Hi Amy,

Interesting question. 

This idea of designing something that will be finished by others is a
well-established tradition and has substantial literatures in many realms of
design.

Three strands are obvious:

	1. Where professional designers design
things/processes/organisations that can be modified by others to fulfil the
requirements of the others.

	2.  Where professional designers design
things/processes/organisations that are used by other to create new
things/processes/organisations.

	3. Where professional designers design
things/processes/organisations that are used by others to design new
things/processes/organisations - in many cases to design aspects of their
lives.

Separating the issue into these three forms,  helps distinguish between the
designs of things/processes/organisations and the
things/processes/organisations themselves, and the differences between
modifying something and creating something new (that is
things/processes/organisations rather than designs).

For the first strand, which is where I suspect your knitwear design study is
located, there are multiple extensive design traditions and literatures.
Think for example, the design of kit cars, the design of modular electronic
components that can be used in different ways, the design of software that
can be reconfigured to suit the user, personalisation, mass customisation,
the DIY movement, house design,  etc etc. Designers have been working in
this way to produce objects that can be modified by others for a very long
time. It simply requires seeing things in the relevant light. 

For the second strand , think the design of tools of all sorts whether in
terms of physical tools, software tools, design tools, advice, heuristics,
algorithms, business processes, organisational structures, management
information systems etc, etc. All of these have substantial design
literatures.

The third area could be seen to focus on the roles of design tools and
advice. It also includes,  however, all those everyday small and large scale
artificial objects, systems services, organisations that are intrinsically
essential to design activity occurring. 

One part of this third strand is the role of designed
things/processes/organisations in how individuals (often not professional
designers) design aspects of their lives. This topic has been relatively
neglected. I undertook several months research on it in 2002, reported in
'Love, T. (2003). Customers' Use of Products as Design Tools. In Proceedings
of the 6th Asian Design Conference. Tsukuba'. A pre-print is available at
http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2003/product_design_tools.htm
. The research identified that the current definitions of the concept of
'user needs' require extending. The paper outlined  implications for changes
to improve design theories, the  modelling of design processes, design
management , design practices and the need for changes in the research
approaches underpinning design activity. Many of the conclusions of that
research stand today.

You may be also interested in Dr Sooyung Yang's recent research redefining
the process of computerised knitwear manufacture to enable its use by high
fashion designers as a craft atelier alongside its obvious role in providing
mass customisation options by which the designs are kept uopen for other to
define the finishing and details. In fact, this could be seen as the primary
intent of the work by Shima Seiki in this area. Sooyung has also done
research and design  on  creating standard knitted garment garments to which
'additional embellishments' (produced by Shima Seiki's WholeGarment knitting
system) and sundry finishes can be applied. A Google search on Sooyung Yang
will find her contact details - otherwise contact me offline and I'll
forward your details to her.

Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Social Program Evaluation Research Centre, 
Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
Honorary Fellow, IEED, Management School, Lancaster University, UK
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]   +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy
Twigger Holroyd
Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2012 9:16 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Designing the unfinished

Hi all

I'm a PhD student at Birmingham Institute of Art & Design. I've read the
list with interest for some time, and would like to ask for your help. 

I am a practising knitwear designer, creating both finished garments and
hand-knitting patterns. As part of my research, I am developing 'treatments'
which could be carried out by amateur hand knitters, to 'intervene in' their
own knitted garments. In practical terms, that might mean embellishing,
unravelling and re-knitting, inserting pockets etc. 

Because each person will be working with a different garment (size, gauge,
shape, yarn, aesthetic) - and because I want to encourage individual
variation - the treatments need to be 'open' and embrace contingency.
However, they need to provide sufficient guidance to be of use. Because this
is not a usual way for a knitwear designer to design, I'm hoping to create
some new knowledge about the design process, as well as producing a menu of
prototype intervention treatments.

I am looking for any existing literature that would shed some light on this
design process - research that deals with the general subject of how you
design treatments/activities to be interpreted by (amateur) others, and
(more specifically) the process of designing the unfinished/open.

I'm aware that examples might be outside design - for example, in 'The
Poetics of the Open Work', Umberto Eco compares traditional music (where the
performer interprets the composer's instructions according to their own
discretion) with some pieces of contemporary music (where the performer
'must impose his judgement on the form of the piece, as when he decides how
long to hold a note or in what order to group the sounds'). 

I see a nice parallel with knitting here - with the traditional music being
like a conventional knitting pattern, and the 'open work' being like my
re-knitting treatments. Eco's writing provides insights to how the
performer/audience might relate to an open work, but less so about the
process of composition (or design). 

Any ideas?

Thanks

Amy


Amy Twigger Holroyd
PhD candidate, Birmingham Institute of Art & Design Designer, Keep & Share=