DesignThings Bas Botermans' Graduation Working Log

Project Proposal

Provotyping in the wild

Student name	Bas Botermans (B.A.M.Botermans[at]student.tudelft.nl)
Chair of supervisory team	Walter Aprile (W.A.Aprile[at]tudelft.nl)
Mentor of supervisory team	Froukje Sleeswijk-Visser (F.SleeswijkVisser[at]tudelft.nl)
Company name	Mads Clausen Institute (SPIRE) – University of Southern Denmark
Country	Denmark
Company mentor	Jared Donovan (jared[at]mci.sdu.dk)
Start date	Februari 2010
End date	July 2010

Introduction

“If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a better horse”

This quotation by Henry Ford does not state that we should not include end-users in the design process, but it shows that people are bound to think within their frame of reference. How can designers understand what users want, need and dream of if those customers don’t know what they can have? That is what this project in short will be about: developing a method to, together with people, broaden the design scope to inform and inspire the design process.

Problem definition

In the previous decennia, several new ways to gather user information or inspiration through artifacts has been developed: cultural probes [1], technology probes [2], mock-ups, context mapping [3] etc. Within this project, we will use the idea of provocation to question assumptions and to inspire and inform the design process.

The idea of using provocation stems from Preben Mogensen’s paper:  “Towards a provotyping approach in system development”, where he combines activity theory and prototyping to develop qualitatively new systems and ensure usability [4]. He states that provocation through concrete experience can be the bridge between analysis and design, by calling forth what is usually taken for granted.

The idea of provocation also has strong connotations with Critical Design, as described by Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby in their book Design Noir [5]. They state, that critical design “asks carefully crafted questions and makes us think”. In that, it is the opposite of affirmative design, where the “design reinforces the status quo”.

The difference between Mogensen’s and Dunne and Raby’s approach is the aim of the designed provocation. Mogensen uses it as tool in the design process, where Dunne and Raby see it as the result of the design process.

Context mapping is a way to give a design team insight in the hopes and dreams of people within a specific area of expertise. In the end of the process they are asked to generate their perfect solution that incorporates these hopes and dreams. The solution they come up with stays within their frame of reference and most of the time doesn’t get past the stage of “a better horse” because they aren’t aware of the possibilities.

The critical artifact methodology has recently been developed by Simon Bowen [6]. It is a participatory activity, where the designer and stakeholders are discussing a “critical artifact”. This is a conceptual 2d or mock-up design, which is presented with a provocative narrative. The dialogue that follows is used as input for the further design process.

This graduation project connects strongly to the critical artifact methodology in the idea that the dialogue with stakeholders informs and inspires. The main difference is that the artifact through which is being provoked, isn’t conceptual or 2d, but is a 3D artifact that is deployed for a certain amount of time at stakeholder’s places. Thus, the time frame in which the provocation occurs is much longer, which has its consequences for the “provotype”.

Assignment

Design “provotypes” that make people aware of what is possible in the context of indoor climate. The focus lies on creating interactive artifacts that can be used to provoke people’s thoughts about the indoor climate.

Approach

The approach for this project is a research through design approach with two iterations. The prototypes that come from the first iteration are being tested with a first group of people for a week to get a feeling about what factors play an important role in the design of provoking artifacts.

The second iteration is focused on the creation of a final “provotype” that can be placed in a person’s environment for a prolonged period to get information and inspiration from them.

Results

• Technological framework for prototyping with electronics (arduino’s, Xbee, MAX/MSP)
• Experiential “provotypes”
• Theory on what factors play a role in the creation of a “provotype”
• Written report, presentation and poster
• Paper if possible

Planning

project #	week #
1	6	literature research
2	7
3	8
4	9	first explorations - shapes & technology
5	10
6	11					movie
7	12	build first provotypes
8	13					movie
9	14	evaluation of (2) provotypes
10	15	workshop		final provotype
11	16
12	17					movie
13	18	evaluation of final provotype
14	19	workshop		Concept proposals
15	20			user evaluation
16	21					movie
17	22	backup
18	23	Documentation - written report
19	24
20	25

References

1. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., Pacenti E. Cultural Probes. In: interactions Vol 6, Issue 1 Jan./Feb. 1999, ACM, 21–29.
2. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B.B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., Eiderbäck, B., Lindquist, S., & Sundblad, Y. (2003). Technology Probes: Inspiring Design for and with Families. In CHI 2003 (17-24). ACM Press.
3. Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J., van der Lugt, R., Sanders, E.B.N. (2005) Contextmapping: Experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119-149.
4. Mogensen, P. H. (1992). Towards a provotyping approach in systems development. Scandanavian Journal of Information System, 4, 31-53.
5. Dunne, A., Raby, F. (2001). Design Noir. The secret life of electronic objects. 1^st ed., Basel, Boston, Berlin, Birkhauser.
6. Bowen, S. J. (2008). Getting it right: Lessons learned in applying a critical artefact approach. In: Proceedings of Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference. Sheffield, UK.