Francois-xavier and others may be interested in similar work carried out at
Cambridge. There is an article at
http://rehab-www.eng.cam.ac.uk/cwuaat/02/10.pdf
Alun price
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Built Environment
Art and Design (BEAD)
Curtin University
Western Australia
CRICOS provider number 00301J
> ----------
> From: Francois-Xavier Nsenga (fme)
> Reply To: Francois-Xavier Nsenga (fme)
> Sent: Monday, September 1, 2003 1:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design Learning
>
> Dear Chris and all,
>
>
> Since, like you, most of us are still in a "fumbling mode", trying to
> devise
> up an approach the most appropriate to Design learning, teaching and
> practice, perhaps the following case recall may help in furthering our
> reflection.
>
> In the late 70's, in preparation for my Master's degree dissertation, I
> was
> involved as an intern at the now defunct Paris based "Institut des
> Sciences
> de l'Usage et de la Consommation" (ISUC). There, we were conducting
> laboratory type experiments on consumers items like refrigerators,
> washers,
> vacuum cleaners, etc., by the way of a hands-on manipulation of the item
> under study, following a pre-established protocol named "analyse
> comparative
> de l'usage de produits manufacturés" (comparative usage analysis of
> manufactured products).
>
> 1. The overall objective was to generate information, from a simulated
> usage
> of an existing product, for Designers' most appropriate specifications for
> an
> improved design on the item considered. An other portion of the
> information
> generated was intended for "consumers" and all categories (five
> identified)
> of "end-users", as the most adequate criteria for these latter to select
> and/or adapt to the item being put to "use".
>
> 2. The item to be analysed would be a sample of a category of products,
> direclty picked up from the market.
>
> 3. The "laboratory" set-up would be a mock-up, as close as possible to the
>
> real context(s) of the intended use for the item.
>
> 4. The analysis protocol would be gradually established during "des
> pré-tests
> de performance à l'usage" (usage performance pre-tests), run with a view
> to
> draw an exhaustive list of characteristics worth to be taken into
> consideration in regard to the ultimate Design or use of the item under
> study.
>
> 5. The complete and proven protocol would then be applied to test,
> evaluate
> and rank all the articles within the "extended family" of the pre-test
> item.
>
> For example, in the case of "vacuum cleaners", what constituted the
> subject-
> matter of the study, it was the analysis of all then existing "means to
> get
> rid of dust in a Parisian home".
>
> A standard "Parisian home" was determined and arranged, with different
> kinds
> of "dust" deposits usually found in such a home, and with different kinds
> of
> surfaces on which such dust deposits adhere. Then a preliminary exhaustive
>
> survey was conducted and data collected on existing (20-30 years ago)
> means
> of dust removal. Information was gathered on their design and make (some
> data
> most often confidential, only portially available in public patent
> applications or in particular public monographies when do they exist),
> commercial information released by respective manufacturers was collected,
>
> and some end-users information was also obtained.
>
> Data on 110 dust removal items were gathered at that time, and they were
> filed into 22 categories. Samples of each category were purchased and,
> through one by one manipulation as in real use context, a comparative
> study
> was thus conducted on their respective "usage performance". Performance in
>
> use was assessed on the basis of two cycles representing the entire use
> life
> of the item. First, the "cycle d'usage" (usage cycle) that would comprise
> criteria related to: a) selection of the item; b) its acquisition and all
> related costs; c) insertion of the item in corresponding use context; d)
> utilization or practical use of the item; e) maintenance; and
> f) "désaffectation" (recycle, etc.) of the item. Second, the "cycle
> d'utilisation" (utilization or practical use of the item) would be
> analyzed
> under the following criteria: a) access on the item, wherever it may be
> located in the use environment; b) preparation for use; c) start of use;
> d)
> monitoring and enjoyment; e) end of use and preparing for next utilization
>
> cycle; f) storage.
>
> Obtained results in regard to each criterion were compiled in a
> "hierarchical
> tree" depicting various "dépenses" (expenditures: financial, during
> manipulation, and different kinds of caused nuisance) and "services"
> (advantages yielded in quantity and quality, e,g, quantity and quality in
> dust removal by each item tested, in the examplar case above). Each of
> those
> results were then assigned a value on an appropriate "echelle de
> pondération"
> (weighting scale?), with a view to establish a comparison, either for
> items
> selection purposes for buyers and users, or for more detailed assessment
> by
> designers, policy makers and decision takers in various institutions.
>
> After a couple of years in operation testing and evaluating a few more
> manufactured articles, I was then told the ISUC ceased its activities and
> the
> team was dismantled.
>
> To my present knowledge, it seems no independent assessment has ever been
> made of this venture above, on the basis of both its pedagogical and
> professional value. For my part, however, after a 6 months internship in
> the
> late 70s and a subsequent sustained academic interest since (although
> never
> put into practice), I personally still consider highly valuable for the
> Design field study and practice the above briefly presented ISUC approach,
>
> rationale and method. Its "Design Laboratory" type procedure may however
> be
> still in need of assessment in terms of validity, reliability and
> variability/reproducibility in Design learning, Design research and Design
>
> practice.
>
> Comments and correct English wordings are welcome on or off-list.
>
> Greetings!
>
>
> François-X. N.I. NSENGA
> Independent Scholar
>
> Teacher and Researcher
> in Sociology and Industrial Design
>
>
> Box 643, Snowdon
> Montréal, Québec
> CANADA H3X 3X8
>
>
> Phone&Fax: (514) 737-8300
>
>
|