteach other exactlyK: There are so many details in transitions and such things …..J: What happens in the surfaces is one thing. Where surfaces meet isthe important thing. That is what I feel in relation to thisstraightening tool. On a surface which is double curved for instance,it is easy to straighten that, but it is when you come to where twosurfaces meet, you straighten the corner – or you start to takeinformation away …..K: Yes, but I think that the method will be developed until it functions,it is only a question of time. But when you come to the final phase,then you must nevertheless construct.R: Yes, I have never said anything else, but I have observed that in yourproject you have used very much clay modelling. Can you saysomething about that – to use the hands and avoid using the screen?J: What we did this time was to model, concept-wise, the differentconcepts in clay. That is, after we have sketched we try to model thedifferent concepts in clay, and then we create a dialogue betweenourselves about form, what direction we want to go. And if we seewhat we want to make one day, we probably make 5-6 clay modelseach – and that is 15 models representing 15 concepts to choosebetween. And then if you want to detail a concept, if you decideupon a new concept, you make a new model until you feel you havesucceeded on a new level so to speak. Decide upon a new conceptagain, make a new clay model and so on ….T: How did you bring the model from clay over to digitised form?J: First we tried scanning the models, and to straighten the surfaces butthat was difficult. Then we scanned and used the scans as basis whenwe remodelled, and that functioned very well – where you use the244

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Lwhole model and place new surfaces on its outside. Then you get thedimensions correct at once.K: It is also a faster way to build surfaces.J: Yes you avoid the first phase of fumbling.T: The alternative is to measure the model physically?K: Yes, we take pictures instead.J: We take pictures from the side.Other issues were number of iterations and CAD capability of actors:R: But T, if they need twenty iterations of Rapid Prototyping to make anew brush – a new concept – how have you done this earlier?T: Then it becomes more … You must remember, very much of this isa question of perfection. They have had free access to this equipmentwhere others have restrictions.K: Yes, it has to do with access.T: And it also has to do with this being a special project and you beingstudents. As one works with this method, as one works with thedesign, gets more experience… When things can be approached inmore general terms, it can probably suffice with three or fouriterations. But it is quite clear – had I been a young designer today, Iwould as much as I could have learnt to use this equipment. Itactually ought to come to that any designer should have had accessto such a Rapid Prototyping method.J: Yes, it is very good.T: And we also use it in our other projects, not in the very same way aswe have done here.J: We have also experienced; there were many cases where we wouldnot have needed it, where the changes are so small. It is the wholetime a sort of race – of modelling, make changes, get the models out.And that process takes time, and you will always try to get as fastfeedback as possible, to put it that way. So if you have the chance tomake a model, then you do that, even if you have only made a smallchange – to check exactly what you did there, and to continue to dochanges.K: But it also has to do with how you have structured the procedure.We have made here as many iterations and models as we wanted,but we could certainly have reached a similar result if we forinstance had made ten iterations. Then we probably would have usedmore time, however, in the adaptation in the computer and we wouldalso probably have used some other tools as well.J: Yes, and we could also have some problems with the data assembly,problems with building surfaces and so on. When you have finallymanaged to build a surface, then you want it to function. It takessome time to see if it functions, and some times it functions eventhough it does not look perfect on the screen.245

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NT: But the danger with such a procedure is that you become in a waygoverned by it. You make models which function well when youmodel manually too. That is the danger.J: Yes, you must be so clever at data modelling that that does nothappen in a way. That is very important.R: But that is one of the great advantages with scanning then, if youmanage to get that to function. Then you can make the surface youneed in clay, and you can scan it as it is?T: Yes, the challenge is then to integrate that into the rest of the model.R: That concerns the data interface which is not quite adjusted yet?T: Yes, this is in the front end of what is practically attainable today.Finally we touched upon study of variants and risk reduction:R: But if we stick to formal adjustments, if you have a main concept,and this can be expressed in let us say ten variants with smallchanges. Is it useful to study variants physically?J: I think that many changes are too small to bring to Jordan fordiscussion, but they are large enough for us to study them.R: So, there it is useful?J: Yes.K: And then we had some larger differences earlier, when we had threealternative concepts, but there were large differences between them.Then we made physical models to choose between.J: Yes, and when we made big changes we made physical models. Thatis right.T: Yes, there were some large discussions on form which we hadinternally in the group as well …. to add some here, to pull somethere. Absolutely, we worked on that level.R: At our institution this method has come to stay? I don’t know, T, canyou tell us if this is something you will continue?T: Yes, quite certainly. The most important for us is that after basicconcepts are ready – when one has agreed upon main directions of aproject, to get this digitised as fast as possible. When it is ready – assoon as possible go to data so that we do not spill time on finishedmodels, which must be defined afterwards, with all the sources offaults which they contain. So we will quite clearly use thistechnology to its limits, because as soon as the model is finished,then it is just to go for tooling.R: Can you tell us something of that – now we have a concept, and thepossibility of making cheap tools and a cheap test series?T: In our case that is very important. We have another toothbrushproject now, which has not come as far as this, where the concept isstill on the model stage, and where we have already made three testtools before we make production tooling.R: And they cost?T: The simplest from between 50 and 100.000 NOK, and then upwards.246

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O LR: And why do you make these tools?T: One, at 60.000 NOK, to test the technology. The two others are fortesting out form, and then it is important that they are of a qualitywhich is as close to the real as possible.J: Is that because of marketing aspects or what?T: No, the first of these was just to test out function – just a shaft. Andthe two others were final handles, but in different levels of quality,and then we made high quality, one cavity tools where we cutelectrodes from 3D data basis.R: But I also consider that you, as competitors in though markets, wantto go for creative concepts, because they give higher profits. Wouldit be interesting to make test series of very creative concepts wherecustomer acceptance is uncertain and test them in the market?T: Yes, and that has been the advantage with making two test tools ofthe new tooth brush. We have tested the market with the first tool.We have produced a number of brushes and tested them internallyand externally – a quite extensive external test of them. Then we usethe production tool to make them – and change the models anew.And then we make a new tool and repeat the procedure before wefinish the production tool.R: How large is the test series which you distribute, then?T: We talk about hundreds, not ten thousand. Between hundred andthousand – let us say three hundred to a thousand from that test tool.R: In a defined market segment?T: Yes it is for testing that brush, so that is a defined segment. And inthe test of the last tool, then the brush is supposed to be equal to theproduction version physically, to look at. Then we test out materials,colours, finish. And then the answer we get from the test is totallydecisive for whether we go for it or not.R: And if we could make test tooling for a fraction of the price youhave been used to?T: Then no-one would be more happy than us for that (laughter).R: Could you then see an opening for increasing innovation and risklevel?T: We could see an opening for making more projects which we are notcertain will succeed. It is in a way equal to what we have done inthis case, where we are not certain the result will be launched, butwe have of course the possibility of doing it. And then we could runa number of projects like that – it is a question of resources.R: Then I am content, is there anything else you want to consider?Main summarised issues of the expressed views of this and the written Stepsreport sections are:1. The overall functionality of the process is very good.2. The ‘intelligence’ of the CAD model is a bottle neck.3. Manipulation difficulties arise mainly where separate surfaces meet.247

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N4. Improvements in available polygon data programs handling suchproblems are expected to become commercial soon.5. The preferred remodelling method so far is to envelope the scannedmodel with a Nurbs model.6. Integration of RP and manual forming is then seen as a very gooddevelopment method.7. The method is best for ‘organic’ forming.8. Experience with the method will bring the necessary number ofiterations down.9. The main objective is to get perceptual feedback of new suggestionsas soon as possible.10. CAD competence is very important when working with envelopingsurfaces.11. Studying similar physical variants comparatively is very useful indevelopment action.12. Making test tooling and market testing is imperative to avoid risk innew concepts.8.8.5 Reflections on an RP supported integrated processThe outcome of the Jordan Steps case in terms of achieved results,achievements in relation to time frame and quoted actor experiences clearlyshows that integration of hand-making and RP has a very high potential as adesign strategy. The case also displays, however, that although scanning andthe production of a resulting 3D CAD model from a hand-modified conceptmodel has reached a very satisfactory process level, its remaking into animproved model via software still leaves something to be desired.The student group had a very tight time schedule and after some attemptsgave up on remaking the scanned model directly via polygon mesh softwarealone. Instead they chose to do it indirectly by enveloping the point cloudwith a Nurbs model, which eventually could be exported to STL format andbe materialised. In their case with high focus on exactness, this process wasfast and efficient since it gave them full control of forming details of thefollowing iteration. Since this researcher is in a very similar time and budgetsqueeze, the demonstrated process will have to suffice as a concluding resultof this project. And it is no bad result since it definitely supports theaspirations of the research project. But remaking through building a newNurbs model in every iteration is not necessarily seen as the best possiblesolution since it leaves you with high requirements of Nurbs modellingcapability as demonstrated by the students and a slower process than could beachieved through direct polygon adjustments. To avoid this full remodellingneed in early project phases, one should have to find a practical and intuitiveway to straighten, trim or garnish scanned imperfections locally withoutinfluencing other and acceptable parts of the model. This is a question ofimplementing an appropriate software/hardware combination – and will for248

C H A P T E R 8 : R A P I D P R O T O T Y P I N G A S A C O N C E P T U A L C A T A L Y S A T I O N T O O Ltime reasons have to be left as an objective for further search, but is expectedto be commercially available soon. In Figure 10-8 the choice of polygon orNurbs remaking before going to the next materialisation is depicted as twoparallel alternatives which are seen as depending on need for exactness in theactual case. An ‘intuitive’ polygon adjustments solution with acceptableaccuracy is seen as a better solution according to the claims of maximisationof perceptual feedback (and thereby speed) than full Nurbs remodelling –which preferably should be left for the final or close to the final stage.Nevertheless, we are now closing in on something interesting. From what hasbeen indicated in the initial case projects and demonstrated further in theJordan Steps project, we can now summarise. Instead of starting out from analienating, mouse-based 3D modelling process in front of a computer screenaccording to an engineering tradition, we can start out from rough physicalconcept approximations handmade from desirable materials and scan them.In cases where bodily perception of form/functionality is desirable, thisaction pattern is considered as relevant. From resulting repaired andmanipulated 3D models we can easily make variants, alternations andimprovements through appropriate software, export and materialise them forexperimentation and bodily perceived formal evaluation. Directly on weakphysical concept models we can make hand-made adjustments andimprovements through grinding and/or addition of plastic flexible materiallike clay, plaster or the like. The (still rough) result can be scanned anew,adjusted similarly and materialised. This process can be repeated over andover, which will give gradually improving drafts – until some satisfactionusable for adaptation attempts is reached. Such a process is in accordancewith the concluded action patterns of chapters 6 and 7.Thereby a missing link in the summary evaluation of RP as a catalysationtool for human perception and communication in design of section 8.6 hasbeen found. We have shown that if RP is supplemented with scanning andefficient software for straightening and correcting scanned manually adjustedRP models or manual plastic models, then the characteristic of RP having avery bad interface for supporting perception in the formative mode ofremodelling has been changed to having very good capability.8.9 RP and scanning as catalysation tools for design actionIn referring all the analysed RP properties back to the list of fourteenrequirements of an appropriate catalysation tool of section 8.1, we find thatRapid Prototyping technology can been considered to have very goodproperties in all the evaluated situations of application for (A) fast and cheapmodel building, (B) physical experimentation and (C) stimulation of bodilyperception with one single exception; initial rough models. As reflected insection 8.3, RP can also be used for such models, particularly when somedetailing is involved, but rough handmade approximations are generally seen249

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nas more appropriate here. In conclusion: if supplemented with appropriatescanning/manipulation technology, Rapid Prototyping can be characterisedas a very good tool for catalysation of flexible human perception in bothformative and adaptive modes of design action.The analysed capabilities of the RP tool refer to the production of materialityrepresenting individual and shared dynamic mentality patterns in line withthe analyses of chapters 6 and 7. Such patterns are not given in processes ofcollaboration between design actors, but must be created or elicited in orderto become effective. An intentional arrangement or staging of motivatingdevelopment principles thereby becomes a resulting process objective of thisresearch project – as outlined in section 7.10 and applied in this case project.An essence of what has been evaluated in this finalising demonstration of allearlier achieved practical and theoretical understanding is how materialmodels should be produced in order to effectively represent flexiblementality. Our findings in this project support earlier findings where gettingperceptual feedback as soon as possible and perceptual comparison betweenalternatives have been identified as central procedural objectives. Theseprinciples have proven to be highly appreciated by the actors in all thereported cases when supported by the outstanding efficiency of RPtechnology. When RP capabilities are supplemented with technology whichallows the actors to create form through immediate sense feedback fromflexible materials – and simultaneously maintain high precision and speed –then such a process scenario could be considered as an interesting integrationbetween future-oriented and traditional approaches to design action.Production of such materiality, which is seen as basically flexible in order torepresent flexible conceptualising mentality, should be fundamentallydistinguished from production of materiality aimed at representation offinished concepts – which is traditionally termed prototyping. RapidPrototyping is accordingly considered as an inappropriate name for thistechnology when employed in the recommended way. A type is, however,according to Fowler’s concise English dictionary defined as “a thing servingas illustration, symbol, prophetic similitude, or characteristic specimen ofanother thing or class” – a definition which applies well to physical modelsaimed at communicating emerging conceptual possibilities. It is thereforesuggested that RP technology applied for production of flexible types aimedat conceptual negotiation in design action should be termed Negotiotyping asdistinguished from prototyping – and the resulting material representationsshould be termed Negotiotypes.But during this project employment of RP and RT technology in otherdevelopment phases than conceptualisation has also been evaluated. Theresults of these evaluations will be referred in chapter 9.250

Ch9:RAPID MODELLING IN EARLY AND LATE DEVELOPMENTPHASES_______________________________________________________This chapter evaluates the employment of rapid modelling in earlyand late development phases. Studies of selected case projectsindicate very good capabilities of the Rapid Prototyping tool forgenerative modelling of early visions and for specialised seriesproduction. Studies of the capabilities of Rapid Tooling indicate thatproducing test-series of radical concepts can substantially reducetheir high market risk.251

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N9.1 Phase structure of projectsIn addition to conceptualisation, the explorative approach to new applicationsof Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling has during the project revealed twoother adaptations of the technology which can be seen as supplying newdevelopmental strategies opened up by their capabilities; physical RPmodelling of visionary ideas up-front in a project and RT-based productionof test series of original concepts as a last stage before possible launching.As these issues have been considered relevant parts of the total context, butnot central to the main research problematic (chapter 1), less rigour has beenassigned to their elaboration. Identification, organisation, observation anddescription have been considered as adequate methodological approaches.The organisation of product development projects in differentiated phases canvary considerably between schools and authors depending on focus andemphasis 1 , and recent research has also indicated that phase organisationshould be considered only as a loose structure 2 . A convenient organisation ofa RP/RT supported development project is to divide it in four maindevelopmental phases before decision and preparation for production – butthe phase structure should be considered as flexible: (1) Fuzzy Front End,(2) Conceptualisation, (3) Concept Evaluation, (4) User Feedback – andeventually Production. RP as a development tool is generally applied, as thename indicates, for prototyping of more or less finished concepts in phase (3)Concept Evaluation, where it in few years to a large degree hasrevolutionised traditional ways of product evaluation (Wohlers 2001). But asdisplayed by Wohlers, RP is also gaining importance as a test tool in laterstages of phase (2) Conceptualisation, and for testing prototypes in earlystages of phase (4) User Feedback. An objective of this project has been, inaddition to expanding employment in the Conceptualisation phase, to explorethe possibilities of expanding application of RP/RT further into the FuzzyFront End and User Feedback phases if it is found to be relevant and useful.Fuzzy Front End Conceptualisation Concept Evaluation User Feedback1 112 34PROD.Figur 1-9: Process phases with common RP application1 See chapter 2.2 Brandt (2002)252

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E S9.2 RP-based modelling of visions9.2.1 Communication in ideationIt seems that what happens before a project is properly established onlyrecently has become an issue of primal importance in product development.Smith and Reinertsen (1998) emphasise how the Fuzzy Front End of a projectis more often than not very time consuming and badly organised. Theyilluminate how this stage represents an “extraordinary opportunity”particularly in terms of critical time compression potential, because “it iswhen the sense of urgency is lowest that we have the greatest opportunity tocheaply influence the project” 3 . They describe how the importance of newideas is very difficult to accept all through an industrial organisation, howideas must be well documented as opportunities to become visible to themanagement, and how they always will compete internally and oftenunfavourably with more safe approaches of redesign. They suggest forming“idea-capture” procedures to achieve visibility. Cooper (2001) holds thatnumber one of fifteen success factors is “a unique superior product: adifferentiated product that delivers unique and superior value to thecustomer” 4 . He suggests an idea-generating system for “breakthrough ideas”involving strategic scenarios and discovery interaction between many actorslike customers, lead users, engineering, research and management. In such asystem ideation sources like “idea banks” should be established, thin ideasshould be expanded, and competitor analysis, trades, universities, inventors,patents, suppliers and much more should be involved in idea generation.There are several approaches to generation of original product ideas(Sternberg 1999, Lerdahl 2001) and they are generally speaking all supposedto result in a basic conceptual product idea aimed at development. Suchdefined ideas which contain new possibilities can be termed visionary ideasor visions. When such visionary possibilities have been created – inside oroutside an organisation – a situation will eventually result where thepossibilities must be ‘sold’ to decision-makers like corporate management,public authorities, screening institutions or financial organisations in order tosubstantiate as a development project if it is found worthy. Such a situationcan be seen to involve some vital challenges:creation of a proper basis for evaluation of idea contentcommunication of idea content to receivers of messageengagement of idea receivers through demonstration of idea potential3 Smith and Reinertsen (1998) p.54.4 Cooper (2001) p.83.253

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NThe question of how visionary ideas should be presented in order to arousesufficient understanding for a proper evaluation to take place (beforedetailing) will readily involve issues of bodily perception. A traditionalmethod for idea evaluation is presentation through sketches, but one issuewhich has been questioned in our case studies is whether sketches will supplya sufficient basis for evaluation. In section 4.3.2 a Jordan productionengineer, X, concludes such a situation:I am a hundred percent agreeing with what you are saying, and wehave actually taken a decision at the development department someyears ago – to avoid using sketches for our presentations for theadministration or the board because we have so bad experiences. Itshows in sketch presentations – yes, the brains of different peoplefunction differently. They go in different gears and see differentangles in things, and we were often confronted by that when westarted something on the basis of sketches. And when the productlay on the table some months later, we were very often confrontedby this; it was not that which we agreed upon! That created quite afew unpleasant situations, and to avoid that discussion, we have nowactually taken a principal decision that we do not show sketches anymore – not at all. If we present something, then it is in the form ofmodels, and that is it.Although toothbrush design appears as a good candidate for physical supportof bodily perceived evaluation, a generalisation of such an approach seems tobe far fetched, since there are several kinds of product ideas which areprobably better described in early stages through sketches, abstractions or byother means. But for many sorts of concrete visionary ideas, it appears like anaid to the people responsible for up-front evaluation and selection ofdevelopment candidates to have some physicality to play with in theirattempts to imagine idea potential.In reflection on this problematic, we find that a paradox arises. On one handperceptual feedback similar to what is illuminated in chapters 6 and 7 seemsto be very beneficial for evaluative purposes, and RP production of physicalmodels could very conveniently support such action. But on the other handthe detailing involved in physical modelling will hamper a desirable situationof freedom of design choices in early developmental stages. Here is adiversity/specificity problem again, resembling the section 7.8.3 problem,and this time there seems to be no way out of it through alternatives!254

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E STo approach the usability question of RP as a tool for support of perceptualfeedback in early visionary modelling and the diversity/specificity problem, afew suitable RP-based case projects, selected from the several student andprofessional projects served through Oslo School of Archtectrure’s lasersintering technology, were superficially evaluated.9.2.2 Some visionary case project examplesA three-wheel scooter was developed for the Spanish motorcycle producerDerbi – and termed Stealth 125TTW. The conceptual design was based uponthe functional problems related to stability and handling characteristics instop-start conditions of city use and difficult roads. A three-wheel layoutintegrated with a tilting mechanism was suggested to cope with the problems– and accepted by the company. An ‘aggressive’ and innovative exterior wasintended for modern, urban users. The concept was built as a some thirty-fivecm long laser sintered RP model, finished with all graphics included andpresented in several fora. It was accepted by the company as an inspiring andimportant vision for future research and conceptual development. It has beenexposed at design exhibitions, has earned prizes and has been described inpress articles.Design: E. HalsethFigure 2-9: TheStealth 3-wheel scooterAn air cushion concept boat was designed for the Norwegian company SESEurope Inc. It was built upon an integration of the lifting principle of aHovercraft with the dual hulls of a catamaran, patented by the company,where compressed air is injected into a hollow section underneath the hullsand lifts the boat – resulting in 30% fuel reduction and/or higher speed. The255

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NRoughtail design targeted the leisure craft market and was organised aroundthe large afterdeck connecting the two hulls like a tunnel. Exteriors wereadapted to original opportunities which resulted from the main layout.The design was built as a forty cm long laser sintered polyamide RP modelwith transparent windows vacuum-formed over RP modelled tools. It wasconsidered by the company management as a very interesting possibility forfuture design strategy and has been used for external presentations.Design: C. Abry and D. SevaldsonFigure 3-9: The Roughtail air cushion concept boatA micro car was designed as a brand concept aimed at environmentallyfriendly inner-city use and based on fuel-cells propulsion and sustainableconstruction materials – and especially targeted for women. It is a single-seat,open sides, practicality optimised concept especially adapted to lifestyle andidentity of European women age 25 to 35 with core values Different, Smartand Future. The Aile design was materialised as a twenty cm long lasersintered RP model, surface finished and presented at a branding projectexhibition. It was also reported in the professional press.Figure 4-9: The Aile concept carDesign: M. HøibyA snow scooter was developed as an exemplified conceptual experiment toarouse attention for branding in market-oriented design for a fictitiousproducer. The concept was intended for a rough and sporty market segment256

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E Sand extreme use. Particular attention was assigned to chock absorption andhandling characteristics. The design suggestion was built as a twenty-five cmlong RP model with detailed finish and presented at a branding exhibition –with press coverage.Figure 5-9:Conceptualsnow scooterDesign: M. Høy PettersenA cab-track personal transportation system was designed for NorskSportaxi a.s and adapted especially to the Fornebu airfield area of Oslo,recently released for new city establishment. The patented concept was basedupon a finely masked network of light space-frame steel tracks elevated tofour to five meters above ground. Computer regulated small four person cabswith space for wheelchairs, bikes or prams were automatically directed to anystation in the network. Ordering a specified travel on ground level woulddirect an empty cab to the desired station – and end at the destination fewminutes later. Economy was highly superior to any realistic alternative.A three meter long RP model of a station with cabs and track sections wasmaterialised and presented at a large public meeting with representatives forpress, ministry of transportation and communication, Norwegian railroads,Oslo tramways, several communal departments and the mayor present –where they could all play with the cabs. This meeting aroused a lot of publicdebate and escalated a large process of authorised elaborations ofalternatives, eventually ending with a conclusion in favour of an elevatedsystem – only of a larger design.Figure 6-9: Cab-track system for Norsk Sportaxi a.sDesign: J. Capjon257

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NA high voltage power mast of two alternative sizes (132 and 430 KV) wasdesigned for Statnett SF. The patented design was based upon a steelmonopole concept, guyed with four steel wires at an intersection point attwo-thirds of the height. The slightly bent traverse tubes were ‘spun’ aroundthe mast upwards in a zigzag pattern, carrying the asymmetrically suspendedceramic isolators. The concept was materialised as a ninety cm highpolyamide RP model. The concept evaluation involving the responsiblecompany staff and the management was based upon a presentation anddiscussion meeting where the new design was compared to the old in theform of a similar model of the same scale. The debate and conclusions werebased upon the physical comparison.Figure 7-9: High voltagemast for Statnett SF –beside the old design.Design: J. Capjon9.3 Evaluation of the casesA simple multiple choice questionnaire with four questions regarding theexperiences with the case projects was now distributed to the person withmain responsibility for the projects or the designers (less the researcher) –seven persons in all. The questions, related to how the concept wascommunicated to the message receivers, were:(a)(b)(c)(d)How was the idea content understood?How did this presentation method communicate the idea comparedto sketches or data pictures?How was the degree of maturity of the concept understood?How do you experience employment of RP technology as acommunication tool for visionary idea concepts?The answers are enclosed in appendix A11. Gradings of questions (a),(b) and(d) were: Bad, medium and good. Grading of question (c) was: Final258

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E Ssolution, difficult to decide and draft. 100 % held questions (a) and (b) to begood and 86 % held question (d) to be good. For question (c) there weredifferent suggestions; 57 % held the models to be understood as drafts, 29 %held them to be understood as final solution and 14 % held them to bedifficult to decide. From these answers and the researcher’s evaluation, canbe indicated that:Idea content of radical concepts is easily understood through early RPmodelling.The communication of conceptual ideas may be better communicatedthrough early RP physical modelling than through sketches or datarenderings.It can be difficult to decide whether a visionary RP model is understoodas a loosely indicated idea or as a finished concept.Early visionary RP modelling is considered to be a good method formaturing original ideas and communicating them to others forevaluation.The conclusion of this rough evaluation of RP-based visionary modelling as acommunication method in the Fuzzy Front End of a development project isthat it must be considered as a good method on the condition that the modelis presented as a vision and not as a finished design. To apprehend avisionary model as a design is an obvious danger of this approach becausedetailed models can easily be misunderstood as being finished. This trapshould be acknowledged and evaded in early modelling – first of all in orderto avoid limiting the freedom space of a possible succeeding project, andsecondly in order to avoid concluding an idea on a too loose grounding.RP could accordingly be used as a beneficial tool for early catalysation ofunderstanding in cases where it is found to be appropriate, for example inconcrete, design oriented, function oriented, radical concepts. But it shouldbe avoided for up-front application in cases where open-end creativity isdesirable in a main project.Following earlier suggested reasoning and terminology of section 8, RPsupported modelling of visionary solutions could be termed Visiotyping andthe resulting physical representations Visiotypes.9.4 RT-based modelling of series production scenarios9.4.1 Challenges of Rapid Tooling applicationOne application of Rapid Tooling (RT) with a seemingly high potential forconceptualisation support emerges if the technology’s capabilities arefocused on market adaptation of a new concept. Cooper (2001), who259

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nemphasises product uniqueness because of potential profitability, holdsoriginal solutions as highlighted focus in an updated product developmentprocess. But a requirement of high originality in product solution is indirectlyseen as the same as requiring a high creativity level in the process leading tosuch concepts.According to this researcher’s experience with product development forNorwegian industry, a catch-22-like situation readily emerges when one isfaced with the objective of original or creative solutions. If earlier unknownconcepts are to be introduced to a competitive market, then they must be wellfunctioning and have good design from the moment of launch in order to passan existing but hard to define ‘acceptance threshold’ of the users.‘Engineering protos’ simply do not work any more. But high functionalityand design level has always meant extensive testing and expensive toolingeven for verification or rejection of the idea. And since user reaction tonewness is in the blue in the first place, then what I have termed theNorwegian syndrome very frequently results: “We don’t dare – the risk issimply too high – let’s take a safer approach”.High risk of creative concepts is a many-headed troll and it has traditionallybeen substantial (Mikkelsen, Andreasen and Hein 1989, Bruce, Potter andRoy 1995, Horne-Martin and Jerrard 2001) and a worthy candidate to fight.For our purpose, let us here distinguish between technical/functional risk andmarket risk. My elaborations of conceptual development up to this point hasprimarily been concerned with modelling and testing of creative concepts inregard to technical and functional constraints, but also aesthetical variables inthe sense of the design team’s evaluations and choices. It has been shownhow RP technology can basically reduce risk in regard to those aspectsthrough physical adaptive experimentation. The fundamental challenge of RTapplication, revealed by the project, has to do with what follows from theabove reflection; how can RT technology support risk reduction in regard tomarket acceptance of original solutions?Fundamental to this problematic is an understanding of the differencebetween a development situation of a design team and a real market situation.A design team, and in particular one which involves user participation, issupposed to represent aspects of a future market situation – where bothbuying and using is involved. The use aspects of a market situation can to alarge degree be pre-defined (predicted) and RP-based conceptualexperimentation by the team can be focused on testing out variablesinvolving such aspects, as demonstrated in chapters 6, 7 and 8, which willprimarily be related to technical, functional and ergonomic aspects of theconcept and thereby to their risk reduction. But can the buying aspect be260

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E Ssimilarly predicted? Pre-definition of relevant factors influencing buyingdecisions is of course an objective of semiotics and theoretical aesthetics 5 ,and thereby a responsibility of the team’s designer(s). But can risk involvedin such variables be adaptively tested by the design team and thereby reducedin the same way as technology and function? To my understanding this ishighly improbable, since such variables involve un-deducible valuejudgements by future customers. Such judgements should, to a much higherdegree than technology and function, be seen as unpredictable, and they candeviate considerably from the team’s choices. If the product concept inquestion is original and thereby earlier unknown to the potential customers,this aspect of unpredictability is even considerably greater – which indicatesthat the adherents of ‘the Norwegian syndrome’ may not be so dumb after all.Given that technical and functional aspects of a solution can be risk reducedby a development team through RP experimentation, it follows that thegreatest risk involved with creative product concepts may be related to themarket aspect; will it be accepted?Since unpredictability of market reactions to original product designs is largeand remains large until the concept is actually introduced, there seems to beonly one proper way out of the high risk scenario of such a situation; testingit out. A suggestion of real market testing of creative solutions is in factfounded on the same basic trial-and-error principle as all earlier suggestedRP-based experimentation. But a real market situation cannot be testedthrough RP because this technology is not suited for series productionnecessary for a trustworthy statistically grounded feedback. This, then, iswhere a substantial challenge of Rapid Tooling emerges since this technologycould be applied for production of test series of a new product.Jordan project leader T indicates how Rapid Tooling can be employed forconcept testing by future users in section 8.8.4:“Yes, and that has been the advantage with making two test tools ofthe new tooth brush. We have tested the market with the first tool.We have produced a number of brushes and tested them internallyand externally – a quite extensive external test of them. Then we usethe production tool to make them and change the models anew. Andthen we make a new tool and repeat the procedure before we finishthe production tool.”5 See chapter 7.261

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N“Yes it is for testing that brush, so that is a defined segment. And inthe test of the last tool, then, the brush is supposed to be equal to theproduction version physically, to look at. Then we test out materials,colours, finish. And then the answer we get from the test is totallydecisive for whether we go for it or not.”“We could see an opening for making more projects which we arenot certain will succeed. It is in a way equal to what we have done inthis case, where we are not certain the result will be launched …”And designer Y describes how such a testing scenario is experienced as veryuseful in the initial depth interview of section 4.3.1:R: .…if we have one concept after a long process, what would you sayabout the customer’s possibility to decide on it through a test series?Y: That is not easy to say (laughter), but that possibility we have ofcourse, we can make real brushes. We can make 100 brushes withbristles and all for the user to take home, ask for one month of toothbrushing, and then ask if you will buy it the next time, or do youcome to buy when we take it away from you?R: So this is something you would like?Y: Yes of course we would like that, particularly as for this one here,because the first 2-3 times you use it you think what in the world –particularly for us who have drawn it.R: Right, because it is so innovative?Y: Yes – and then you eventually become hung up on this brush duringa fortnight. Then you don’t want anything else. And that type oftesting no-one performs.R: .....that is interesting because what you say is that if we did not havethis possibility, we could not test this among users because it is sounexplored and they would not understand it from watching sketchesof ideas?Y: Right, what is so special about tooth brushes is; I have had x numberof such presentations with models and all, and all just sit there, likeoh yes, that is a good brush or that is not. It is never the same asstanding at home brushing teeth, because what you do when you sitthere pretending, that is not what you do at home, that situation istotally different. And I have been sitting holding a brush and seen –yes, this must be a very good brush. Then you start using it, andthere is nothing to it!262

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E SIn section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 there are several further references to the disastrousresults which readily will follow from taking faulty decisions on tooling andtooling geometry. Grounded in early assumptions of this research project 6and supported by these empirical results, the potential of substantial riskreduction in innovative concepts through application of Rapid Tooling-basedtest series production is seen as confirmed.9.4.2 Rapid Tooling strategyIn order to further evaluate these possibilities, first copper polyamide powderand later LaserForm ST-100 technology has been acquired as part of thisresearch project – in addition to a small injection moulding machine fortesting purposes. Copper polyamide can be directly processed in the DTMSelective Laser Sintering machines. LaserForm ST-100 is steel powder andwax which is first sintered to a ‘green part’. A second processing stageincludes bronze infiltration of the green part in a high temperature oven,which stabilizes and strengthens the material resulting in mechanicalproperties comparable to low strength steel. Both sintered copper polyamideand LaserForm steel alloys were supposed to be usable for production of toolinserts – which according to the above reasoning should be applicable forinjection moulding of test series of new product concepts.A separate research project, organised by this researcher and led by SteinarKilli has been run in parallel with the main project. The objectives of thisparallel project were, built on the original framing of chapter 1.1, to buildRapid Tooling inserts for test series production of new product concepts andto evaluate the quality of such tools and the resulting injection mouldedpolymer products. The report from these experiments is enclosed as appendixA12.As Oslo School of Architecture staff had no experience with the technologyup-front, and as its technical adaptation proved to be complex and itsevaluation soon revealed that it was not as mature as it had ‘promised’ to be,the original project ambitions of testing out full market adaptations had to bereduced as things developed. The following short summaries of theproceedings of the project and the achieved results have been collected fromthe report.6 See section 1.1263

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N9.4.3 Copper Polyamide experimentsNo. Project Part Tool quality Part quality1 Mikron a.s Charger cover Fair Not usable,rough finish2 Grepi a.s Expansion bolt Fair Usable, butpartly distorted3 Jordan a.s Tooth brush Fair Inaccurate withrough surface4 Hamax a.s Bike bracket Very poor Not usable5 Polimoon a.s Ice lantern Fair Not usable,parts got stuckFigure 8-9: Rapid Tools from Copper PolyamideThese time-consuming experiments with the copper polyamide technologyused for Rapid Tooling inserts gave very bad technical results and by nomeans complied with early expectations. The problems were related togeometric distortions of the cavities, surfaces which were so rough that theparts were difficult to extract from the forms (in spite of polishing), resultinginaccuracies in parting planes etc. After several frustrating attempts wesimply had to conclude that this technology was not suitable for productionof Rapid Tooling. In confronting DTM with these findings, they had come tothe same realisation – and gave us a good offer on LaserForm technologyinstead, which in the meantime had been commercialised.264

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E S9.2.4 Laserform experiments.No. Project Part Tool quality Series Part quality1 Mikron a.s Metallisation mask Fair 30 Good2 Student Chop sticks set Good filling 50 FairPoor surface3 Student Spoon/fork set Good filling Few FairPoor surface4 Student Fork Good Few Good5 Student Foldable eating tool Good Few Not usable6 Rottefella as Ski binding part Very good 50 Very good7 Student Deli de Luca Fork Very good 100 Very good8 Polimoon as Yoghurt container Rough surface ca 20 Good11 2 23465 7 8Figure 9-9:LaserformRapid Tools1. The Mikron a.s metallisation mask for mobile telephones was madeas a first benchmarking sample at DTM. Only one degree slip anglesgave quite a bit of polishing to secure parting. Rough surfaces werecommented, but once adjusted, the tool gave good samples.2. The chop sticks set tool gave, after a fair amount of polishingsatisfactory form filling and tool wear, but surfaces and partingplane accuracy were not considered quite satisfactory. This tool was265

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nfinally used for production of a test series which was tested in realuse and presented in physical, finished shape to the client company 7 .3. The combined spoon/fork design tool had bad infiltration andaccordingly pores, inaccurate parting plane and bad wear resistance– with a resulting fair sample quality.4. The fork design was very thin and the tool had some parting planeinaccuracies, but after some runs this improved and gave good testruns.5. The tool for foldable eating equipment was very thin and lookedgood when polished. But it did not work well in test runs, expectedto be due to low moulding pressure. Revisions of inlet geometry didnot help and the test was abandoned as not usable.6. The test tool for Rottefella a.s was based upon injection moulding ofa plastic handle on a prefabricated steel part. No polishing ofsurfaces was done. Test runs worked very well and a series of fiftyunits was produced for test applications 8 .7. The Deli de Luca fork tool turned out to be a very good one. It waspolished to an acceptable finish, and the logo was clearly exposed.The inlet and parting plane worked well, and the tool was used forproduction of test series for experimentation 9 .8. The Polimoon yoghurt container tool insert was built into a largebase-mould and a test series of approximately twenty units wereinjection moulded in this tool. The samples were considered as goodin terms of geometry, but the surface was too rough. The insertswere then polished for a new test run, which was not reported to becompleted. Sintering of the insert was compared to 3D machining,and for this uncomplicated geometry the latter approach wasconsidered as being simpler.The project manager’s conclusion of the test projects: “With certainimprovements regarding some undesirable geometries, Rapid Tooling basedupon LaserForm ST-100 shows a very clear potential for the applicationcategory ‘small parts, small series, but fast and cheap’. Next generationLaserForm ST-200 will hopefully give further improvements”.The potential of Rapid Tooling as a means for reduction of market risk wassuperficially evaluated in three of these cases – documented from reports.7 See section 9.2.5.8 See section 9.2.5.9 See section 9.2.5.266

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E S9.2.5 Three case applicationsDisposable catering setThis design assignment was to develop a disposable catering set for salads,pasta, noodles and wok, in sustainable materials – for young people in activeenvironments like picnics, festivals, concerts etc. The resulting concept wasbased upon decomposable materials and a moulded paper mass in thecontainer (production leftovers). Bio plastics were used in the transparentvacuum formed cover and in the injection moulded and especially designed‘peg’ aimed at facilitated employment of a chop sticks principle.Rapid Tool inserts for moulding the pegs were produced from Laserform ST-100 and a test series of fifty units were produced in the injection mouldingmachine and applied for testing and evaluation purposes. Tooling was alsobuilt for container and cover production and applied for a test series whichincluded evaluation of packaging logistics. At presentation the concept wasthoroughly tested and evaluated by designers and future users – as basis for awell grounded conclusion regarding the concept’s market potential.Design: M. Høiby,M. Askheim, Ø. Austad.Figure 10-9: Catering set; Rapid Tool and test seriesTake-away salad buffet forkFor a chain store company within fast food, coffee and snacks, a new productwithin finished food was designed, intended to expose a new area ofcommitment for the company; a take-away salad buffet. The concept was267

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nbased upon the chain’s design profile and should focus eating experience andquality. A foldable waxed disposable cardboard container, collapsible to atray, was designed and a test series with full graphics and a speciallydesigned fork was built for testing purposes and presentation.An injection moulding tool was built from LaserForm ST-100, and a testseries was produced from polypropylene. The concept included volumepackaging and Europallet logistics, which was demonstrated and evaluatedby means of the test series. At the point of concept presentation for thecompany management design concept aesthetics, functionality, semiotics,economy, packaging and handling logistics had been thoroughly tested andevaluated by the designers, store personnel and future users.Design: B. Løype, E. Hals,H. Brynjulfsrud, R. Windahl,J.E. Holager.Figure 11-9: Rapid Tool and test series of fork for buffet setSki binding partFor Rottefella a.s ski binding manufacturer a test tool for a particular lockingdevice of a new Telemark binding under development was produced. Thisparticularly critical part was a highly loaded ‘flexor’ to be placed underneaththe tip of the boot. Because of high requirements to mechanical propertiesand flexing capability, it had to be produced in the intended polycarbonatematerial in order to give a relevant test outcome in an experimental seriesapplication. The part was made from a bent steel bracket, which was placedinto adapted slots in the tool, and the polymer was moulded around it toobtain sufficient strength.The production series came out with a very good result and was assembledand properly tested in an evaluation series of twenty bindings made from268

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E Scomponents produced in different ways, some from RP. Five bindings ofeach concept attempt were produced in each series and tested by specialistTelemark skiers in real conditions for evaluation – before changes were madeand new tests were done. When the project was presented to the management,a thorough trial-and-error-based sequence was behind the final conclusions.Figure 12-9: Rapid Tool and binding part sample9.5 RP-based series productionStill one final kind of interesting production possibility has been identified.The process is generally termed Rapid Manufacturing. This approach toseries production is applicable in concept cases where tooling costs areprohibitive but RP is suitable and economically feasible as a basic means ofproduction – for instance in small scale production with uncritical componentcost, in cases including a large variety of different components or in caseswith special claims to component geometry. These kinds of adaptations arerelevant for highly specialised and often patented products which are notexposed to high market competition.An appropriate case example of such an application is the developmentperformed for the medical technology company Orthometer a.s, whichproduces highly specialised, patented prostheses for facilitation of hipreplacement operations. This equipment consists of a combination ofstandard stainless steel inserts which are connected to an adjustmentassembly through a large variety of polyamide components with geometriesvarying from case to case. There are in total several hundred different plasticparts, which through a system of production logistics based upon appliedtailoring of forty types (adapted to the physiognomy of each patient), can bevery efficiently organised. Series production tooling for these parts iseconomically unfeasible, but RP laser sintered parts can be employeddirectly, and they are accepted for such use by North American MedicalScience Association.269

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NFigure 13-9: Rapid Manuafcturing of polyamide joints for prosthesesAs these kinds of specialised products based upon highly qualified fieldbasedknowledge are generally very interesting areas of commitment in highcost countries, the further elaboration of such a product and developmentalstrategy is identified as very relevant in Norway. There are several otherinteresting ways to apply these challenges.9.6 Summary reflections on RT-based series testingIn summarising the technical results of these Rapid Tooling-basedexperiments, we find that if certain geometric requirements are followed, thistechnology will be adaptable for fast and cheap production of small test seriesof injection moulded products. The largest draw-back of the DTM LaserSintering technology in this respect is its rather rough surfaces and the needfor polishing to achieve good results. There are, however, other producerswho claim commercially feasible RT technology and with the high emphasiswhich is presently placed on its development, the technology is soon likely tobe considerably improved technically (Wohlers 2003). 3D high speed cutting(HSC) of tools in aluminium and metal shell spray forming of tools from RPmodels are other examples of cheap production of rapid tools suitable for testseries – which are well established in the Time Compression Technologymarket (TCT proceedings 1999 and 2000). The Rapid Tooling technology’stechnical potential for production of fast and cheap test series of (innovative)design concepts is accordingly seen as justified.Although we have not been able to complete a full market evaluation of aRT-produced series adaptation according to our original intentions, the threereported simple case projects, if supported by similar case stories from RTbasedtest series production (e.g. Masood and Song 2000, Meyer and Kühnle2000), are seen as relevant examples and as good indications of thetechnology’s adaptive potential for substantial risk reduction in innovativeproduct conceptualisation.270

C H A P T E R 9 : R A P I D M O D E L L I N G I N E A R L Y A N D L A T E D E V E L O P M E N T P H A S E SAs documented through the initial interviews of sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 –and further confirmed in section 8.8.4 – the cost of a development projectexplodes when the stage of production tooling investments is reached, and itcan be disastrous to make basic faults in such tools. As the cost of RP basedmodelling is low, the expenses of considerable physical conceptual testingand experimentation can be kept quite moderate all through theConceptualisation phase and also in the Concept Evaluation phase wherefinal testing through RP is highlighted. What are the strategic potentialsimplied in these technology capabilities?If not only technical, functional and up-front aesthetical aspects of a newsolution can be cheaply and efficiently tested through RP as demonstrated,but also market acceptance of original design concepts can be similarlycheaply and efficiently verified or rejected through RT, then we clearly cansee the contours of a very interesting over-all developmental strategy arising.Since RT produced cavity inserts adapted to pre-fabricated base-moulds willbe substantially cheaper and faster to produce than traditional injection- orpress moulding tooling, a test-oriented strategy seems to be well withinreach. And since steel-based Rapid Tooling inserts, if given a proper finishand inlet wear resistance, according to state-of-the-art developmental claimsmay have a potential of lasting for ten thousands of shots, one can in additionenvision a cheap and fast way to survive the critical early stages of a virgincommercial situation of a new product – until high volume series productioncan be established.Such a strategy of RT-based modelling of series production scenarios wouldhave many basic process oriented advantages compared to traditionalprocedures – if it could be properly implemented:High risk involved in original product concepts could be substantiallyreduced through presentation and evaluation of product test series inselected real market segments.If the future users accept the concept, series production can be initiatedwithout the financial uncertainty usually involved in radical solutions.If the market test reveals that the concept is partly acceptable, but partlymalfunctioning, modifications and new tests can be undertaken throughRP/RT.If the concept is rejected through the test, highly critical productiontooling investments can be avoided, and new challenges can be soughtthrough what has been learnt.If Rapid Tooling could be employed for start-up phases of productcommercialisation, it would involve considerable savings compared totraditional strategies.271

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NWhat is gained in over-all risk reduction of such a strategy couldenhance the opportunity for innovative focus of development projectsconsiderably (and motivate assaults on ‘the Norwegian syndrome’).Rapid Tooling technology thereby entails very interesting potentials formodelling series production scenarios of new product concepts and acquiringmarket feedback from these. Further verification of these sketched potentialsin the form of successful case stories is still needed.In accordance with earlier new terminology suggestions, RT supportedmodelling of series production scenarios of new product concepts could betermed Seriotyping and the resulting test products Seriotypes.9.7 Rapid modelling in early and late phases.We have now, within decided framings and limitations, described andevaluated how RP and RT can be used as supportive developmental tools, notonly in Conceptualisation, but in all the specified phases of product designprocesses aimed at development of competitive and original products. It wasfound that Visiotyping has interesting potentials for supporting perceptualunderstanding of visionary design concepts in early evaluations of the ideapotential (on certain conditions). It was also found that Seriotyping hasinteresting potentials for testing out market reactions and reducing highmarket-related risk of radical design concepts.These evaluations have emerged from two different ways of approaching adevelopment process; one basically theoretical and concerned withemployment of any physicality for support – and one practical and concernedwith support from RP/RT produced physicality. These approaches could beseparately considered, also when it comes to future implementation in reallife development strategies, but in now closing in on general adaptability ofthis research project, I will try to assess the problematic of how these twoaspects could be seen as interrelated in a practical setting. And in so doing,I find a need for reviewing some essential elements of the analysis up to thispoint, and in particular to summarise the theoretical analyses of chapters 5, 6and 7 – in order to make them more accessible.272

Ch 10: SUPPORTING THE EMERGENCE OF A CONCEPT’SMATERIALITY_______________________________________________________This chapter summarises all empirical findings, theoretical analysesand the resulting proposed design process models – with anemphasis on the theoretical issues. Approaches to how thetheoretical models could be implemented in practical life aresuggested. New terminology for the applications of RP-producedmodels in different phases is suggested as Visiotypes, Negotiotypes,Prototypes (as established) and Seriotypes. One concludingmetaphorical model of a physically catalysed development processaccording to the findings is generated and called the Plant ofEmerging Materiality (PoEM ). This model summarises all aspectualrelations of embodied and disembodied nature and includes the newterminology in a Rapid Multityping framework. The proceedings andlimitations of the research process are finally critically evaluated andfuture challenges resulting from the research are indicated.273

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O N10.1 Empirical groundingAccording to established basic principles of qualitative research, groundedtheory and participatory action research 1 , I have in chapters 1 to 9 tried todescribe the route I have travelled in exploring my research intentions. Inlooking back, this route has had many bends, sidetracks and dead ends. Insumming up what has been explored, I will try to rearrange some suggestionsand redraw only some main routes – thereby hoping to create a map which iseasier to interpret for others. In a holistic landscape of designconceptualisation with many sidetracks one easily loses overview, soidentifying and climbing some orientation peaks initially can be helpful.I started out from a frustration resulting from trying to bend my own way ofdesigning to the computer’s way. This unsuccessful attempt eventuallyresulted in the impulse that made me discover Rapid Prototyping – whichcould materialise virtual models and which I saw as a possibility to escapecomputer alienation. That discovery gave rise to an exploration of thistechnology’s abilities to support a ‘natural’ way of designing. But cananything be called a natural way? Reflections concerning physicalrepresentation led to the formulation of four structuring research questions:Q1: How can employment of RP produced materiality in theconceptualisation phase of product development processes becharacterised? Q2: How can a humanly based conceptualisationprocess supported through evolving physical representation betheoretically described? Q3: How can RP based action and atheoretical understanding of design conceptualisation be integrated?Q4: How can RP and RT be applied in other phases of thedevelopment process?The RP supported case studies of three Luxo projects, three Hamax projects,three Polimoon projects and four Jordan projects were aimed at free mappingof how design actors work when employing RP as a supportive tool in designprocesses and what advantages and disadvantages could be found. Thesestudies revealed very many positive effects and a few negative ones andresulted in several expressed views from the collaborating actors, which wereassembled in a negotiated nineteen points summary list of section 4.7.3. Withreference to RP produced physicality this list summarised research questionQ1 and contained central characterisations like: “language without words”,“basic understanding”, “behind verbal discussions”, “shared understanding”,“catalyser of communication”, “simultaneous experimentation”,”experiments as iterations”, “own contribution as part of totality”, “sharedmeaning”, “experimentation with radical solutions”, “playgrounds”,“experienced breakdowns”, “sense feedback”, “alienation effect” and“remodelling through use of clay”. Such characterisations refer to human1 See chapter 3.274

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Ypatterns of behaviour, but although containing many indications of what a‘natural’ approach to design action may involve, they give nothing indirection of a basic understanding. Studies of design theory in search of aneasy to understand pattern of how humans conceptualise the material worldbrought the realisation that design action is not described as a basic pattern,but as how humans behave in such action. As the former approach soon turnsout to be controversial and complex there is no wonder why the latter isgenerally preferred and indeed useful. But having raised the problematic, theneed for a supplementing perspective to the general thread appeared as verydesirable.10.2 Theoretical backlandsQuestion Q2 soon became a fight in a jungle of crossing impulses, becausethe naïvely formulated question relating to a humanly base proved to leadright into the wilderness of centuries of philosophical elaboration of theproblem of an apparent separation between mind and world, or subject andobject, the so-called Cartesian dualism, to which contemporary design theoryseems to pay little attention. It soon appeared as a fundamental challenge inan ongoing development of a discipline for making to acquire some basicunderstanding of the question of subjectivity, so essential to design action,but which had been seen as ‘untrustworthy’ since Descartes – anddisregarded in studies of ‘objective’ reality. From a design position, whereaesthetics and the freedom aspect, for instance in choice of form, seem toplay important parts in addition to ‘rationality’, it appears impossible to leaveout subjectivity as an essential and trustworthy part of conceptualisation.The analysis started with the research group’s own suggested design cycle offour differentiated mental foci plus a physical representation (Figure 2-5) –where mind-based imagery was seen as something else than body. This mindbody-objectmodel was related to Gelernter (1990,1995) who’s mind-worldmodel (Figure 3-5) depicts a designer’s mind as separated from the world,where design ideas are seen as emerging in the mind or in the world atdifferent historical periods, but where elaborations of preconceptions (Hillieret al 1974) are further seen to have potential of uniting mind and world inconceptualisation. Then followed a short description of established positionsof mind/body dualism ranging from Descartes’ substance dualism viaproperty dualism and epiphenomenalism to interactionist property dualism –based upon outlines by Churchland (1997).21[5]2Knowledge (science)mind world (5)1343Creation (art)4Figure 1-10: Comparing two mind/world models275

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NFrom reflection resulted a focus on two seemingly opposed positions tryingto eliminate dualism; phenomenology where a phenomenon is understood asperceived and materialism where a phenomenon in order to be understood isreduced to matter. The phenomenological review brought us throughHusserl’s separation between an experience and what is experienced, andhow experiences are intentional or directed. He sees a phenomenon asdistinguished from its experience, a meaning resulting from perception of anobject and our immediate perception of our life-world (neither purelysubjective nor purely objective) as bases for direct experience of phenomena,where truth is seen as the correspondence between the intentional and thegiven. But he does not leave a dualistic world view. Through Heidegger’scontinued efforts we meet the new concept of being, which unites subject andobject and which moves focus from cognition to a philosophical perspectiveof existence; “I am” instead of “I think”. The proceedings of Husserl andHeidegger were continued by Merleau-Ponty whose Phenomenology ofPerception (1962/2000) gives a comprehensive account of the complexrelation between mind and bodily senses in perception of life-worldexperiences. He meant that primacy of perceptual understanding must begiven to immediateness in world-based action, which is secondary inscientific or technological analysis. There is a third way of existing, saysMerleau-Ponty, pre-subjective and pre-objective and between the twopolarities. In this between-world (entermonde) consciousness and bodyintegrate and existence “falls between” an opposition between object andmind. In this world individual subjects can meet in shared experience; “theworld of perceptions exceeds the individual I who perceives, and thereby theother’s perspective exceeds mine” 2 . A problematic implication ofphenomenology is its danger of ending up in subjectivism, which is seen as aworthy reason for avoiding this position as a unique approach to humanperception.Another and initially much simpler way to avoid dualism is to reduce mind tomatter – a position represented by Churchland (1997). In the proceedings ofthe neurosciences human perception is ascribed to physicality of the body, orbasically synaptic activities of the brain. Several diverging physicalistpositions are described in section 5.4. One neurobiologist with interest todesign thinking is Damasio (1994), who integrates complex synaptic patternsand emotions and sees such structures as intimately integrated in thinking,thereby attacking a notion of pure human reason. He also formulates theoriesfor neural sources of pre-verbal mental images and distinguishes betweenperceptual images resulting from immediate perception and recalled imagesfrom earlier experiences – and how somatic markers can be seen as a bodilybasis for choices. Lakoff and Johnson (1999) emphasise how the mind isinherently embodied, how thought is mostly unconscious and how abstractconcepts are largely metaphorical. They thereby create a pattern for howlanguage and understanding develops gradually through repeated perceptions2 Op. cit. section 3.3.5.276

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Yand how mindful action is almost totally regulated through earlierexperiences stored in the body. Physicalism tries to embody the mind. Butcan neural cells on their own ‘produce’ awareness? Or how are individualqualitative choices accounted for? Those questions, so important todesigning, still seem to need some further explanation than neurons alone. Aninteresting finding was that these physicalists do not reject a phenomenalaspect as another approach to reality.A third way of avoiding dualism between mind and matter is to see both asbelonging to something more fundamental. Velmans (2000) fullyacknowledges the great progresses achieved through neurobiologyparticularly during the past twenty years, but he opposes to fundamentalinferences which are drawn from them. He holds reductionist claims thathuman consciousness could be nothing more than brain-states to bespeculative; “no discovery that reduces consciousness to brain has yet beenmade” 3 . And he restricts consciousness to situations where awareness, orphenomenal content, is present. Consciousness can thereby be intentionallyfocused (at will), but only in three kinds of experiences: (a) of the world,(b) of the body and (c) of ‘inner’ kind. Brain-states can be carriers ofexperiences, but they cannot be experiences. In phenomenal terms there is noseparation between an object and experiences of the object. Engaged humanexperience is then where the conscious awareness is, and not in the brainwhere its physical representation is, but if these ‘locations’ are seen as twofundamental aspects of being in the world, they can together account forreality. A person consciously perceiving a knife on a table experiences aphenomenal knife on the table, and the experience will give a personal viewor subjective representation. Another aspect of this representation is asynaptic pattern in the brain. But both belong in an encompassing wholeincluding all individual views and things of the world, which flexible viewscan approach. Velmans’ dual-aspect theory can be seen as a reconciliation ofan apparent dualism in human perception – a reflexive monism theory whichcan be used as a platform for building theories of making.In order to mature an understanding of what importance between-worldscenarios and dual-aspectual approaches could have for understanding designaction, further theories related to these aspects were now approached.Ornstein (1973,1983,1986) and colleagues distinguish between two types ofknowing or mentalities seen as complementary. One includes rational thoughtand verbal reasoning related to western tradition and one is seen as intuitiveand is related to eastern tradition. The latter is approachable throughdeautomatisation techniques, which may “dismantle the automatic selectivityof ordinary awareness” 4 , as for instance in rites, dances and play on one sideand contemplation, meditation and stillness on another. These kinds ofstaging can be seen as establishment of atmospheres, which is a focusedproblematic in Böhme (2002). His position was now included, which3 Ibid. p.31.4 Ornstein (1986) p.197.277

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nemphasises that this state of being is not a condition of the subject, nor aproperty of the object. Atmospheres can only be created through the‘subjectivity’ of a perceiving individual and through object physicality. Theyare thereby something between subjects and objects. He concludes thatinterpersonal atmospheres have high importance for communication throughthe connection they produce between communication partners, as a kind ofresonance ground for own perception. He acknowledges four stages in humanperception; first the atmosphere, then bodily distinction and presence, thenunited sense-experience which can be separated into different senses andfinally the distinction of objects and surroundings. The perception act therebyis before separation of subject and object. And after the immediatelyengaging experience follows a separation, where the subject’s mentaldisposition of the experienced can lead to action. Subject and object canthereby be united or separated according to awareness focus, but in an overallframing of non-dualism.These theoretical positions can be seen as attempts to describe differentiatedbasic patterns of how human beings approach understanding – or how theyconceptualise their worlds in terms of intentional changes of focusedawareness between situations of engaged experience, reflection orwithdrawal. Important elements for further analysis taken from all the abovetheories are:A conceptualisation process can be seen as involving (a) immediateexperiences of an object in its wholeness context, (b) situations whereone relates to a personal impression and the object as separate aspectsand (c) situations where one searches for understanding by trying tomake these aspects converge.Immediateness of an experience can be ‘catalysed’ through rich,sense-based perception of physicality.Stable concepts emerge slowly over time through several repetitions ofsuch patterns.A subject’s experiences have a brain related aspect and an aspect of howa phenomenon is perceived.A subjective impression (with its phenomenal and physical aspects) anda perceived object belong to the same totality which also includes allsubjective views and all objects.A situation of conceptualisation can be seen to involve a state of beingbetween subject(s) and object(s) where atmospheres considered asfavourable for creation to take place can be intentionally staged.Different mentalities can be elicited through intentional staging andattunement.New ways of understanding reality may result from ‘deautomatisation’of ordinary awareness.From established theory, then, we have found a basis for description of howhuman subjectivity can be understood in conceptualisation – without278

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Yreducing it to nothing but matter. When a subject tries to understand thegiven world, which is the objective of the natural sciences, subjectivity mustbe seen as a necessary temporary impression of reality (view of object) in theflexible mind’s search for knowledge (when a subject’s view will correspondto object). But when a searching consciousness opens itself to immediateexperience or withdrawal, it can perceive wholeness. A conceptualisationlandscape with three orientation peaks can then be depicted. What basicallycharacterises this landscape with high relevance to design thinking, is ahuman ability to perceive wholeness between polar aspects of mind andworld.SSubject aspectAtmosphereSOWholenessOObject aspectFigure 2-10:A landscape ofconceptualisationIn referring these theoretical views to developmental praxis, for example todesign action as described in chapter 4, we find that they do not automaticallyapply because they are primarily concerned with understanding andconceptualising a given world or objects. In product development ourobjective is not only to understand given objects, but to understand formingand adaptation of objects-in-the-making to a given world context. Theassignment of forming and adaptation to design action can then be seen as ascenario where both the designing subject and the designed object must beflexible. Physical conceptualisation can accordingly be understood as amerging process of flexible subject and flexible object to ‘fit’ an embracingworld framing. In trying to understand such a process, we must add theorywhich involves the dynamic aspect of learning from experiences.“The Process of Experiential Learning” (Kolb, 1984) is such a theory, basedupon “a holistic perspective on learning that combines experience,perception, cognition and behaviour” 5 .10.3 Tentative mapping of new landThe four focal points of the group’s suggested design cycle (of phenomenaland neural aspects, Figure 5-6) were now fitted into Gelernter’s subject-worldmodel. And our model was found to resemble Kolb’s learning process, wheresense-based experience was seen as related with “Concrete Experience”,conscious representation with “Reflective Observation”, improved imagerywith “Abstract Conceptualisation” and bodily creation with “ActiveExperimentation”. Our position [5] was a physical representation and notinvolved in the mental focusing process, but supporting it. The processes are5 Kolb (1984) p.21.279

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nstrikingly similar, but are they the same only with related names? Oursdescribes a cycling pattern of creation of form and Kolb’s describes a similarpattern of learning. If learning concerns learning in adaptation of made formto the world and its knowledge-base, then such a process is definitely part ofa design action process, but is it the forming act itself? In making formlearning is also definitely integrated, but is it learning in the sense cognition?Isn’t learning in form making more related to the establishment andintentional improvement of pre-verbal and pre-intellectual formal aspects ofour emerging concept and how such learning can be achieved through bodilysenses in formative action? Such reflections, in part derived fromneurobiology, revealed a strong relation, but not full agreement with Kolb’smodel, which seems more to resemble a stepping back from the action offorming and observing what has just been made – the way a sculptor worksinterchangeably. But as those ‘modes’ must be intimately integrated in a‘reflection-in-action’ sense (Schön 1982), they had to be connected. Asolution to the problem was achieved through sharing the physicalrepresentation with a Kolbian approach and calling the two ways of usingconsciousness by different names. The physical representation is then seen asthe connecting member between one formative or sensuous and one adaptiveor interpretative mode of action. Similar to a chemical catalyser, therepresentation initiates and supports (re)action, but is not really part of it.Perceptual immediateness in experience appears as highly important in bothmodes, thereby illuminating the phenomenal aspect of perception.21ReflectiveObservationintentionConcreteExperienceapprehensionConscious +unconsciousprocessingPhenomenaland brainaspects3 45+comprehensionAbstractConceptualisationextensionActiveExperimentation2Consciousrepresentation1Sensebasedexperience1’Concreteexperience2’ReflectiveobservationFormativemode5 PhysicalrepresentationAdaptivemode3Improvedimagery4Bodilycreation4’Activeexperimentation3’AbstractconceptualisationFigure 3-10: A dual mode design process formed from two aspects of making280

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T YKolb’s model is focused on dialectic oppositions between apprehension/comprehension and extension/intension, which are understood ascharacteristic of cognition. Ours is focused on learning through the dynamicsof repetitive cyclic patterns, which is seen as characteristic of phenomenaland neural aspects of perceptual learning according to chapters 5 and 6. Asthis aspect is also included in Kolb’s theory, a dynamic interactive patternbetween the two modes, referred to our case studies, can be depicted as alemniscate-like pattern where the physicality is shared in both modes, andwhere bodily perception of this physicality is seen to catalyse experiences.Perception involves mental impressions, which through conscious/unconscious processing create new imagery that initiates remaking throughthe body. Through iterative repetitions, this pattern can be made to convergeexperiences (understood as flexible subjective representations) andphenomena (understood as flexible physical representation in contextualworld) towards some correspondence. This may not be reached, but can beapproximated in the world of practical constraints. Such convergence patternscan be depicted as centripetally moving cycles, interactively connected.Immediate perception of physicality takes place in the tangency/crossingpoint between formative and adaptive modes. Dynamic subject-objectalternations take place in both modes in cycling activity (which can cycle inone mode for a while and/or alternate between one and the other rapidly).And the tendency towards unification of aspects is depicted as convergencepatterns of the cycles.2Internalorientation3Bodilyperception11’4 4’Physicalrepresentation2’Externalorientation3’BodilyperceptionPhysicalrepr.FormativemodeAdaptativemodeFigure 4-10: The dynamicsof a dual-mode interactivedesign processBetween-worldIn adapting the above understanding of individual conceptualisation toscenarios of communication in collaborative conceptualisation, the fact thatboth modes share the physical representation is found very helpful - since itrepresents an identical point of material reference for all actors in an often281

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nincomprehensible mix of diverging mentalities. This representation canmetaphorically be understood as a shared ‘sponge’ ideally capable ofabsorbing all the fluid subjective and individual points of view – where allperspectives of design constraints are attempted to be negotiated andinvolved. Real-world models can then be understood as catalysers of sharedexperiences. Because their materiality stimulates production of mentalimagery without need of words it is easy to relate to formally and cognitivelyfor all actors regardless of individual background – unlike language.According to Merleau-Ponty a ‘world’ between body and mind (in bothmodes) represents a state of being where access to essence patterns ofperception can be achieved which fall between opposition between subjectand object. And from Böhme we learn that this is where creative atmospherescan be established and that these depend upon subjective mentality, but canbe physically arranged. These two, Ornstein with colleagues and Schiller allhold that states of consciousness where rational thought is intentionallyexchanged with ‘deautomated’ awareness can give access to creative mindstatesand aesthetical capabilities. It is suggested that design can be seen asintentional creation of good atmospheres, and a theoretical grounding forsuggesting that such between-world scenarios could be understood andstaged as playgrounds of design action is therefore present. These maystimulate both engagement in collaborative action and states of being whereopenness to new insight may thrive. Staging of playground framings thenbecomes a concluding process-oriented strategy of this project. Such framesare intended for elicitation of creative mentality through interactive anddynamic play with physical reality, which is related both to sensuousengagement and rational distance, but aimed at always relating aspects towholes. In repeated cycling between reality and imagery, creative contextsmay inspire deautomated relations between the actors. The concept can inthis framing be seen as the unity (realisable or not) or meaning content whichthis process converges towards through cycling – and not as the physicalrepresentation as ordinarily understood.Such a collaborative process is understood as one developmental stageresulting in one negotiated physical representation of the total concept. Manysuch consecutive iterations following upon each other can then graduallyreveal all central aspects, how constraints relate to each other and how thewholeness of the assembly of individual contributions both function andappear. Maximisation of sense experiences through specific modelling willcatalyse perceptual understanding and intentional experimentation with manyparallel solutions will support diversity of creative search. Breakdowns inattempted experiments can also catalyse creative ways to avoid them. Thisproposed landscape, resulting from integration of studies of design action(chapter 4) and of theory (chapter 5), could be seen as supporting a humanlybased conceptualisation pattern and the emergence of a concept’s finalmateriality. It could be metaphorically depicted as a growing plant withphysically modelled attempts in the stem junctions between individual282

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Y‘leaves’ of each iteration, where some branches only produce junctions andleaves, but one branch finally produces a resulting flower and fruit.Flexible shared physicalrepresentation (toy)designerConvergingsharedexperienceuserengineerSharedatmosphereof playFigure 5-10: A collaborativeinteractive design processand its resulting pattern.With a part of its background in philosophical elaboration, this metaphoricaldepiction is seen as an attempt of simplifying an understanding of thelandscape’s abstract complexity. But in trying to ground this pattern to a levelof practical usability, its implications were now adapted to more easilyapproachable aspects of design action.10.4 Flexible mentality and materiality on practical groundsHow, then, should flexible mentality and flexible materiality representingeach other be practically merged through perceptual catalysation? Divergencepatterns of individual subjective mentalities are very complex to characterise,but diverging mentalities also exist between different professional approachesto design action and these can be illustrated through the literature. Howphysical representation can be flexibly adapted is easier to relate to, forinstance if we consider the capabilities of the RP tool in such a framing.To approach a practical usability evaluation of the above suggestions, asuperficial analysis of field-based approaches to design action with regard toemployment of physical representation was now undertaken. This revealedthat there are large basic differences in the way different design related fields283

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nuse physicality to elicit convergence between aspectual issues. In creativeapproaches, which are generally assigned to very early stages, physicallysupported perception by means of fast models is highly recommended, but inabstracted form, to elicit maximum flexibility of mind and divergence ofsolution aspects. Aesthetical approaches to design are basically founded uponsupport of sense-based, immediate perception of form through different sortsof primarily manual physical modelling, for instance by means of clay,plaster, cardboard, foam, wood, etc. Theoretical aesthetics is integrated,involving meaning concepts like proportion, balance, recti/curvilinearvolumes, planar construction, lines in space, dominant/subdominant/subordinate form – and most important; form gestalt or wholeness. Insemiotic approaches including semantics, syntax and pragmatics, theobjective is to place meaning in the form of signs into what we perceive. Indesign semiotics development of sign message is done through abstractions,for instance words, which finally end up as physical expression in the signvehicle. In ergonomics – which discovers and applies information on humanbehaviour, abilities and limitations to design tools, machines, systems, tasks,jobs, and environments – the integration of theory and physical testing ofmateriality-in-the-making is a central objective, also including the end user.In technical/ functional approaches to design the central thought pattern isbased upon a hierarchy of domains – process, function, organ, andcomponent – where the final component level is seen to result from a numberof abstracted higher domains procedures, and where physicality is involvedfirst towards the end. 6Diverging mentalities and relations to physicality are behind such differentapproaches, and if our objective is to support valuable contributions fromthem all in collaborative action, then we need a strategy which can engage allactors regardless of background. According to this researcher’s professionalexperience modelling separated aspects of design problems of aesthetics,semantics, ergonomics and engineering is fairly easy to perform. But whenaesthetics is seen as another aspect of strength, when ergonomic functionalityinteracts with semiotic and semantic expression, when choice of material andproduction process becomes part of the formal elaboration, when user andservice friendliness is integrated in assembly structure and toolingconfiguration and all shall simultaneously form a superior gestalt – then thechallenges of practical interaction between fields and individuals emerge.Action patterns of the described field-based approaches can be characterisedas verbal-intellectual or perceptual-material, but these can also be seen astwo aspects of the same, since an integrated outcome is the objective.According to all the referred theoretical approaches these aspects must beseparated in analysis, but according to phenomenology’s focus on importanceof perception of wholes, a problem arises if they are kept separated, becausethat implies dualism. Another characteristic of the above descriptions is that6 See sections 7.2 to 7.6.284

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Ythere are basic differences in focus on diversity or specificity inconceptualisation. Creative or theory inclined fields tend to focus diversity aslong as possible in order to remain open-minded. But aesthetical, ergonomicor goal-directed mentalities tend to give primacy to perceptual feedback andspecified materiality. How can all complex relations be embraced? From thestudies of neurobiology it was found that the human constitution is capable ofhandling unbelievable amounts of neurally stored data resulting from bodilyperception, which seemingly effortlessly supports development of stableconcepts. Could that represent a more direct approach to understanding thanverbal-intellectual elaboration? From our empirical data we have observedthat although ideation readily departs from preconceptions, perceptualexperimentation with physicality tends to catalyse new ideas and conceptualunderstanding. Could this represent a possibility to approach diversity andspecificity simultaneously? Neurobiology also describes how old repeatedexperiences (understandings) are ‘frozen’ in the body as synaptic patternswhich are very difficult to change. Could this represent an indication that inorder to open the mind to emerging new possibilities, rich perceptualexperiences are needed to support realistic understanding of new compared toold? Answers to these questions cannot be convincingly supplied by thisresearcher, but their formulation can indicate interesting tracks to follow.To overcome the obstacles which differently attuned mentalities of the abovefields represent, it seemed necessary to establish some scenario which canunite all individual approaches. As both our empirical results and thetheoretical analyses indicate that playgrounds may involve such capabilities,this seemed like a worthy candidate. And as children’s play can be seen ascatalysed by physical toys, it was suggested that grownups’ play – embracingaesthetical and functional aspects of their making effort – can be catalysed byphysical models seen as shared toys for experimentation with emergingpossibilities in both modes of design action. In play people tend to abandon ahigh focus on own subjective perspective and join in what can be perceivedas shared scenarios created through a shared effort of imagination. Thereby ashared, deautomated feeling of experiencing something valuable together, ora good atmosphere, can emerge, depending on the mentalities of thecollaborating subjects and how the scenario is physically conceived. A lesscolourful description of such a scenario could be to see it simply as sharedexperimentation.If the objective of such scenarios is to embrace theoretical/concrete anddiverse/specific approaches in the same framing, one practical possible wayto achieve this could be through development of many specific alternatives,which would allow openness to emerging possibilities and evaluation ofdetails simultaneously – in addition to realistic comparisons. Then we canenvision a procedural approach to design action where the practicalimportance of the principle of shared physical simultaneousness in iterativeattempts appears. A basic element in such a strategy of sharedsimultaneousness in experiments with physically represented ideas is that all285

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nparticipating subjects must be represented in each attempt – or else therewould not be a complete solution. In such a framing all actors have tonegotiate and agree to one and the same solution in each iteration, becauseonly one assembled solution can be made at the time. Shared perceivedlearning will catalyse new ideas which can be materialised as followingalternative solutions where the same pattern is repeated. In such an approachparts (essential to technology) and wholes (essential to aesthetics) willcontinuously be bodily perceived as integrated – unlike in abstractedprocesses where perception of wholeness readily follows first after finallyanalysed and assembled physicality. Thereby each actor’s contribution iseasily understood by him- or herself in each attempt in a setting where oftenproblematic verbal interpretation looses importance. And its relations andconflicts with the collaborating actors’ contributions is simultaneouslyperceivably revealed and can accordingly be adjusted.One important question resulting from such a scenario is whether itfundamentally breaks with the inherent principles of abstracted procedures. Ifa claim of avoiding materiality in analytic approaches were absolute, thenthat would be the case, but is that necessarily a condition? In the abovesuggestion analytic approaches are by no means abandoned. But they can beseen as chopped up and mixed with perceptual approaches in order tointegrate partial experiences of wholeness according to Figures 6-5, 16-6 and17-6, and in order to avoid alienation, mainly in relation to form. In this viewe.g. theoretical semiotic analysis could be partially integrated with perceptualfeedback of upcoming suggestions, along the way so to speak. Andtechnical/functional theoretical approaches could be physically modelled alsoin early phases, for example as partial solutions or as partly abstractedphysicality. All field-based approaches could thereby be seen as adaptable tothe same strategy.From these analyses emerges a summarised approach, where practical elementsreferring to intentional arrangement are: (1) Approaching correspondencebetween experience and phenomenon, which involves cyclic convergencepatterns where interaction between mental and material representations areharmonised through iterative wholeness experiences, (2) Establishment of a goodand creative atmosphere, which needs attunement and arrangement ofdeautomatisation through playful experimentation and excitation of breakdowns,(3) Integration of diverging traditions, where splitting up but maintainingtraditional field-based abstractions is suggested through mixing in perceptions oftheoretical possibilities, (4) Merging of diversity and specificity, which can beachieved through development of parallel concepts and perceptual comparisonsbetween them and finally (5) Initiation of shared simultaneousness, whereperceptual sharing of representations in context is focused and where subjectivecontributions are integrated through having to agree on one solution in eachiteration.286

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T YThe explicit condition for all these suggestions to be practically accessible,however, is that a tool capable of supplying the described sorts of materialityflexibly, quickly, cheaply, efficiently and either in detailed or approximatedform is available. Historically that has never been the case.10.5 Rapid Prototyping as a conceptual catalysation tool.As practical tool features are easier to relate to than theoretical aspects oftheir support of human conceptualisation, the summary of their capacitieswill also be done more superficially.Our initial case studies of chapter 4 indicated that recently developed RapidPrototyping technology has inherent properties which could possibly matchrequired capabilities. If we build on the above suggestions for a humanlybased conceptualisation strategy for design action as the mentality aspect tosupport – what specific requirements should be posed to an appropriatematerialisation tool for such a strategy? Based upon experiences acquiredduring the referred case studies of chapter 4 and the reflections of chapters 6and 7, it was proposed that produced materiality should be suitable for:(A) Fast and cheap model building of rough models, detailed models,freeform models, functioning assemblies, many parallel solutions, weakmodels for reforming, strong models for testing, (B) Experimentation withconceptual solutions, technical solutions, ergonomic functionality, aestheticalevaluations and part/whole relations and (C) Maximisation of bodilyperception in adaptive and formative modesTwo kinds of RP technology were evaluated. One ‘low end’ conceptmodeller, type Z-Corp 402, was based upon employment of plaster and gluefor production of fast, cheap, weak and relatively rough models. A ‘high end’Selective Laser Sintering machine, type DTM 2500, was used for strong andexact models, based upon laser melting of powders like polyamide or steel,and bronze for high temperature infiltration of e.g. Rapid Tooling inserts.Type of process was adapted to the case in question, but the conceptmodeller was most frequently used in praxis. The case projects of chapter 4(the Luxo Sidewinder and Orchid projects, the three Polimoon/Nice IceLantern projects, the Hamax Balance Sledge phase A and B solutions, andthe four different Jordan Mouth Hygiene projects) were now analysed withregard to ‘soft quantification’ of how well RP technology complied to theabove requirements – evaluated as very bad, bad, good or very good.RP modelling was found to have very good capabilities for support of theproposed design strategy for all of the suggested requirements apart from twoapplications. For up-front models it was found to be too slow even if capableof producing rough models, but it can be good if some complexity levelexists at the outset. For maximum perception in the formative mode,however, it was considered to be very bad because of the alienation the287

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Ncomputer interface represents. The latter problem was seen as fundamentallyin opposition to all findings, and it had to be challenged.Through the Norwegian Research Council and external grants we managed toacquire optical scanning technology with updated software for formmanipulation of the scanned models. A new three students diploma caseproject was arranged in collaboration with our sponsor Jordan a.s. Theobjectives of this project were to avoid the negative aspects which wererevealed in the chapter 4 cases, to integrate a process which was consideredto agree with the theoretical landscape of chapters 5, 6 and 7 and practicalRP/manual modelling combination supported by updated scanning and CADmanipulation technology. The whole framework was also evaluated.Four design concepts of children’s tooth brushes of the Jordan Steps projectwere completed in five months which was seen as extremely efficient. Theproject was based on the idea that extra functions and semiotic expressionscan be integrated in two-material handles (soft and hard plastics) whereergonomic claims require large dimensions anyway – which was inheritedfrom the section 4 cases. All necessary RP/scanning technology and claymodelling facilities were offered to the students, but they were free to use itas they found it appropriate. As much as two hundred RP produced and handmodified test models were built altogether during the project, mostly forinternal evaluations and analyses by the designers. To a large degree selectedmodels were also evaluated by the development team members in meetingsevery two weeks (Jordan staff of market, distribution, dentistry, engineeringand tooling expertise plus a professional designer). In addition experimentalmodels were tested and evaluated continuously by the future child users andtheir parents, questionnaires were completed by the parents and theirexperimental experiences were included in the following attempt. All fourcategories went through four to five developmental stages with severalrounds of modelling by all three designers in each round, and followingtesting and discussions resulted in selection of the best alternatives tocontinue with. The formative mode of intense, focused sensuous forming,mostly by hand in clay or concept model modifications was easilydistinguished from the adaptive mode of evaluation of the made – either bythe designers themselves in design action, by colleagues or in demonstrationsand discussions with team members. After months of trying and failing overand over, they finally approached solutions which pleased all the involvedactors. Concept model attempts, which in tests and evaluations were found tohave some functional, semantic, ergonomic, aesthetical or technical fault(s),were in the next iteration adjusted through grinding and/or clay remodellingand scanned. Then the rough resulting 3D model was straightened throughpolygon adjustments or enveloped by a new Nurbs surface model and remadein a following RP produced concept model, over and over until satisfactionwas reached. The actors became very engaged in this process. Theirevaluations were that its overall usability was very good, but that directpolygon adjustments of the scanned 3D models did not function well where288

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Yfreeform surfaces met. And since those curves are decisive to good design,this process was still not considered as good enough. But it is commerciallyexpected to be soon. They accordingly chose to envelope each scanned modelwith new Nurbs models. With their high modelling capability, that workedfast and well with very good control of form details in the next iteration. 7What is demonstrated through all case studies is seen as sufficient forconcluding that if Rapid Prototyping is supplemented with manual modellingand scanning technology in the formative mode, it is considered to be a verygood tool for support of a design process according to the above descriptionsand fourteen specified requirements with one single exception; initial roughmodels. We can thereby consider it as very well suited for catalysation andsupport of flexible human perception in both formative and adaptive modesof design action. It is suggested that RP technology employed for productionof flexible types for conceptual negotiation as demonstrated should be calledNegotiotyping and the involved material representations for Negotiotypes.What has been basically analysed through the referred practical andtheoretical studies is that intentional catalysation of the flexible human mindthrough sense-based physical experiences can be useful in individual andshared conceptualisation processes. How can this basic principle beemployed in other phases of a development project?10.6 Rapid materialisation in other developmental sceneriesDuring the four years duration of this research project several otherapplications of Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling technology have beenexperimented with. At Institute of Industrial Design RP has during this timebecome a very popular tool also for up-front communication of creativevisions, and research on the capabilities of RT as a tool for production of testseries of creative concepts has been performed in parallel. As otherapplications than conceptualisation can be seen as aspectual adaptation of thebasic principle of perceptual catalysation, they have been included in thisthesis, but at a lower level of research precision.The Fuzzy Front End phase of product development processes has beenidentified as particularly important in updated strategic literature (Smith &Reinertsen 1998, Cooper 2001). This is where highly critical time saving andcommunication potential of creative possibilities can be achieved. All upfrontideation approaches will result in a situation where vision concepts willhave to be communicated to decision-makers like corporate management,public authorities, screening or financial institutions – in order to becomeorganised as development projects if they are found worthy. Such situationswill involve decisive implications like communication of idea content toreceivers of message, creation of a proper basis for evaluation of idea7Section 8.8. The process and the resulting products were evaluated by an external jury as outstanding.289

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nimplications and engagement of receivers of the message throughdemonstration of idea potential. Since how such ideas should be presented isseen as a problem heavily involving perceptual experiences of the messagereceivers, the possibility of using RP physicality to enhance understandingappears as a very interesting option. But on the other hand detailed physicalmodels up-front, where actual development is not undertaken yet, willhamper a desirable situation of initial freedom space – if the project is laterestablished.Six such visionary case projects are briefly presented in section 9.1.2 –displaying concepts of original solutions. All the examples demonstrate thatphysical RP produced models of high quality can have a substantial impacton the message receivers’ ability to evaluate the realism potential of thepresented ideas at an early stage. The more-cost of materialising such modelsif they are first 3D-modelled is considered as relatively small. And if theprojects are continued, modelling is required anyway. This indicates that astrategy of up-front physical modelling can represent a very sensible overallstart of ideation processes, not the least in cases where conceptual evaluationand interpretation of many involved decision makers is a critical factor.Creative, radical design concepts are generally speaking very difficult tolaunch to an establishment (for good reasons of experience). But possibleearlier negative adventures did not have access to RP as a tool for conceptualcatalysation, and the challenge of ideation scenarios of this kind therebybecomes to display the demonstrated potentials of the tool, which can bedone through actual cases. The referred evaluation of a potential draw-backof (too) early detailing concluded that RP can be used for presentation ofvisionary ideas if the solution’s exemplification objective is properlyclarified.It is suggested that RP supported up-front modelling of visionary solutionsshould be termed Visiotyping and that the resulting physical representationsshould be called Visiotypes.When a finished prototype of a new concept has been tested and accepted byall the involved actors and technical/functional risk thereby is reduced, onehas to decide whether one believes that the real users will agree with thedesign team’s evaluations and decide to buy. As this decision has to be basedon assumptions and, if one goes for it, involves heavy tooling investments inordinary processes, it is seen as very critical – especially in projects wherethe concept is original and earlier unknown to the future users. Cooper (2001)emphasises product uniqueness as the most highly prioritised conceptualrequirement in updated product development processes because of potentialprofits. But he also acknowledges the extra high risk such concepts involve,which is mainly because of uncertainty related to unpredictable marketacceptance.290

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T YSeries Production scenarios based on testing of new concepts producedthrough Rapid Tooling has been identified as a possibility to substantiallyreduce high risk of unique concepts. This adaptation possibility of RTtechnology, registered and documented through the in-depth interviews ofchapters 4 and 9, became the basic motivation for our acquisition of a smallinjection moulding machine and an oven for production of LaserForm ST-100 Rapid Steel tool inserts – and for research into adaptation of thistechnology in case studies. Tooling cases on relatively simple tools forstudent projects and client manufacturers’ needs were focused in this project.As described in section 9.2.2, five tool inserts made from copper polyamidewere produced for different client and sponsor companies before thistechnology was rejected as unusable. Three inserts were later produced forclient companies and five inserts for student projects from LaserFormtechnology. These tools were tested in production runs and two of them werefound to have very good performance, three to have good performance, twoto have fair performance and one to have bad performance. From the goodtools were produced product series of between twenty and a hundred units,which were tested in actual applications. Three such test series applicationsare described in section 9.2.5.These RT-based case studies and international similar experiences indicatethat cheap and fast test series of new product concepts will be possible toproduce and distribute to future users in order to evaluate real marketreactions. Real potential users can then through own sense-based experiencesevaluate the concept – and eventually signal acceptance or rejection. Ifrejected, the project can be scraped before critical tooling investments arewasted. If partly accepted, changes can be performed through new RP-basedexperiments. If accepted, initial series production can be based on Rapid Toolinserts, accelerating start-up. Positive decisions on creative niche productswith documented probability of good profits can then be taken without thehighly critical risk which is usually attached to these kinds of designsolutions.In line with the above reasoning the sketched strategy can be called RT-basedSeriotyping, and the resulting physical models Seriotypes.Rapid Manufacturing is a final interesting series manufacturing possibilityidentified during the project. This approach to series production is applicablein concept cases where tooling costs are prohibitive but RP is suitable andeconomically feasible as a basic means of production. This is often the casein small scale production with uncritical component cost, in cases including alarge variety of different components or in cases with special requirements tocomponent geometry. These kinds of adaptations can be relevant for highlyspecialised and often patented products which are not exposed to high marketcompetition. A good case example of such an application is the developmentperformed for the medical technology company Orthometer a.s during this291

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nproject, which produces specialised, patented prostheses for facilitation of hipreplacement operations based upon a large number of differentiatedcomponents – impossible to produce from ordinary tooling for cost reasons.The developmental strategy of all the demonstrated cases and theoreticalanalyses of this thesis is based upon the gradual emergence of conceptsthrough trial-and-error-based forming and adapting many iterative physicalmodels. Finally – how can the wholeness of this multi-aspectualconceptualisation landscape be mapped in one easily accessible depiction?10.7 A resulting PoEM of design conceptualisation.In Figure 1-9 a development process was depicted where RP is usedprimarily for adaptation and evaluation of finished concepts (prototyping inConcept Evaluation), but also for the last part of Concept Development andsamples testing of User Feedback (Wohlers 2001). What has been suggestedthrough the described analyses is a considerable expansion of the illustratedstate-of-the-art employment of RP, primarily as a major approach to designaction through iterative Negotiotyping including scanning all through theConceptualisation phase. But RP employment is also suggested as animportant contribution to the actual establishment of a project throughVisiotyping in the Fuzzy Front End. Further expansion of a traditionalapproach is suggested through the employment of Seriotyping by means ofRT technology in the User Feedback phase, before deciding upon production.A concept embracing all these kinds of Layer Manufacturing capabilitiescould be Rapid Multityping (RM) instead of Rapid Prototyping, which in thisnew framing becomes too limited. An overall objective of the wholeframework is time compression through all phases in line with establisheddevelopment strategies.Fuzzy Front End Conceptualisation Concept Evaluation User FeedbackPRESENTPROCESSRAPIDMULTITYPING11 41 23VISIO-TYPINGTIME COMPRESSIONCONCURRENCYNEGOTIO-TYPING TYPINGPROTO-SERIO-TYPING PROD. PROD.ACTORSengineerinitiatordesignermarket spes.Figure 6-10:Rapid Multityping of Visiotypes, Negotiotypes, Protypes and Seriotypesuser292

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T YThis way of linear illustration displays procedural fit well, but it gives noaccount of the interactive dynamics of the suggested overall strategy. It isaccordingly found to be much too limited for our purpose. A depictionaccording to Figure 19-6, however, is seen to give a much betterrepresentation of the multi-levelled complexity involved in an updatedcollaborative design process. The theoretical framework of concreteconceptualisation suggested in this thesis is not seen as basically dependentupon how physical representations are produced. But if the question of howis integrated and the abilities of RM technology is included, it has beenshown that integration of theory with these efficient and inexpensive toolscan form a very powerful approach to designing. Starting from this figure,let us therefore try to include the essential contributions from the referredresearch on practical tooling abilities in four phases into the depictedlandscape. This involves fast and cheap modelling of all the referred kindsof models, experimentation capabilities in all the demonstrated kinds ofsolutions and field-based approaches and maximisation of bodily perceptionin the formative and adaptive modes.Final conceptualrepresentationLEVELSeeds forfuture solutionsSERIOTYPEPROTOTYPEPossible intuititionNEGOTIOTYPESCreative atmospheresHuman needAlternative solutionVISIOTYPEResourcesOriginal ideaTIMEFigure 7-10: The Plant of Emerging Materiality - PoEMFigure 7-10 of a Rapid Multityping supported product development processcan be read as a depiction of all the involved stages – and it will be differentfor all individual projects. It is the story of how mental imagery of thecollaborating actors (including intention, emotion and thought) throughrepeated attempts of sense-based RM-produced material representationsfinally reaches a physical form which contains the experienced, negotiated,293

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nevaluated and integrated individual contributions. There is no restriction as toemployment of other tools in this landscape.In this landscape map human conceptualisation, according to the basic leafpattern of Figures 16-6 and 17-6, takes place in repetitive patterns whereintentional focus of consciousness dynamically changes between ‘subjective’and ‘objective’ locations, both seen as flexibly representing each other. Thesepatterns are seen to involve two modes which are called formative andadaptive in design action, and conceptualisation results from interactionbetween those modes. Conceptual learning happens in the subjects’ bodilyinteraction with shared objective representations. Conceptual creationoriginates in the individual subjective minds through a complex mix ofconscious and unconscious imagery. Conceptual making takes place in bodilyinteraction with the mental imagery. And conceptual representation finallybecomes objectively perceivable for all involved actors in bodily formedmateriality. We can then understand a design process as a process where aconcept is created in an interaction space between subjects and objects andwhere it emerges as shared meaning with a physical expression. It issuggested that a metaphorical map of such a framework could be called thePlant of Emerging Materiality – or PoEM.In iteratively repeated cycles of such action flexible ‘subjectivity’ and‘objectivity’ are seen to approach agreement or correspondence in anegotiated concept. Both can be understood as temporary representations andshould not be considered as Cartesian dualistic polarities, but as aspectualrepresentations of emerging ideas belonging to the same encompassingmonistic totality. In such a framing of mind-and-world -in-the-making itappears to be easier to portray subjectivity scientifically than in framings of‘untrustworthy’ affective subjects relating to given and ‘objective’ world. If anotion of a human ability to experience initial wholeness of atmospheresbefore separation into aspects can be included, it becomes even easier.In the PoEM model shared physical representations are seen as very usefulfor catalysation of perceptual understanding and inter-human relations incontextual wholeness. When such materiality can be rapidly andinexpensively produced through Rapid Multityping technology, throughwhich mental imagery can easily be portrayed physically, then the contoursof a very efficient approach to design action results. In a depiction of such adesign strategy a stem of iteratively produced flexible physicality represents amaterial track describing conceptual level at a given time. Around this stemon the side of forming and on the side of adapting are portrayed the flexiblementalities of the actors, which in essence are behind the production of thephysical stem and which gradually converge towards unification with thestem. The developing physicality can thereby be understood as materialisingin the midst of the enveloping flexible mentalities. The central stem is anidentical source for material perception, visible for all actors, whereas theindividual mentalities behind it are invisible, they cannot be observed in their294

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Ytotality, only in their composite parts in individual introspection. But thecontents of these individual mentalities can nevertheless become perceivableby the other actors – for example if shared atmospheres can be created as increative play, and through the way they are physically represented.An objective of the PoEM approach to collaborative design action therebybecomes the intentional establishment of environments and framings whichcan promote a creative interaction between individual minds through makingthem perceivable for the other actors. As Negotiotyping actually has theability to materialise mental imagery cheaply and quickly, it is found to bevery good for supporting such interaction. The physical reality of‘materialised views’ can then be perceived by all involved actors. Whenindividual aspectual positions become visible, their collisions can also beperceived – and thereby adjusted over and over until they are finallyharmonised. And last but not least, for each iteration all actors can bodilyperceive how the negotiated wholeness of the assembled totality expressesitself to the world – how its gestalt, so essential to aesthetics, is experiencedby the group. Through playful experimentation with alternative solutionsdiversity of mind can be maintained although specificity is also achieved.And through this kind of project staging, which is in accordance withtechniques of ‘deautomatisation’ 8 , intuitive insight may appear and lift thesolution to a higher level. Prototyping and Seriotyping, where functionalityand user feedback is focused and where adaptation is more central thancreation, can eventually prepare the ground for the flower, the fruit and theseeds for generations to come: the final physical conceptual representation.10.8 Summary of contributionsThis thesis has resulted from a research process outlined in section 1.2 andaimed at answering four research questions. Question Q1, concerned withcharacterisation of RP supported conceptualisation projects, was answeredthrough evaluations of experiences and reflections among all the projectactors, resulting from several initial case projects and summarised in anegotiated observations list of section 4.7.3 of chapter 4. Question Q2, aimedat description of a humanly based conceptualisation process, led to studies ofphilosophy and neurobiology, and the understanding resulting from thesestudies was summarised in section 5.9 of chapter 5. To approach an answer toquestion Q3, with objective to unite action and theory, proceedings ofreflective integration of practical and theoretical aspects resulted in severalprocess illustrations throughout chapter 6. In chapter 7 the achievedunderstanding was adapted to practical field-based intentions, related toearlier theoretical understanding in section 7.9 and summarised in section7.10. In chapter 8 all the integrated proceedings were related to thecapabilities of RP and scanning tools, and the resulting process approach wasadapted to a finalising case project and evaluated. Chapter 9 was finally8 See section 5.8.2.295

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Naimed at answering question Q4, where RP/RT applications other thanconceptualisation were addressed.The concluding descriptions of section 10.7 are based upon the followingcontributions, summarised in a less poetic language than above 9 :1. A metaphorical model of collaborative design processes in complexitycontexts, where conceptualisation is catalysed through iterativenegotiated material approximations of gradually emerging sharedmeaning (the Plant of Emerging Materiality or PoEM).2. Praxis-, philosophy- and neurobiology-based elaborations of this modelwhich build an understanding of dynamically changing patterns offocused individual attention between mental and material conceptualrepresentations – and a state of being between these where wholenesscan and should intentionally be immediately experienced.3. A suggested understanding of such conceptualisation patterns where onecan distinguish between a formative and an adaptive mode – which areinteractively connected through a shared physical representation servingas perceptual catalyser for all involved actors in each stage.4. Exemplified cases and analyses which display how Rapid Prototypingtechnology can be employed as a tool for generative and very effectivesupport of such processes.5. Suggestion of practical Rapid Prototyping-based intentional approacheseliciting shared experiences, which for long can maintain both diversityand specificity of solution through alternative experiments.6. Exemplified analyses of how Rapid Prototyping technology can be usedgeneratively to elicit perceptual understanding of idea potential ofvisionary concepts, and how Rapid Tooling technology can be employedfor test series production with a high potential of risk reduction.7. Suggestion of new terminology which understandably explains howRapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling technology can be applied tocatalyse collaborative interaction in different development phases:Visiotyping, Negotiotyping, Prototyping (as established) and Seriotyping– and to embrace them all Rapid Multiyping (RM).8. Suggestion of how differentiated field-based approaches to design actioncan be integrated if traditional abstracted theoretical approaches aremaintained, but chopped up and mixed with Negotiotyping.9 Also reported in section 1.5.296

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T Y9. An analysis which concludes that inferior computer interfaces informative action can be substantially improved through manualreforming of Rapid Prototyping-produced concept models supplementedwith scanning technology and software for correction of imperfections.10.9 Proceedings and limitations of the research process.The grounded theory-based approach of allowing hypotheses and theory toemerge as one proceeds has led this research project into unforeseenlandscapes which have contributed to its individual character – including itsstrong and weak characteristics. The two separate tracks of basically differentnature and research approach are: (a) analyses of human consciousness asbasis for design action and (b) evaluation of Rapid Prototyping with relatedtechnology as support-tools for such action. The latter track, withmethodological basis in a participatory action research regime of qualitativeresearch 10 , builds on case studies, interviews and taped discussions. Thatapproach has given valuable insight into the many facets of RP-supporteddesign praxis – as grounding for theoretical reflections and arrangement ofthe finalising case project. This part of the research project, which constitutesits main contents, basically followed the original research design 11 and gavefew shaking surprises as things proceeded.The other track, with theoretical basis in cognitive psychology and maincontributions from phenomenology and neurobiology, opened a landscape ofdifficult accessibility – not because of lack of sources, but because theyappeared in part as contradicting. Central stumbling stones of understandingapplication of material aids in design action from a basis in these fields canbe assigned names like internalisation/externalisation, subject/object,phenomenal/physical aspects of perception, dualism, idealism, monism andmaterial/immaterial aspects of consciousness. As the design-relatedimportance of some basic understanding of these barriers emerged to theresearcher, no way could be found to proceed other than through them. And asearch for help through design theory gave little support, which left animpression of a need of some illumination. The fight to get through thislandscape resulted in a defined dual-aspectual basis for portraying designaction 12 and a simplified objective for the continuation of the project. What Ifelt was needed, was some visualisation of the intricate relation betweenphenomenal and material aspects of human making – in a formunderstandable to visually oriented designers. This approach resulted indynamic patterns based upon the integrated results of the empirical andtheoretical analyses. These patterns were found to agree with similar patternssuggested by other researchers 13 . Without objecting to their basic structure Isuggested an extension, to involve the team’s negotiated understanding of10 See sections 3.2 and 3.3.4.11 Capjon (2002).12 Based upon Velmans’ dual-aspect theory, see section 5.5.2.13 Mainly Kolb (1984).297

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nessential aspects of formative action. Eventually followed adaptations ofthese illustrations to practical processes, and overall understandings werefinally integrated with the capabilities of the RP/RT tools.These proceedings are results of the defined explorative procedural objectiveof the research strategy 14 . The project has explored practical capabilities of anew materialisation tool, of a theoretical grounding for application ofmateriality in human conceptualisation and of some practical results ofintegrating these. New approaches and understandings have been searchedfor, suggested and analysed through unconventional interpretations. Atraditional process-oriented PhD is generally based upon analyses of somegiven process and affiliated research or earlier analyses. This project’sobjective entailed that a relevant process or directly related analyses couldnot be identified at the outset. But if new action and theoretical approachesare staged by the researcher, the researcher’s own reflections become highlyexposed and thereby vulnerable to critique of consistency if judged by criteriacreated for inquiry of a given context with higher access to a theory-base.Nevertheless, an explorative PhD must also be assigned the criterion of acritical and rigorous process of analysis. In this project the main process oftext-based analysis was aimed at maturing the premises of how production ofmateriality can support mental ideation. And since maturing an understandingof the human mind’s material and immaterial aspects more than anything thisresearcher can think of requires an overview, a holistic approach appeared asthe only viable way to proceed. But holistic approaches are generallyconsidered as controversial since they prioritise wholeness over rigorousdetail – which often becomes problematic if the result shall be kept withinacceptable limits.A critique of my resulting story could according to these reflections hold thatthe theoretical analyses, based upon a holistic approach to the human mindplus much data- and experience-based reflection by the researcher, is toolittle focused on analytic consistency and rigour. Such a critique has anaspectual content of truth. But a one-sided focus on this aspect will not givecredit to the true nature of this research project. If an explorative objective isdefined as a strategy, the implications of an explorative mindset to researchdesign, focus and structure should be acknowledged as well – as the objectiveof exploration is new discovery. This point of view follows the basic strategyof Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000): “the whole idea of reflexivity, as we seeit, is the very ability to break away from a frame of reference and to look atwhat it is not capable of saying” 15 . They assign a strategy of expandingempirical research through ‘wide reading’ of ‘grand theory’ to allow in-depthpenetration of essential patterns. Discovery of new interpretation should insuch a framing be allowed to substantiate first. The qualitative researchprinciple of open criticism of suggested understandings then appears as avery good way of disclosing possible misconceptions.14 Stated in section 1.2.15 Op. cit. in section 3.3.5.298

C H A P T E R 1 0 : S U P P O R T I N G T H E E M E R G E N C E O F A C O N C E P T ’ S M A T E R I A L I T YThis researcher has through own experience come to see overarchingprinciples as necessary for developing understanding – in addition to details,not instead of. And the story told here claims no other truth value than beingan honest attempt of trying to explore and suggest some principles whichhopefully may have importance to other designers – in addition to all theyknow or can.10.10 Future challengesA main theme of this thesis has been to develop an understanding of theimportance of attention or engagement; how it moves and expandsdynamically in good individual or collaborative product developmentprocesses, and how it can be catalysed through material representations. Theperformed elaborations for describing this framework have admittedly beenrather excessive. And the challenge of prophesising excessive elaborations toa reluctant audience is hardly less excessive. I have two concrete hopes thatthe results of this research work may still be possible to communicate. Thefirst is that the essence of engagement is easy to understand; it is the intentionof the individual. The other is that possible catalysation of such intention incomplexity framings is easy to disclose; as illustrated patterns. The challengeof communicating this ‘gospel’ has two basic aspects, one practical and onetheoretical.The practical challenge will above all be implementation of the registeredsupportive capabilities of RM technology in ideation and conceptualisation ofconcrete product development processes. This technology, which for the firsttime in history can support materialisation of complex human imageryquickly, cheaply and efficiently, according to the findings entails potentialcapabilities which should be used for much more widespread applicationsthan prototyping of finished concepts – in ways explored in this project orany other way which may result from further creative exploration of itscapacities. Suggested practical applications of the tool seem to have capacityto stimulate creative collaboration between design actors with divergingpersonal and field-related views of objectives and ways of approaching thedevelopmental task. In innovation-hungry high-cost countries like Norwaysuch scenarios appear as very challenging because they can diminishtradition-based barriers and enhance creative interaction between careful,realism-based engineering approaches and mind-opening advances ofindustrial designers if cautiously guided by explorative investors andintegrated with everyday-oriented users’ views (as examples of generalisedmentalities). If a tool and a collaboration-pattern have an ability to catalysehumanly interaction between different actors who basically aim towards thesame results of profitable new product concepts, but are hampered byconvention, then the challenge for future research on this issue basicallybecomes one of proving the capabilities of the new strategy throughexemplification. Such an objective can easily be integrated with effective299

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O Nreal-world development projects where new products will be the outcometogether with case-oriented papers for publication. This strategy forimplementation of the easily realisable results of this research project ishereby suggested. 16Design theory of the 1970s tried to map generalised approaches to designaction 17 , an endeavour which seems to have more or less evaporated inpostmodern contextualisation 18 . Can some common ground for making stillbe sketched – or will a future ground of designing only imply diversification?By answering the question of what all design actors unambiguously have incommon, another challenge resulting from this work is displayed; they are allhuman beings. If human beings share certain patterns through which theyconceptualise ‘their’ world in shared communities, then it seems reasonableto hold, like I have done, that such patterns could be used as appropriatefoundations for building design theory – which could stretch beyond theparticular context in question and which could also involve other humanbeings in collaborative staging. The challenge then becomes to use thesuggested theoretical patterns and interpretations as basis for discourse andfurther research on whether they are found to be relevant or not. As these, inthe tradition of qualitative research, must be seen as this researcher’sinterpretations they are dependent upon further analyses from myself orothers to become useful tools for general support of design action. Bothempirical and critical theoretical approaches will be needed for such apurpose, where the former is outlined above and the latter is hereby invited.Since the presented empirical results of RM-based support in thisresearcher’s view appear as fairly unproblematic to relate to, the theoreticalunderstandings of the human mind and its capabilities will presumably be themost demanding issue in a design theoretical context. Because of thecontroversies this issue involves, it seems to be widely avoided in discourseon design action. It is my hope, however, that this work can be considered inthe design community as sufficiently challenging to bring the problematic onthe agenda.There is presently a move from seeing design as an individual activitytowards approaching it as collaborative action in contexts of complexity 19 .This tendency seems to call for a debate which can move focus fromdiversities of context to the possibility that some shared action patterns mayhave inherent capabilities for facing complexity. In such processestechnology should be adapted to support human beings – not the other wayaround.16 The Norwegian Research Council has granted such a project in 2004, in collaboration with fourmanufacturing companies – as a direct result of this project.17 Cross et al. 1984.18 See section 3.2.2.19 Sections 2.5 and 2.6.300

ReferencesAFPR 2000. 8th European Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Paris.Akin, O. 1982. Instruction Criticism in Architectural Education. DesignStudies, Vol 3. No 3. July 1982.Akner-Koler, C. 1994. Three-Dimensional Visual Analysis. Stockholm:Department of Industrial Design, University College of Art, Craft andDesign.Alvesson, M. & K. Sköldberg. 2000. Refelxive Methodology. London: SagePubl.Amabile, T.M. 1983. The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York:Springer-Verlag.Andreasen, M.M. 1980. Machine Design Methods based on a SystematicApproach, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund.Andreasen, M.M. 1995. The Theory of Domains. Paper for PhD course, Inst.for Product Design, NTH., Trondheim.Andreasen, M.M. & L. Hein. 1987. Integrated Product Development.Bedford: Springer Verlag.Archer, B. 1984. Systematic Method for Designers. In Cross, N., editor,Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Argyris, C. & D. Schön. 1991. Participatory Action Research and ActionScience compared: a Commentary. Newbury Park Calif.: Sage Publ.Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. London: Intertext Books.Baxter, M. 1995. Product Design: Practical Methods for the SystematicDevelopment of New Products. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes Publ. Ltd.Bense, M. 1971. Zeichen und Design. Baden-Baden: Agis Verlag.Benum, Rokne, & Bolstad. 1992. Praktisk bruk av antropometri. Trondheim:Sintef UNIMED.Bergson, H. 1911/1983. Creative Evolution: University Press of America.Blankenburg, D. 1994. Speeding up Product Development - the ConcurrentEngineering Matrix, Dept. of Production and Quality Engineering, Universityof Trondheim.301

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NBlessing, L. 1994. A Process-based Approach to Computer-supportedEngineering Design, University of Twente, Published in Cambridge.Bogen, J.E. 1969. The other side of the brain I, II, III. Bulletin of the LosAngeles Neurological Societies.Bohman, J.F. 1991. Holism without skepticism: Contextualism and the limitsof interpretation. Paper presented at The Interpretive Turn.Bortoft, H. 1996. The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe's Way of Science.Edinburgh: Floris Books.Boujut, J-F. & P. Laureillard. 2002. A co-operation framework for productprocessintegration in engineering design. Design Studies, 23: 497-513.Brandt, E. 2001. Event-Driven Product Development: Collaboration andLearning, Dept. of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, TechnicalUniversity of Denmark, Lyngby.Brandt, E. & C. Grunnet. 2000. Evoking the Future: Drama and Props in Usercentered Design. Paper presented at Participatory Design Conference, NewYork.Bruce, M., S. Potter, & R. Roy. 1995. The Risks and Rewards of DesignInvestment. Journal of Marketing Management, 112: 403-17.Bruce, V. & P. Green. 1990. Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology andEcology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Bucciarelli, L.L. 2002. Between thought and object in engineering design.Design Studies, 23: 219-31.Buur, J. 1989. Mechatronics in Japan. A Study of Japanese Design Methodsand Working Practices in Japanese Companies. Lyngby: Institute ofEngineering Design, Technical University of Denmark.Buzan, T. 2000. Head First. London: Thorsons.Böhme, G. 2002. Kommunikative Atmosphären. In Basfeld, M. & T. Kracht,editors, Subjekt und Wahrnehmung. Basel: Schwabe & Co.Böhme, G. 1994. Weltweisheit - Lebensform - Wissenschaft. Eine Einführungin die Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkampf Verlag.302

R E F E R E N C E SCapjon, J. 2002. Trial-and-Error-based Innovation: A Route-mapping of theMethod. In Capjon, J. and S. Kvarv, editors. Route mapping: On relevantmethods, one’s own choice and application. Oslo School of Architecture.Chalmers, D. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a FundamentalTheory. New York: Oxford University Press.Churchland, P.M. 1997. Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Cohen, J.D, J.W. Schooler, & J. Melcher, editors. 1997. ScientificApproaches to Consciousness. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum.Cooper, R. 2001. Winning at New Products. Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Publ.Croney, J. 1980. Anthropometry for Designers. London: Batsford Academicand Educational Ltd.Cross, N. 1994. Engineering Design Methods - Strategies for ProductDesign. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Cross, N., editor. 1984. Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.Damasio, A.R. 1994. Descarte's Error. New York: G.P. Puntnam's Sons.Darke, J. 1984. The Primary Generator and the Design Process. In Cross, N.editor, Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: John Wiley &Sons.De Bono, E. 1992. Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinkingto Create New Ideas. New York: Harper Collins Business.Deikman. 1973. Deautomatization and the Mystic Experience. In Ornstein,RE., editor, The Nature of Human Consciousness. San Fransisco: W.H.Freeman and Company.Denzin, N.K. 1978. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction toSosciological Methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Denzin, N.K. & Y.S. Lincoln, 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry.Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publ. Inc.Dewey, J. 1934/1958. Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn.303

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NDixon, N.F. 1981. Preconscious Processing. Chichester: Wiley.Dretske, F. 1995. Meaningful Perception. In Kosslyn, M. & D. Osherson,editors, Visual Cognition. Cambridge, Ma.: The MIT Press.Dunin-Woyseth, H. & J. Michl, editors. 2001. Towards a DisciplinaryIdentity of the Making Professions. The Oslo Millennium Reader. OsloSchool of Architecture.Eccels, J.C. 1989. Evolution of the Brain. London: Routledge.Eccels, J.C. 1980. The Human Psyche. New York: Springer.Eder, E. 1998. Design modelling - a design science approach (and why doesindustry not use it?), Journal of engineering design.Ehn, P. 1989. Work-oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm:Arbetslivscentrum; Almquist & Wiksell International.Ehn, P. & M. Kyng. 1991. Cardboard Computers: Mocking-it-up or Handsonthe Future. In Greenbaum, J & M. Kyng, editors, Design at Work:Cooperative Design of Computer Systems.: Hillsdale, N.J. LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc. Publ.Eisner, E. 1991. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and theenhancement of educational practice. New York.: Macmillan.ENDREA. 2001. Endrea Nomenclature. The Swedish Design Research andEducation Agenda. Linkøping: Endrea-21.Feigl, H. 1958. The "Mental" and the "Physical". In Feigl et al., editors,Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.Finke, R.A. 1990. Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions inVisualisation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Finke, R.A., T.B. Ward, & S.M. Smith. 1992. Creative Cognition.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Gadamer, H-G. 1989a. Truth and Method (2nd revised edn, first publ. 1960).London: Sheed & Ward.Gebhardt, A. 1996. Rapid Prototyping: Carl Hanser Verlag.304

R E F E R E N C E SGelernter, M. 1990. Between Invention and Discovery: Reconciling theSubject-Object Problem in Western Design Theory. Paper presented atACSA Annual Meeting.Gelernter, M. 1995. Sources of Architectural Form: A Critical History ofWestern Design Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Gibson, J.J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.Glaser, B.G. & A.L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. NewYork: Aldine de Gruyter.Goldman, A.H. 1990. Aesthetic Qualities and Aesthetic Value. The Journalof Philosophy, LXXXVII: 23-37.Gordon, W.J. 1961. Synectics. The Development of Creative Capacity. NewYork: Harper and Row.Gruber, H.E. 1988. The evolving Systems Approach to Creative Work.Creativity Research Journal, 1: 25-51.Grøn, A. 1982. Merleau-Ponty: Sansning og verden. In Lübcke, P, editor, Vortids filosofi: Engagement og forståelse. København: Politikens Forlag.Guilford, J.P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist: 444-54.Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt /Main: Suhrkamp.Hampton, J.A. 1997. Emergent Attributes in Combined Concepts. In Ward,T.B et al. editors, Creative Thought; An Investigation of ConceptualStructures and Processes.Handenhoven, E.V. & P. Trassaert. 1999. Design Knowledge and DesignSkills. What industry tends to tell us. Paper presented at InternationalConference on Engineering Design. ICED 99, Munich.Hannah. 2002. Elements of Visual Design: Rowenta Reed Kostellow and theStructure of Visual Relations. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Heidegger, M. 1927/1962. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Hein, L. & M.M. Andreasen. 1985. Integreret Produktutvikling. København:Jernets Arbeidsgiverforening.Henderson, K. 1999. On Line and On Paper. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.305

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NHickling, A. 1982. Beyond a Linear Iterative Process? In Evans, B. et al.editors, Changing Design. Chichester: Wiley.Hillier, B. 1984. Knowledge and Design. In Cross, N., editor, Developmentsin Design Methodology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Horne-Martin, S. & B. Jerrard. 2002. Risk in Innovation: BirminghamInstitute of Art & Design, University of Central England.Hubka, V. 1989. Principles of Engineering Design. New York: Springer.Hubka, V. & W.E. Eder. 1992. Engineering Design - General ProceduralModel of Engineering Design.: Springer Verlag.Hubka, V. & W.E. Eder. 1988. Theory of Technical Systems: A TotalConcept Theory for Engineering Design. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Husserl, E. 1900/01. Logische Untersuchungen: Halle.ISCRAT, Proceedings. 2002. Dealing with Diversity. 5th congress for theInternational Scociety for Cultural Research and Activity Theory,Amsterdam.James, W. 1890/1950. The Principles of Psychology. New York: DoverPublications, Inc.Janesick, V. 2000. The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design. InDenzin, N.K. & Y.S. Lincoln, editors, Handbook of Qualitative Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ.Jones, J.C. 1984. A Method of Systematic Design. In Cross, N, editor,Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Jung, C.G. 1923. Psychological Types. London: Phantheon Books.Kavakli, M. & J.S. Gero. 2001. Sketching as mental imagery processing.Design Studies, 22: 347-64.Kemmis, S. & R. McTaggart. 2000. Participatory Action Research. InDenzin, N.K. & Y.S. Lincoln, editors, Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ.Kibsgaard, S. & A. Wostryck, editors. 1999. Mens leken er god. Oslo: TanoAschehoug.306

R E F E R E N C E SKing, B., E. Domb, & K. Taye. 1997. TRIZ - an Approach to SystematicInnovation. GOAL/QPC., Research Report no. 1, 1997, 1.1.Kirwan, B. & L.K. Ainsworth. 1992. A Guide to Task Analysis: Taylor andFrancis Ltd.Kjellberg, T. 1995. Product modelling and model based product realisation.Paper presented at Produktmodeller 1995.Klöcker, I. 1980 Die Produkt-Form und menschlicher Verhalten, TechnischerUniversität Hannover.Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning; Experience as the Source ofLearning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.Kosslyn, S.M. 1995. Mental Imagery. In Kosslyn, S.M. & D.N. Osherson,editors, Visual Cognition: An Invitation to Cognitive Science (2nd. ed.).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kroes, P. 2002. Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts.Design Studies, 23: 287-302.Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative ResearchInterviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ.Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The EmbodiedMind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Langley, P. et al. 1987. Scientific Discovery; Computational Explorations ofthe Creative Process. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Lerdahl, E. 2001. Staging for Creative Collaboration in Design Teams, Dept.of Product Design Engineering, Norwegian University of Science andTechnology, Trondheim.Levy-Agresti, J. & R.W Sperry. 1968. Differential perceptual capacities inmajor and minor hemispheres. Proccedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 61: 1151.Love, T. 2002. Are 'the reflective practitioner' and 'learning cycles' suitablefoundations for theories about designing and design cognition? Paperpresented at Common Ground: Design Research Society InternationalConference 2002.Loveday, T. 2002. The Æsthetic of precision in virtual design . What are theimplications of precision in the use of computers in the modelling ofarchitecture and interior design? Paper presented at Common Ground 2002.307

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NLübcke, P. 1982. Fænomenologien og hermeneutikken i Tyskland. InLübcke, P., editor, Vor tids filosofi: Engagement og forståelse. København:Politikens Forlag.Lübcke, P. 1983. Politikens filosofi-leksikon. Copenhagen: Politikens forlag.Masood, S.H. & W.Q. Song. 2000. FD Tool: Direct Rapid Tooling Processfor Injection Moulds using Fused Depostion Modelling. Paper presented atTCT 2000 Conference, Cardiff.Maturana, H.R. & F.J. Varela. 1998. The Tree of Knowledge: The BiologicalRoots of Human Understanding. Boston, MA: Shambala.McCracken, G. 1990. Culture and Consumption: Indiana University Press.McKim, R.H. 1980. Experiences in Visual Thinking. Boston: PWSPublishing Company.Mednick, S.A. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process.Psychological Review, 69(3): 220-32.Meerkamm, H. 1995. Product modelling: a prerequisite for effective productdevelopment. Paper presented at Produktmodeller 1995.Merleau-Ponty, M. 1994. Kroppens fenomenologi. Oslo: Pax Forlag A.S.Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962/2002. Phenomenology of Perception. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.Meyer, R. & H. Kühnle. 2000. Rapid Tooling and Rapid Manufacturing.Paper presented at uRapid 2000. International users conference on RapidPrototyping.Mikkelsen, H., M.M. Andreasen, & L. Hein. 1989. Risikohåndtering iproduktutvikling. Lyngby: Instituttet for Produktutvikling (IPU), DanmarksTekniske Højskole (DTH).Monö, R. 1997. Design for Product Understanding. Stockholm: Liber AB.Monö, R. 1976. Maskiners form och gestalt: Industridesign: SverigesMekanførbund.Mortensen, N.H. 1995. Linking Product Modelling to Design Theory. Paperpresented at International Conference on Engineering Design, Praha.Nagel, T. 1974. What is it like to be a Bat? Philosophical Review.308

R E F E R E N C E SNielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. London: Academic Press.Ornstein, R.E. 1983. The Mind Field. London: The Octagon Press.Ornstein, R.E. 1973. The Nature of Human Consciousness. San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Co.Ornstein, RE. 1986. The Psychology of Consciousness (3rd edn.). New York:Penguin Books.Osborn, A.F. 1953. Applied Imagination (rev. ed.). Scribner's.Outhwaite, W. 1975. Understanding social life. The method called Verstehen.London: George Allen & Unwin.Palmer, R.E. 1969. Hermeneutics. Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher,Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer: Northwestern Univesity Press.Pashler, H. 1995. Attention and Visual Perception. In Kosslyn, M. & D.Osherson, editors, Visual Cognition. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.PDC, Proceedings. 2002. Participatory Design Conference 2002, Malmø.Peirce, C.S., editor. 1931/1966. Collected Papers of C.S. Peirce, Vol.1-8.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Perry, M. & D. Sanderson. 1998. Coordinating Joint Design Work: the Roleof Communication and Artefacts. Design Studies, 19.Piaget, J. 1971. Biology and Knowledge: Edinburgh University Press.Piaget, J. 1972. The Principles of Genetic Epistemology. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.Popper, K.R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutation. London: Routledge andKeagan Paul.Preece, J., Y. Rogers, & H. Sharp. 2002. Interaction Design: Beyond humancomputerinteraction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Reason, P. 1994. Three Approaches to Participatory Inquiry. In Denzin, N.K.& Y.S. Lincoln, editors, Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,CA.: Sage Publ.Redmond-Pyle & Moore. 1995. Graphical User Interface Design andEvaluation: Prentice Hall.309

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NRichardson, L. 1994. Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In Denzin, N.K. & Y.S.Lincoln, editors, Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePubl.Rittel, H. 1984. Second-generation Design Methods. In Cross, N, editor,Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Roozenburg, N. & N. Cross. 1991. Models of the Design Process -Integrating across the Disciplines. Paper presented at ICED 1991.Roozenburg, N. & J. Eekels. 1995. Product design: Fundamentals andMethod. New York.: John Wiley &sons.Rubin, J. 1994. Handbook of Usability Testing: Wiley.Römer, A., G. Weisshahn, & W. Hacker. 2001. Effort-saving productrepresentations in design - results of a questionnaire survey. Design Studies,22: 473-91.Sanders, M.S. & E.J. McCormick. 1993. Human Factors in Engineering andDesign. New York: McGraw-Hill Int. Editions.Scheurle, H.J. 1984. Die Gesamtsinnesorganisation. Überwindung derSubjekt-Objekt-Spaltung in der Sinneslehre. Stuttgart.Schiller, F. 1759/1991. Om menneskets estetiske oppdragelse i en rekke brev.Oslo: Solum Forlag.Schooler, J.W. & J. Melcher. 1995. The Ineffibility of Insight. In Smith, T.B.,T.B. Ward, & R.A. Finke, editors, The Creative Cognition Approach.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Schwandt, T.A. 2000. Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry.In Denzin, N.K. & Y.S. Lincoln, editors, Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ. Inc.Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. London: Basic Books inc.Scrivener, A.R. 2000. Collaborative Design. Paper presented at CoDesigning2000.Searle, J. 1987. Minds and Brains without Programs. In Blackmore, C. & S.Greenfield, editors, Mindwaves. Oxford: Blackwell.Shusterman, R. 1991. Beneath interpretation. Paper presented at TheInterpretive Turn.310

R E F E R E N C E SSimon, HA. 1996. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd edn. ed. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Skjønsberg, T.U. 1996 The Flat Space, Oslo School of Architecture.Smith, P.G. & D.G. Reinertsen. 1998. Developing Products in Half the Time.New York: John Wiley & Sons.Smith, S.M. 1993. Constraining Effects Examples in a Creative GenerationTask. Memory & Cognition, 21: 837-45.Sonesson, G. 1989. Pictorial Concepts. Lund: Lund University Press.Sperry, R.W. 1951. Neurology and the mind-brain problem, AmericanScientist.Sperry, R.W. 1956. The eye and the brain. Scientific American. 48-52.Sperry, R.W. 1964. Problems outstanding in the evolution of brain function.,James Arthur Lecture, American Museum of Natural History. New York.Sperry, R.W. 1969. A Modified Concept of Consciousness, PsychologicalReview.Sperry, R.W. 1970. An Objective Approach to Subjective Experience.Psychological Review, 77(6): 585-90.Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ.Star, SL. 1991. The Structure of Ill-structured Solutions: Boundary Objectsand Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. Paper presented at SecondEuropean conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work.Steedman, P. 1991. On the relations between seeing, interpreting andknowing. In Steier, F., editor, Research and Reflexivity. London: Sage Publ.Sternberg, R., editor. 1999. Handbook of Creativity: Cambridge Univ. Press.Sternberg, R. & T. Lubart. 1991. An Investment Theory of Creativity and itsDevelopment. Human Development, 34: 1-32.Sternberg, R. et al. 1996. Identification, instruction and assessment of giftedchildren: A construct validation of a triarcic model. Gifted Child Quarterly,40: 129-37.311

T R I A L - A N D - E R R O R - B A S E D I N N O V A T I O NStrauss, A.L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. CambridgeUniversity Press.Strauss, A.L. & J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. GroundedTheory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publ.Stringer, E.T. 1996. Action Research. A handbook for practitioners.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ.Søndergaard, A. 2000. Semiotikk, Produktsemiotikk, Designsemiotikk.,Kompendium ved Designhøgskolen i Kolding.Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self - The Making of the Modern Identity:Cambridge University Press.TCT, Proceedings. 1999. Time-Compression Technologies 1999 Conference,Nottingham.TCT, Proceedings. 2000. Time-Compression Technologies 2000 Conference,Cardiff.Tjalve, E. 1979. A Short Course in Industrial Design. London: Newnes-Butterworths.Torbert, W.R. 1991. The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society andthe Scientific Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publ.Tzonis. 1999. Santiago Calatrava - The Poetics of Movement. London:Thames & Hudson.Ulrich, K.T. & S. Eppinger. 2000. Product Design and Development.New York: McGraw-Hill.Uttal, W.R. 1988. On Seeing Forms. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Vavik, T. 1992. Håndbok i produkttesting; begreper, metoder og krav.Oslo: SIFO, Statens institutt for forbruksforskning.Vavik, T. & T.A. Øritsland. 1999. Menneskelige aspekter i design. Inst. forProduktdesign, Norges Teknisk Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheimog Institutt for Industridesign, Arkitekthøgskolen i Oslo.VDI-Richtlinie. 1985. VDI-Richtlinie 2221: Methodik zum Entwickeln undKonstruieren technischer Systeme und Produkte. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.VDI-Richtlinie. 1977. VDI-Richtlinie 2222 Blatt 1: Konzipieren technischerProdukte. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.312

R E F E R E N C E SVelmans, M. 1991a. Is human information processing conscious?Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 14(4): 651-69.Velmans, M. 1991b. Consciousness from a first-person perspective.Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 14(4): 702-26.Velmans, M. 2000. Understanding Consciousness. London: Routledge.Vihma, S. 1995 Products and Representations: A Semiotic and AestheticStudy of Design Products, University of Art and Design, Helsinki.Ward, T.B et al. 1997. Conceptual Structures and Processes in CreativeThought. In Ward, T.B et al., editors, Creative Thought; An Investigation ofConceptual Structures and Processes. Washington DC: AmericanPsychological Association.Ward, T.B, S.M. Smith, & R.A. Finke. 1999. Creative Cognition. InSternberg, R., editor, Handbook of Creativity: Cambridge Univesity Press.Warell, A. 2001. Design Syntactics: A Functional Approach to VisualProduct Form, Engineering and Product Design. Chalmers University ofTechnology, Gøteborg.Wickstrøm, Bystrøm, & Dahlman. 1991. Kriterier ved val och utveckling avhandverktyg: Arbetsmiljøinstitutet.Wohlers, T. 2001. Wohlers Report 2001. Fort Collins, CO: WohlersAssociates, Inc.Wohlers, T. 2003. Wohlers Report 2003. Fort Collins, CO: WohlersAssociates, Inc.Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ.Young, R.A. 1997. Principal Models Developed to Describe the DesignProcess - Ruthless Description. Paper presented at the doctoral course,Oslo School of Architecture.Øritsland, T.A. 1999. A Theory of Discursive Interaction Design: Mappingthe Development of Quality and Style in Man Machine Interaction, Dept. ofProduct Design Engineering, Norwegian University of Science andTechnology, Trondheim.313