industry and university cooperative design: a retrospective critique on a rapid prototyping workshop...

INDUSTRY AND UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE DESIGN: A RETROSPECTIVE CRITIQUE ON A RAPID PROTOTYPING WORKSHOP T. Venter 1, E. van der Wath 2 1 University of Pretoria (SOUTH AFRICA) 2 University of Pretoria (SOUTH AFRICA) www.up.ac.za

DESIGN EDUCATION GLOBALLY Design education is often criticised for distancing itself from the everyday activities of practice. Such distancing leads to graduates well versed in theory, creativity, and concept, but ill equipped for the challenges associated with constructing their conceptual imaginings. This paper argues that complexity and innovation in spatial design require a more pronounced link between design theory, design drawing and the eventual technical articulation of design. This link must be informed by technological advances in digital fabrication and should include a deeper understanding of industry manufacturing processes and the embedded nature of materials. Rapid prototyping will influence the nature and style of design, and by implication the approach to design education. This manufacturing process is also a valuable design tool that should be imbedded in students design processes.

DESIGN EDUCATION LOCALLY (South Africa) In recent years, the restructuring of the technical colleges to technical universities resulted in a closer relationship with academia than with industry, further widening the gap between theoretical knowledge and the expectations of practice. In this context, learners are rarely exposed to manufacturing processes of high complexity or to digital fabrication methods and technology. When they are exposed, it is most often to the use of rapid prototyping as a means of producing accurate final scale models of design proposals. This singular representational approach to an iterative technology is especially prevalent in architectural education [2]. In contrast, recent technological advances in the manufacturing sector, in conjunction with the commercial availability of prototyping technologies have closed the gap between conceptual design thinking and design testing.

AIM This paper discusses a prototyping workshop that endeavours to bridge this gap in design education by directly engaging with industry specialists through the process of testing and making. The case study describes the learning opportunities that co-operative design projects may offer both university (lecturing staff and students) and industry. The paper evaluates a process of immersive learning that traditionally falls outside the scope of academic design thinking.

+ THE CASE STUDY + TECHNOLOGY MATERIALS 7 days design, innovation and hands-on experimentation

+ THE CASE STUDY + INDUSTRY & THEORY ALTERNATIVE CONTEXT & CLASSROOM Exposing students to real-life problems in contexts outside the safe environment of the studio or classroom.

THE CASE STUDY: OBJECTIVES Expand multi-disciplinary design process; Fresh insight into problem-solving processes; Exposure and promotion. Practical experience in a complete design process; Understanding of material, prototyping and manufacturing through hands-on experimentation; Access to instant practical knowledge.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION Interior students from years one to four could apply for selection by submitting a written motivation of no less than 250 words. 16 candidates were selected for the workshop two from first year, three from second, seven from third and four from the Honours programme (fourth year). This allowed for diversity in design skills and experience in the workshop. The students were divided into four groups with junior and senior students in each group.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART A: INTRODUCTION Students were introduced to the materials, processes and technology used in manufacturing plywood furniture. Industry specialists highlighted the importance of understanding both the material and manufacturing process for successful design.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART A: INTRODUCTION A range of open source and proprietary joints were presented and discussed. This highlighted the relationship between the materials structural properties and the nature of the joint, as well as the impact of detailing on the assembly process.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART A: INTRODUCTION The brief required the design and eventual prototyping of a shopping trolley to be used at an outdoor market (to be transported in the boot of an average motor vehicle). Students were restricted to one 1220 x 2440 birch plywood sheet of 9mm or 12mm per group. All components were to be cut using a three axis CNC machine.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 1 CONCEPT & SKETCH DESIGN

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 2 SCALE MODELS

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 3 LASER CUT SCALE MODELS For this purpose CAD drawings were prepared for laser cutting the components. This process allowed the groups to quickly evaluate the pragmatics involved in assembling components. Students were actively involved in testing performative complexity.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 3 LASER CUT SCALE MODELS

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 4 FULL SCALE PROTOTYPE All the design proposals were re-evaluated before the final design drawings and cutting lists were prepared for full scale cutting in plywood on day six. This introduced students to the concept of nesting a critical consideration for efficient cutting and the minimisation of material waste.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 4 FULL SCALE PROTOTYPE The last day was spent at RAW's workshop where the trolleys were assembled with assistance from staff members and lecturers..

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 4 FULL SCALE PROTOTYPE

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 4 FULL SCALE PROTOTYPE Some designs required additional preparation and the completion of second processes. necessary in future to fully resolve the designs.

THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION PART B: ITERATION 4 FULL SCALE PROTOTYPE Adjustments were made to the designs where necessary, and by the end of day seven, four working prototypes were completed. The full-scale assembly process highlighted several design shortcomings and all four the groups agreed that a second full-scale iteration would be necessary in future to fully resolve the designs.

THE RESEARCH STUDY This case study explores the outcomes of industry and university interactions within design education, with specific focus on cooperative design driven by full-scale prototyping though digital fabrication methods. Data were obtained from reflective reports completed by participating students, based on Hamptons model of reflective writing [8]. This was supplemented by the experiences and observations of the authors and their analysis of the designed products. The authors also obtained written feedback from RAWs staff members regarding their experiences of the workshop. The feedback was analysed according to Teschs descriptive method of open-coding [9]. Significant statements were identified and then grouped into themes. The themes were narrated and interpreted through comparison to relevant literature.

RESULTS: THEME 1 LEARNING EXPERIENCES 1.1 LIMITATIONS Students were limited to designing in a single material for a single manufacturing process. This was however not perceived as a limitation to design, but as an opportunity for learning. Similarly, the limited time frame was viewed as a meaningful influence on personal design development that created a sense of urgency, rather than panic. The commitment to a single material allows for a thorough investigation into the material and its design possibilities, thus showing the possibilities when focussing on a single design element to achieve a full design resolution.

RESULTS: THEME 1 LEARNING EXPERIENCES 1.2 DIRECT INVOLVEMENT The workshop exposed students directly to the materials, methods and manufacturing processes employed by RAW. Hands-on exploration of the materials expanded their understanding of designing with plywood (and similar engineered timber products) and generated an interest in materiality in design. Additionally, the workshop improved students comprehension of the relationship that exists between materiality, detailing and manufacturing. hands-on learning experience was a massive confidence booster [] and incited my interest in materiality and in actively engaging and exploring materials. The whole process provided inspiration and guidance for an approach to detailing as well as an overall design approach for interior architecture as it emphasises the importance of understanding a material and using it from concept to detailing.

RESULTS: THEME 1 LEARNING EXPERIENCES 1.2 DIRECT INVOLVEMENT This experience extended to a deeper comprehension of the relationship between technical innovation and design iteration in the form of prototyping. Students describe the prototyping process in cardboard as helpful, and informative, and as a beneficial part of the design process that revealed issues with the design and provided info towards bettering the design. Additionally, prototyping allowed for a greater ease of understanding and freedom to experiment with multiple iterations. This insight extends beyond the experience of the workshop, as highlighted by the following comment: What I learnt from the experience was perseverance in terms of my design RAW goes through many prototypes in order to gain the final product, and similarly so did we. So I have to keep at it. [] you learn even more through trial and error.

RESULTS: THEME 1 LEARNING EXPERIENCES 1.3 COOPERATION Student comments indicated a positive experience of the co-operative nature of the workshop. Although challenging, they describe the variety in design processes, experience and knowledge as a more realistic team dynamic. One student describes a sense of competition amongst the groups that induced a friendly rivalry and a vibrant atmosphere. Working in co-operative teams led to design process benefits. Additionally, the students gained soft skills such as compromise, recognising other perspectives and being exposed to other design methods. Being able to investigate these possibilities in a group sped up the initial brainstorming process and allowed for a more imaginative, innovative approach and design.

RESULTS: THEME 2 LEARNING OBSERVATIONS 2.1 RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING Practitioners commented that what was clear to us was the willingness of the students to learn and engage throughout the workshop. Students exhibited excitement and positivity in the studio, coupled with a sense of urgency. Students could not depend on the experts to solve problems as they were not always available, and as a result they relied on one another and on experimentation for design feedback. Practitioners remarked that the growth and learning curve was exponential. The knowledge gained from the beginning to the end of the week was amazing. This observation is supported by the experience of a junior student: The activity was daunting at first However as the process evolved and you became more involved in it, it became easier and interesting to experiment with the processes at hand.

RESULTS: THEME 2 LEARNING OBSERVATIONS 2.1 RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING Although we proposed interim deadlines which sped design development up, students took responsibility for the success of the workshop. They took control of the project we did not need to drive activity in the studio. This is evidenced by the following educator comment: I learned that with very little input (less pedantic design and theoretical discussions), an open brief, and very few [defined] expectations regarding the product, the process built its own momentum.

RESULTS: THEME 2 LEARNING OBSERVATIONS 2.2 INNOVATION The workshop produced complex designs of both formal and conceptual variety. According to RAW the outcomes included some very innovative solutions, well tolerated [sic] and interesting joints that actually work and form a strong basis to develop the products further. The proposals incorporated new, applicable to industry ideas. This innovation in design product seemed to stem from the variety in, and approach to, the design processes. Practitioners commented that students seem to approach the problem from completely different angles mainly devoid of the usual constraints of practice driven problem solving. Lecturers observed an organic group design development process in studio. Without any direct instruction on process, the four groups naturally approached the project differently.

RESULTS: THEME 2 LEARNING OBSERVATIONS 2.2 INNOVATION

RESULTS: THEME 2 LEARNING OBSERVATIONS 2.3 ROLES The workshop questioned and inverted the traditional roles of lecturers and students in the educational environment. Lecturer observations indicate that a clear relationship between design input and level of experience could not be identified. Lecturer feedback indicates a reversal of roles: The interaction with RAW expanded my understanding of digital manufacturing processes. At times I was learning as much as the students were. Lecturers seemed to shift imperceptibly between roles as facilitator, co-designer and practitioner. This is evidenced by the following lecturer reflection: As part educator and part practitioner, this was a little outside my comfort zone in terms of education as well as practice, even though I know the specific process rather well. The practical guidance was driven by RAW, but with some knowledge [of] their manufacturing process I could help out early in the studio, as a practitioner as well as lecturer; which is never the case.

RESULTS: THEME 2 LEARNING OBSERVATIONS 2.3 ROLES The role of the practitioner was also challenged. Practitioners described themselves as supportive; allowing students to engage confidently in experimentation: they felt confident as we had their backs so to say. In the studio, practitioners not only guided [students] as artificers, but also acted as educators who had to firstly impart knowledge, and secondly make their implicit design process explicit to inexperienced designers-in-training. Students felt that the sharing of knowledge contributed positively to their design process and helped significantly in designing with a purpose and making informed decisions about the design itself. Students described their interaction with experts as insightful and helpful in exploring design possibilities. One student commented that she found the exposure to the thought processes and methods of RAW staff (that was completely different to the way students think) meaningful to her personal development as designer.

DISCUSSION CONTEXT Firstly, the workshop took place outside the pedagogical structures that guide studio activities during the semester. Students were focused on a single design problem, did not need to be concerned with assessment and had the freedom to use time and resources as they saw fit. Secondly, practitioners functioned outside the boundaries that typically constrain industry. Thirdly, lecturers operated outside of curriculum and content restrictions and could focus solely on facilitating learning. The outcomes of the workshop were open-ended and the process was not shaped by pre-conceived expectations. As a result, students experimented freely and embraced the core values of explorative, iterative design an approach that led to design innovation and a learning experience valued by all involved.

DISCUSSION STUDENT-CENTRED LEARNING Demirblek and Demirblek [11] are of the opinion that such an approach allows students learn effectively and deeply, as they have a sense of ownership in learning, are motivated to learn and can engage in a constructive activity where they can connect new concepts to prior experiences and existing knowledge. Lecturing staff and practitioners positioned themselves as facilitators and advisors; offering advice and enabling rather than instructing. Malmqvist, Young, Hallstrm, Kuttenkeuler & Svensson [12] refer to the shift from lecturer as authoritarian to lecturer as mentor as a positive shift which enables a less constrained learning environment where students dare to discuss, reason and explore.

DISCUSSION COOPERATIVE LEARNING Students narrated positive experiences of the co-operative work and valued the variations in perspective that their interactions with one-another offered. According to Tynjl et al [1] sociocultural and situated-learning theories have emphasised that learning takes places though participating in communities of practice. This workshop presented opportunities for informal, socially shared learning to take place, which contributed to the successful acquisition of a vast amount of new skills in a comparatively short period of time. The fact that older and more experienced students were part of each group meant that skills/knowledge transfer happened on a micro level first through group work, on a mesa level by means of input from lecturers and practitioners and on a macro level through assembly. The workshop simulated the conditions of practice more directly than the design studio. Students found these conditions to be useful as they lent focus to the design process.

DISCUSSION AUTHENTIC LEARNING Slabbert, de Kock and Hattingh [13] argue that there is an abundance of evidence that prove that our traditional educational concept of learning to know in order to apply is not an efficient model of learning. They argue that higher education should instead focus on encouraging authentic learning in students a process which requires the immersion into a real-life challenge, where students must engage individually and cooperatively with the challenge, and where existing knowledge and skills are insufficient to resolve the challenge. This workshop did not shield students from the real complexity of digital fabrication, but instead exposed them to the entire process and the full strata of the industry work force. Students were able to obtain detailed practical and theoretical knowledge from each of these individuals through studio discussions based on problem solving, rather than through authoritative lecturing.

DISCUSSION DIRECT KNOWLEDGE TRANSFERRAL Although the workshop embraced a problem-based learning model, which discourages instructional guidance, the authors call for a more balanced approach to the model. Kirschner, Sweller and Clark [15] argue that unguided learning is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. They state that the advantage of guidance begins to recede when students have obtained sufficient prior knowledge to guide themselves. In a workshop that integrates junior and senior students, junior students may therefore benefit from the addition of a focused theoretical introduction to designing with plywood; addressing the manufacture, nature, structural properties and opportunities embedded in this material. Workshops of this kind should be focused on facilitating learning, but may benefit from limited direct knowledge transferal.

DISCUSSION SHORTCOMINGS Dealing with software challenges was more successful than anticipated. The learning curve for software integration can be very steep and it often takes substantial time and effort from students to successfully integrate computer drawing skills into their design process. However, faced with the prospect of making, learners were forced to engage empirically with the specific requirements of the software. Learners were able to translate their designs via CAD for laser cutting, which set up the next step of translation to Rhino and RhinoCAM for cutting and nesting purposes. Intermediate software platforms can cause problems through translation and adds an extra level of complexity and pressure, especially during a workshop where time is limited. Future workshops should be structured around a single CAD platform that can accommodate most aspects of 3-D modeling and manufacture [14].

DISCUSSION SHORTCOMINGS Learning opportunities of this kind require thorough and structured documentation to contribute effectively to a scholarly understanding of their value. The risk of over- structuring the workshop to suit an academic need could however be detrimental to the workshop as event for learning and requires carefully consideration. Logistically all components of the workshop should ideally be in one space or in close proximity. If this shortcoming is addressed, learners should be able to test ideas, tolerances and processes with the actual material iteratively prior to final full-scale assembly. Material tolerances could only be tested on the last day of the workshop earlier testing would have resulted in more successful products. In future a full iteration of the entire workshop with the same learners will be the test of knowledge gained. Future workshop should aim to include some of the senior students from the first round, as this should have a positive impact on the groups cooperative potential.

CONCLUSION Performative architectural complexity and uniqueness of artefacts are ever increasing. To achieve such complexity and innovation, designers should integrate the appropriate technological tools into their design processes from an early stage. For a prototyping exercise to achieve a higher level of complexity, the technological tools used should be re- evaluated. Also the link between design education, thinking and the software should be more distinct. We are not proposing a pure dianoetic process [16] but rather a closer reciprocal relationship between design theory, drawing and design articulation through CAD modelling. The latter, by nature, includes aspects closer related to manufacturing and performative design [17].

CONCLUSION For design learning institutions to stay current and relevant to practice, their curriculums and use of technological tools must be evaluated regularly. Implementing change in higher education institutions is a lengthy process. Subsequently a disparity between advances in technology and educational approach is inevitable. Workshops, such as the one discussed in this paper, may provide an alternative to the delays inherent to large institutions, as they function outside the rigid framework of formal higher education The adaptability of these workshops renders them useful in a wide spectrum of education applications with varying complexity. It is the authors intention to increase the level of iterative complexity of future workshops and further explore the reciprocal pedagogic nature that could exist between design theory and the design industry.

REFERENCES [1] Tynjl, P, Vlimaa & Sarja, A. (2003). Pedagogical perspectives on the relationships between higher education and working life. Higher Education 46: 146-166 [2] Columbano, A & Dring, M. (2010). The pedagogy of using a RP architectural model. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 5(4): 195-200 [3] Daniels, P. Adonis, T., Mpofu, R. & Waggiem, F. (2013). How service learning enables interdisciplinary learning: A case study in the health sciences at the University of the Western Cape. In R. Osman & N. Petersen (Eds.), Service Learning in South Africa. Cape Town, Oxford University Press. [4] RAW Studios. (2014). RAW Mission. Available from: http://www.rawstudios.co.za/studio/raw-mission-statement/. Accessed on 2014.09.27 [5] Designing Ways. (2011). Talking to Julia 2. Designing Ways 134: 62-63 [6] TOOLINGU. (2014). What is the definition of computer numerical control?. Available from: http://www.toolingu.com/definition-300100-12468- computer-numerical-control.html. Accessed on 2014.10.02 [7] Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [8] Hampton, M. (2003). Reflective writing: a basic introduction. Available from:. http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-departments/student- support-services/ask/downloads/Reflective-writing---a-basic-introduction.pdf. Accessed on 2014.08.01 [9] Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. [10] Optimation. (2012). What is CNC Nesting. Available from: www.optinest.com/optiblog/category/what_is_cnc_nesting/. Accessed on 2014.10.02 [11] Demirbilek, N. & Demirbilek, O. (2007). Architectural science and student- teaching learning, in Proceedings of the 41 st Annual Conference of the Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), Deakin: 85-91 [12] Malmqvist, J., Young, P. W., Hallstrm, S., Kuttenkeuler, J., & Svensson, T. (2004).Lessons learned from design-build-test based project courses, in Proceedings from International Design Conference Design 2004, Dubrovnik: 1-8 [13] Slabbert, J.A., de Kock, D.M. & Hattingh, A. (2009). The Brave New World of Education: creating a unique professionalism. Cape Town: Juta CONCLUSION REFERENCES [14] Brell-okcan, S. & Braumann, J. (2010). A Parametric design tool for Robot Milling, in Proceedings of the 30 th Annual conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), New York: 357-363 [15] Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2): 75-86 [16] Colletti, M. (2013). An Open Theory of Design Research in Architecture: Digital Poetics. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing limited. [17] Schumacher, P. (2012). The Autopoiesis of Architecture, Volume 2: A New Agenda for Architecture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd [18] Center for Bits and Atoms. (2013). Fab Lab FAQ. Available from http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/faq/. Accessed on 2014.10.02