In “Ethnography and Critical Design Practice”, Tim Plowman introduces ethnography as an anthropological research method that has also been adopted by designers working in fields such as industrial, graphic, and computer interface design. However, during this pragmatic importation process, ethnography and other social science theory and methods tend to be socially decontextualized and commodified. The design disciplines, Plowman observes, have typically followed a narrow path in this sense and make little use of the social theory upon which these tools are based (Plowman, 2003).

Plowman goes on to suggest that the insights of French social historian Michel de Certeau may be worth attention from those in the design profession. De Certeau’s theories focused on the ordinary practices of people in everyday life, in which each individual uses readymade objects to become the “producer” of his or her own unique lifestyle. This idea seems to strike close to the heart of open source design, a key precept of which revolves around the idea of the user being able to assemble collections of flexible and interconnectable components to create new, customized objects with specific uses. In fact, I was pleased to find that Plowman even muses, “how can we design artifacts so they radiate the degrees of freedom necessary to enhance the self-invention that de Certeau observed? Can the cross pollination between these professions move toward the introduction of emancipatory content into designed artifacts?” (Plowman, 2003).

Plowman’s application of de Certeau’s social theory to the design disciplines recalls the concept of “modularization” which Hewlett Packard emerging markets specialist Ami Mehta referred to in a recent discussion. Mehta spoke of the idea of technology sold in small units such that they could be connected together to make something bigger; these interoperable pieces allow the user to create his or her own products (personal communication, March 10, 2006).

Many in the so-called “maker” community, composed largely of technology enthusiasts who modify readymade products to upgrade their performance or perform new tasks altogether, propose taking the modularization concept one step further. Readymade products, they argue, ought to be accessible to those who want to open them up, take them apart, and see how they work, as opposed to locking the user out. Dale Dougherty, editor of Make magazine, recently suggested that product manufacturers should “look at the lessons of open source, which provides access to the underlying source code. When a system is open and easily modified, it anticipates adaptation to a variety of uses that were never considered in the product’s original design” (Dougherty, 2005). Another issue of the same publication contained a “Maker’s Bill of Rights” regarding product design, with directives ranging from “cases shall be easy to open” to “standard connectors shall have pinouts defined” (Jalopy, 2005).

The term “open source design” does not turn up much using conventional research methods, but I have been gradually been able to center in on a solid definition of the concept by drawing bits and pieces from the array of materials, experiences, and ideas I’ve encountered during my design education. I hope to have enough to write a formal journal article on the subject in the coming months.

References

Dougherty, D. (2005). Maker Friendly. Make, 3, 7.

Jalopy, M. (2005). The Maker’s Bill of Rights. Make, 4, 157.

Plowman, T. (2003). Ethnography and Critical Design Practice. In Design Artifacts, Culture and the Study of Imponderabilia (pp. 1-18). San Francisco: Cheskin Research.

Everest and Jennings’ dumping of low-quality, proprietary wheelchairs into third world markets over the last 50 years provides an illustration of how a product designed for the Western market, where paved surfaces are common and medical costs and expenses are high, can be completely inappropriate for foreign markets in poorer countries. As Ricardo Gomes of the Design Center for Global Needs and others point out, many of the products and services found in Western marketplaces have been designed for the standards of the (white, relatively wealthy) consumers who have historically dominated those markets cit_bf(1997)cit_af ref_bf(Ricardo Gomes 1997 ref_num99)ref_af. Often times, Gomes continues, it is the local, community-based organization (CBO) that is most able and motivated to respond to the needs of the local population, possibly laying the groundwork to attract private sector initiatives. This “bottom-up business approach” describes Whirlwind’s model, which focuses on providing designs and training to local manufacturers so that they can establish their own self-sufficient production facilities.

The core Whirlwind design has been customized to meet local needs in various markets and has reincorporated some of those changes into its own evolution. Examples include the development of a new kind of shaft bearing utilizing cut nails instead of metal balls in Africa, where bicycle bearings were prohibitively expensive, and a Russian design that allows the wheelchair to partially collapse while the rider is still in it to fit into narrow state-standardized elevator openings.

Such designs strike one as the sorts of innovations that could only have come from the designers having first-hand experience living in the target market. This calls to mind architect Christopher Day’s notion of an inhabitant of a place possessing unique and germane knowledge of that environment, knowledge which can be inaccessible to the outside observer or design professional cit_bf(2003)cit_af ref_bf(Christopher Day 2003 ref_num100)ref_af. Indeed, Day’s concept of participatory design seems to apply here as well; in a sense, Whirlwind may provide the core design and training to a new manufacturer, but from that point on acts as an equal participant in the customization of that design for the specific local market.

Whirlwind’s approach also brings with it important lessons in terms of design education. Design professional and educator Leslie Speer brings up the idea of phenomenology, in which a researcher tries to experience reality through the eyes of another, as an important possible component in preparing designers to design responsibly “for another culture, especially when it is so far away, and so different from the western culture that we live in” cit_bf(n.d.)cit_af ref_bf(Leslie Speer ref_num98)ref_af. By introducing students not only to the experience of working from a wheelchair, but also to the various practical local issues and problems posed in adapting the Whirlwind model to various markets, Hotchkiss’ project provides unique lessons to future product designers in preparing them to design “for the other six billion.”

References

Day, C. (2003). Why: Community Design and Practice. In Consensus Design: Socially Inclusive Process (pp. 9-30). Oxford: Architectural Press.

Gomes, R. (1997). Design Re-Defined: Profiting from Community and Social Change. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Design Education in Developing Countries, Pretoria, South Africa.

Speer, L. (n.d.) Walk a Mile in Their Shoes: Cultural Immersion and the Design Process. Unpublished manuscript.ref_end

Product design professor Simon Bolton notes that the rapid rise of Asian markets and production power is having an enormous effect on global competition, in effect neutralizing western companies’ traditional market advantages. He writes, “to compete on a global scale, companies will have to leverage an advantage by creating and exploiting intangible intellectual assets such as brand name, knowledge bases, product-related services and innovative responses to customer needs.” Design, he argues, will play a critical role in this transformation, making it imperative for designers to acquire “a sound understanding of cultural differences so that we can develop product experiences that are appropriate for different cultures and can adapt to local issues” (2004, p. 26).

The idea of adapting a core design to the needs of specific users or markets seems to be a common theme among writers addressing recent changes in design philosophy. Citing Marco Diani’s 1992 text Immateriality Takes Command, design professor Ricardo Gomes explains that the practice of design is shifting from emphasis on one single finished form to that of an initial form plus a broad field of modifications and customizations, “accentuating ‘flexibility versus complexity’—few ideas, many variations” (1997, p. 1). Historically, Gomes argues, products introduced into the so-called global marketplace have brought with them a standard “global identity” which overshadow the unique values and identity of products that represent smaller, non-western countries, and “leave no place for cultural variance” (p. 2).

Bolton and others seem to argue that if for no other reason, this western-dominated approach to global product design and marketing is threatened by the rise in influence and manufacturing power of emerging markets such as China. The question is whether the rise of these non-western global players will alter the globally homogenized industrial product archetype, or merely become a part of it. Gomes, Diani and Bolton each suggest that designers in the new, post-industrial society will focus more on product “customization” rather than “standardization” as in the old industrial society.

This scenario also seems to fit in well with the increasingly popular notions of universal design. As Imrie and Hall explain in Inclusive Design, advocates of universal design prefer that a product be designed with accessibility at its core rather than being added on as an afterthought to the core design; the latter, so-called “compensatory” design method acts to draw attention to the user’s disabilities (1991). While one might argue that the “customization” approach of post-industrial design is more conducive to the former model of adding accessibility to a preconceived core design, I would suggest that the contemporary designer must instead take universal design principles into consideration when developing the core design itself; this, in turn, will make the subsequent customization and localization for various user groups all that much easier. Indeed, “a remit of universal design is promoting the flexibility, adaptability and interchangeability of fittings and fixtures to ensure ‘an adaptable environment, one that can be easily adjusted to meet the needs of any person’” (Imrie et al., 1991, p. 16).

I believe that the combined influences of globalization and the need for universal design will push successful designers to incorporate flexibility and adaptability into their core designs. This will allow products to meet both the needs of diverse global markets as well as those of individual users with special needs in those markets.

References

• Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (1991). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. London: Spon Press.
• Gomes, R. (1997, April). Liberating the cultural variance of global design. Paper presented at the IDSA Design Education Conference, Washington, D.C.
• Bolton, S. (2004, Winter). Asian influence on European design education: Same recipe, different flavors. Innovation, 25-29.