Abstract
Summary
Issues, criticism, problem statement (Section 2, Section 3, Section 4)
In short, this thesis starts with the introduction of an underlying societal problem (Section 3). It starts with the observation and indication of what some would call the ‘bifurcation’ between (1) the industry, institutions and markets who produce and (2) the end users, the so-called consumers who purchase, consume and use (Edwards, 2006). It concerns how producing and consuming have drifted apart and continue to do so. Various developments in history have caused this split, among which industrialization and consequential human behaviour in a market driven society were decisive. Industrialization was criticized from the start and this criticism still seems valid today. The thesis concludes that this industrially induced split has led to severe negative consequences for both humans and nature. The system of mass production and consumption has become traditional and is now common practice. The original problem statement of this thesis is: ‘Given the industrially induced gap and the designer’s responsibility, how can 'design' and 'use' be more closely integrated?’
Opportunities (Section 5)
There are, however, opportunities for improvement of the unsustainable system with which we produce and consume. Given the notion that sustainability is an existential problem (Ehrenfeld, 2008), see Section 4.1 and Section 7.5.3.1, a range of democratizing developments and technological advancements, in combination with certain societal and human principles, have helped to define a solution direction. This section discusses developments in technology and society that, apart from being promising for the entire field of industrial design, clearly help in providing an alternative scenario to today’s strict separation between production and consumption. Various rather new digitally based manufacturing possibilities, available to end-users, allow for small volume (one-off) manufacture of items without high tooling investments. These technologies, together with a general growing interest in making, tend to democratize making, which aligns to people’s innate urge for self-sufficiency and independence.
Do-It-Yourself (Section 6)
The preceding sections have provided reasons to suggest a closer relationship (1) between production and consumption and (2) between people and the product they consume. When considering ethics and ‘Human Being’ (awareness), the Do-It-Yourself scenario (merging making and consuming, hence shortening the distance) appears to be reasonable and sensible, providing great opportunities for people’s personal development and for a better consideration of sustainability. Historical analysis of the DIY phenomenon and the drivers of past DIY activity endorses/supports the relevance and value that DIY could have in today’s context.
A vision to facilitate Do-It-Yourself (Section 7)
Subsequently, a vision was established: ‘the support and facilitation of DIY activity by laypersons’. In this, all three of Ehrenfeld’s (2008) sustainability areas (Figure 2) of ethics, human beings and nature are addressed in a positive sense: (1) DIY helps people to know the consequences of their actions, it provides a better human-product connection, (2) DIY addresses human needs and people’s creativity, and provides pride of authorship and joy in the DIY process, and (3) DIY’s conjunction of making and using increases awareness, supports small scale, care and product attachment, and hence serves the natural environment. Given that DIY activity greatly aligns with the elements of sustainability as described by Ehrenfeld (Ehrenfeld, 2008), and the designer’s responsible role, this section proposes to assign the responsibility of creating a better connection between the user and the maker of products to the designer. This is because (1) it is part of today’s design job to offer suitable solutions, by designing products or services and experiences, and (2) morally, it is the designer’s job to serve people with sufficient solutions, to re-connect people to what they really require, and to involve them. Not solely to serve the client company’s wishes.
Gaining insights into Design-for-DIY through a series of Design-for-DIY studies (Section 8)
To explore what the concept of Design-for-DIY could entail in practical terms, based on insights from previous sections, Section 8 presents a series of four explorative Design-for-DIY studies. These studies were conducted to deepen understanding of the Design-for-DIY process and to lay the groundwork for a foundational 'Design-for-DIY framework.' The studies were carried out by students as part of their graduation projects.
The studies included: (1) the DIY design and assembly of a coffee maker, in which participants were asked to choose and assemble their own coffee maker from various second-hand jars, cans, lids, and rings available; (2) the DIY design of a desk lamp, featuring a tangible, ‘deformable’ form that enabled participants to explore shape in a 3D design space and translate their designs into a producible form; (3) a Design-for-DIY study of headphones, which provided an accessible toolkit template allowing laypersons to create a personalized, wearable design using ready-made hardware components; and (4) the 'Reusing Plastics at Scrap' study, which focused on designing tools to assemble parts and materials from 'Scrap' and providing instructional sheets to facilitate DIY activity by laypersons. The studies helped answer the research questions defined for this series, focusing on the division of tasks between designer and layperson, the provision of design freedom for the layperson, and the feasibility of a generic framework.
The Design-for-DIY framework (Section 9)
The previous sections provided the foundation and rationale for a final proposal of a methodological theoretical framework (Figure 3). This framework is explicitly linked to existing educational, DIY-related, and widely recognized design process models as references. This section aims to clarify and describe in greater detail the proposed framework, including its structure, form, and components. The Design-for-DIY framework follows a spiral shape, consisting of multiple concentric design cycles, each containing a range of design steps.
The cycles include:
1. The Project Cycle (or project brief cycle), in which the designer (and layperson) addresses the project’s purpose, target audience, reason for initiation, and product category.
2. The Pre-Design Cycle, which serves as a reference and draft product design for the project, providing an example for the layperson.
3. The Toolkit Cycle, a fundamental element of the framework, as it includes task allocation, specific tools and instructions, and a designated design-space.
4. The Platform Cycle, which consolidates key design-support elements that a layperson may need when undertaking a DIY project. This includes designer support, physical and digital materials for inspiration, examples, peer and community networks, potential material suppliers, and more.
5. The DIY Design Cycle, which invites the layperson to engage in the actual DIY activity. This activity is guided to varying extents by the facilitating designer within the environment as prepared and provided by the designer.
Assessment of the Design-for-DIY framework (Section 10)
This chapter describes a series of design experiments in which 12 participants test the Design-for-DIY framework. The participants, all professional designers, worked in pairs to carry out the Design-for-DIY experiments, using the provided framework as their starting point. The experiments were important in evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed framework: how it helps designers set up a DIY project and, in doing so, facilitates the DIY activity itself. At the same time, the tests generated valuable suggestions for improvements to the proposed framework.
When reflecting on the Design-for-DIY framework design, it seems reasonable to conclude that participants evaluated the Design-for-DIY framework as relatively complete. Specifically, the framework offers design freedom, allows for exploration, and guides the designer in considering essential design criteria and the consecutive design cycles (pre-design, toolkit, and platform). The arrangement of these cycles within the framework is both accurate and flexible, and the instructional video is clear. Most participants felt comfortable starting their designs, and they were generally positive about the suitability of this process for other Design-for-DIY cases. Another conclusion is that participants recognized many of the merits of Design-for-DIY and the use of the framework, such as fostering pride, skill development, low cost, and self-sufficiency. At the same time, they also acknowledged the barriers people might face, including the high effort required, lack of time, and limited skills. While participants generally felt free to manoeuvre, some suggested a more flexible path to follow and expressed interest in having project examples as references. The outcomes of the experiment allow the conclusion that a Design-for-DIY framework was created that can sufficiently help the designer to develop and establish a DIY project. Though, as the findings of the experiments are based on a relatively small sample of participants, this may limit the generalizability of the results.
Conclusions and discussion (Section 11)
The final chapter discusses the conclusions and implications regarding the previously mentioned Design-for-DIY vision, the scenario, the Design-for-DIY framework and its validation, and what these could mean for the field of design, the human-product relationship, the broader implementation of the Design-for-DIY concept, and design education. The following topics are addressed in turn: a reflection on the overall research objectives, the answers to the research questions, the value of the research for design practice and theory, its impact and limitations, the implications of the findings for design education, the propositions developed and approved for the dissertation, and suggestions for future research.
The outcomes of this research seem to align with the ambition of the study: deducing and proposing a scenario that would help counter today’s unsustainable user-product relationship. This is achieved through the provision of a scenario and method for facilitating DIY activity via a Design-for-DIY approach.
Issues, criticism, problem statement (Section 2, Section 3, Section 4)
In short, this thesis starts with the introduction of an underlying societal problem (Section 3). It starts with the observation and indication of what some would call the ‘bifurcation’ between (1) the industry, institutions and markets who produce and (2) the end users, the so-called consumers who purchase, consume and use (Edwards, 2006). It concerns how producing and consuming have drifted apart and continue to do so. Various developments in history have caused this split, among which industrialization and consequential human behaviour in a market driven society were decisive. Industrialization was criticized from the start and this criticism still seems valid today. The thesis concludes that this industrially induced split has led to severe negative consequences for both humans and nature. The system of mass production and consumption has become traditional and is now common practice. The original problem statement of this thesis is: ‘Given the industrially induced gap and the designer’s responsibility, how can 'design' and 'use' be more closely integrated?’
Opportunities (Section 5)
There are, however, opportunities for improvement of the unsustainable system with which we produce and consume. Given the notion that sustainability is an existential problem (Ehrenfeld, 2008), see Section 4.1 and Section 7.5.3.1, a range of democratizing developments and technological advancements, in combination with certain societal and human principles, have helped to define a solution direction. This section discusses developments in technology and society that, apart from being promising for the entire field of industrial design, clearly help in providing an alternative scenario to today’s strict separation between production and consumption. Various rather new digitally based manufacturing possibilities, available to end-users, allow for small volume (one-off) manufacture of items without high tooling investments. These technologies, together with a general growing interest in making, tend to democratize making, which aligns to people’s innate urge for self-sufficiency and independence.
Do-It-Yourself (Section 6)
The preceding sections have provided reasons to suggest a closer relationship (1) between production and consumption and (2) between people and the product they consume. When considering ethics and ‘Human Being’ (awareness), the Do-It-Yourself scenario (merging making and consuming, hence shortening the distance) appears to be reasonable and sensible, providing great opportunities for people’s personal development and for a better consideration of sustainability. Historical analysis of the DIY phenomenon and the drivers of past DIY activity endorses/supports the relevance and value that DIY could have in today’s context.
A vision to facilitate Do-It-Yourself (Section 7)
Subsequently, a vision was established: ‘the support and facilitation of DIY activity by laypersons’. In this, all three of Ehrenfeld’s (2008) sustainability areas (Figure 2) of ethics, human beings and nature are addressed in a positive sense: (1) DIY helps people to know the consequences of their actions, it provides a better human-product connection, (2) DIY addresses human needs and people’s creativity, and provides pride of authorship and joy in the DIY process, and (3) DIY’s conjunction of making and using increases awareness, supports small scale, care and product attachment, and hence serves the natural environment. Given that DIY activity greatly aligns with the elements of sustainability as described by Ehrenfeld (Ehrenfeld, 2008), and the designer’s responsible role, this section proposes to assign the responsibility of creating a better connection between the user and the maker of products to the designer. This is because (1) it is part of today’s design job to offer suitable solutions, by designing products or services and experiences, and (2) morally, it is the designer’s job to serve people with sufficient solutions, to re-connect people to what they really require, and to involve them. Not solely to serve the client company’s wishes.
Gaining insights into Design-for-DIY through a series of Design-for-DIY studies (Section 8)
To explore what the concept of Design-for-DIY could entail in practical terms, based on insights from previous sections, Section 8 presents a series of four explorative Design-for-DIY studies. These studies were conducted to deepen understanding of the Design-for-DIY process and to lay the groundwork for a foundational 'Design-for-DIY framework.' The studies were carried out by students as part of their graduation projects.
The studies included: (1) the DIY design and assembly of a coffee maker, in which participants were asked to choose and assemble their own coffee maker from various second-hand jars, cans, lids, and rings available; (2) the DIY design of a desk lamp, featuring a tangible, ‘deformable’ form that enabled participants to explore shape in a 3D design space and translate their designs into a producible form; (3) a Design-for-DIY study of headphones, which provided an accessible toolkit template allowing laypersons to create a personalized, wearable design using ready-made hardware components; and (4) the 'Reusing Plastics at Scrap' study, which focused on designing tools to assemble parts and materials from 'Scrap' and providing instructional sheets to facilitate DIY activity by laypersons. The studies helped answer the research questions defined for this series, focusing on the division of tasks between designer and layperson, the provision of design freedom for the layperson, and the feasibility of a generic framework.
The Design-for-DIY framework (Section 9)
The previous sections provided the foundation and rationale for a final proposal of a methodological theoretical framework (Figure 3). This framework is explicitly linked to existing educational, DIY-related, and widely recognized design process models as references. This section aims to clarify and describe in greater detail the proposed framework, including its structure, form, and components. The Design-for-DIY framework follows a spiral shape, consisting of multiple concentric design cycles, each containing a range of design steps.
The cycles include:
1. The Project Cycle (or project brief cycle), in which the designer (and layperson) addresses the project’s purpose, target audience, reason for initiation, and product category.
2. The Pre-Design Cycle, which serves as a reference and draft product design for the project, providing an example for the layperson.
3. The Toolkit Cycle, a fundamental element of the framework, as it includes task allocation, specific tools and instructions, and a designated design-space.
4. The Platform Cycle, which consolidates key design-support elements that a layperson may need when undertaking a DIY project. This includes designer support, physical and digital materials for inspiration, examples, peer and community networks, potential material suppliers, and more.
5. The DIY Design Cycle, which invites the layperson to engage in the actual DIY activity. This activity is guided to varying extents by the facilitating designer within the environment as prepared and provided by the designer.
Assessment of the Design-for-DIY framework (Section 10)
This chapter describes a series of design experiments in which 12 participants test the Design-for-DIY framework. The participants, all professional designers, worked in pairs to carry out the Design-for-DIY experiments, using the provided framework as their starting point. The experiments were important in evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed framework: how it helps designers set up a DIY project and, in doing so, facilitates the DIY activity itself. At the same time, the tests generated valuable suggestions for improvements to the proposed framework.
When reflecting on the Design-for-DIY framework design, it seems reasonable to conclude that participants evaluated the Design-for-DIY framework as relatively complete. Specifically, the framework offers design freedom, allows for exploration, and guides the designer in considering essential design criteria and the consecutive design cycles (pre-design, toolkit, and platform). The arrangement of these cycles within the framework is both accurate and flexible, and the instructional video is clear. Most participants felt comfortable starting their designs, and they were generally positive about the suitability of this process for other Design-for-DIY cases. Another conclusion is that participants recognized many of the merits of Design-for-DIY and the use of the framework, such as fostering pride, skill development, low cost, and self-sufficiency. At the same time, they also acknowledged the barriers people might face, including the high effort required, lack of time, and limited skills. While participants generally felt free to manoeuvre, some suggested a more flexible path to follow and expressed interest in having project examples as references. The outcomes of the experiment allow the conclusion that a Design-for-DIY framework was created that can sufficiently help the designer to develop and establish a DIY project. Though, as the findings of the experiments are based on a relatively small sample of participants, this may limit the generalizability of the results.
Conclusions and discussion (Section 11)
The final chapter discusses the conclusions and implications regarding the previously mentioned Design-for-DIY vision, the scenario, the Design-for-DIY framework and its validation, and what these could mean for the field of design, the human-product relationship, the broader implementation of the Design-for-DIY concept, and design education. The following topics are addressed in turn: a reflection on the overall research objectives, the answers to the research questions, the value of the research for design practice and theory, its impact and limitations, the implications of the findings for design education, the propositions developed and approved for the dissertation, and suggestions for future research.
The outcomes of this research seem to align with the ambition of the study: deducing and proposing a scenario that would help counter today’s unsustainable user-product relationship. This is achieved through the provision of a scenario and method for facilitating DIY activity via a Design-for-DIY approach.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisors/Advisors |
|
| Award date | 18 Dec 2024 |
| Print ISBNs | 978-94-6384-705-6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2024 |
Keywords
- Do-It-Yourself
- DIY
- design
- product design
- industrial design
- sustainability
- democratizing
- democratization
- democracy
- alienation
- facilitation
- enabling
- design responsibility