Taking up what Ken advocates, can I ask some questions
that I believe go to the heart of concretising the abstractions
of systems theory for example.
I am currently researching the obstacles faced when
trying to teach designers 'design for dematerialisation', that
is, designing product-service systems that reduce the mater-
ials intensity of the way we live and work, in the name of
developing more sustainable futures.
Importantly, designers like Ezio Manzini have pointed
out that dematerialisation over a 'whole-of-life' scenario
can be achieved by increasing the initial materials inten-
sity in order to generate more service over a longer use-
life.
Nevertheless, to innovate in the context of dematerial-
isation generally requires a 'systems' perspective, that is,
an ability to abstract from everyday use to a relational
infrastructural life-cycle of need-satisfaction, what Oksana
Mont calls 'functional innovation'.
However, my research into design curricula around the
world is suggesting that there is a strong emphasis on the
production of completed stand-alone objects (whether in
industrial, interior or visual communication design), esp-
ecially for assessment. As a result, I am starting to believe
that this 'fixation' on finished product might be a signifi-
cant obstacle to inculcating a habit of 'functional innova-
tion' in student designers.
I am keen to know of any research or articles in:
> the obstacles to teaching systems perspectives to
students of 'making' disciplines
> assessment methods that valorise 'need satisfaction'
over product, allowing for things like 'no build' options
In general, I am asking: what would it take, at least at
the level of design education, to make needs-satisfaction
through functional innovation the common ground of
design, rather than the making of X?
Certainly Jorge Frascara and Alain Findelli have
done much work in this general area. And Nicola
Morelli more recently on sustainable service design
in particular (see his article in the latest Design Issues).
One of the most insightful essays on the topic that
I am exploring is Peter-Paul Verbeek's sympathetically
critical account of Eternally Yours in
"The Things that Matter" Design Issues, v17 n1, 2001
I will collate offline responses of further references
into a summary post later if that helps.
Cameron
"What is most thought-provoking
in these most thought-provoking of times
is that we are still not yet thinking." Martin Heidegger
_________________________________________
Dr Cameron Tonkinwise
CEO, Change Design Foundation
PO Box 369 Rozelle NSW 2039 Australia
ph (61 2) 9555 7028 [log in to unmask]
www.changedesign.org www.edf.edu.au
Interdisciplinary Design Theory
Faculty of Design, Architecture, Building
University of Technology Sydney
Building 6, Room 618 ph (61 2) 9514 8925
[log in to unmask]
GPO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007 Australia
_________________________________________
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER
=======================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
=======================================================================
|