Perhaps James Dyson in the UK may be interested in reviewing the project and identifying the procedures or outcomes which might have application today.
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Chair Product Design
College for Creative Studies Detroit
201 East Kirby
Detroit MI 48202-4034
Phone: 313 664 7625
Fax: 313 664 7620
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.ccscad.edu
______________________________
>>> "Francois-Xavier Nsenga (fme)" <[log in to unmask]> 08/31/03 14:20 PM >>>
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
|