Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-w78fb Total loading time: 0.322 Render date: 2021-04-15T17:18:19.769Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Different Approaches to Democratise Design - Are they Equal?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Mark Goudswaard
Affiliation:
University of Bristol;
Hannah Forbes
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Lee Kent
Affiliation:
University of Bristol;
Chris Snider
Affiliation:
University of Bristol;
Ben Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Bristol;
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

The democratisation of design permits greater stakeholder involvement in what has traditionally been a domain reserved for experts; the design process itself. This is enabled by technological advances in fields such as 3D printing, virtual reality and high-speed peer to peer communication technologies which have fuelled the development of new and innovative design methods. This paper compares and contrasts different approaches to the democratisation of design, and in particular, those that aim to involve wider stakeholders in the design process itself. Three different approaches(design by play, design by generation and crowdsourcing for design) are defined and contextualised within existing design frameworks and their respective suitabilities to democratise different design phases are considered. An exemplar use case of each approach is presented in order to assess how stakeholder engagement is affected by each democratising strategy. The discussion compares and contrasts the approaches with respect to their applicability and utility for different stages of the design process and how the power dynamics of the design process are altered when the different approaches are employed.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D. and Preece, J. (2004), “User-centered design”. Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 445456.Google Scholar
Autodesk Inc, (2018), “Generative Design”. Available at: https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/generative-design [Accessed December 11, 2018].Google Scholar
Bächer, M. et al. (2014), “Spin-it: Optimizing Moment of Inertia for Spinnable Objects”. ACM Trans. Graph., Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 96:196:10. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2601097.2601157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beitz, W., Pahl, G. and Grote, K. (1996), “Engineering design: a systematic approach”. MRS BULLETIN, 71Google Scholar
Brigham, T.J. (2015), “An introduction to gamification: adding game elements for engagement”. Medical reference services quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 471480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, S.R., Yilmaz, S., Christian, J.L., Seifert, C.M. and Gonzalez, R. (2012), “Design heuristics in engineering concept generation”. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 101 No. 4, pp. 601629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011), September. “From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 915). ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Salter, A. (2006), “The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble”. R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 333346.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, K. (2015), “The democratisation of design and design learning–how do we educate the next–generation designer”. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, Vol. 8, pp. 101108.Google Scholar
Goguelin, S. et al. (2017), “A Data Visualization Dashboard for Exploring the Additive Manufacturing Solution Space”. Procedia CIRP, Vol. 60, pp. 193198. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.01.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopsill, J.A. and Hicks, B.J. (2016), “Deriving infill design of fused deposition modelled parts from predicted stress profiles”. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 2A–2016, pp. 110.Google Scholar
Goudswaard, M. et al. (2017), “Democratisation of design for functional objects manufactured by fused deposition modelling (FDM): lessons from the design of three everyday artefacts”. ICED 2017 conference proceedings, 5(August), pp. 219228.Google Scholar
Goudswaard, M., Hicks, B. and Nassehi, A. (2018), “Democratising the design of 3D printed functional components through a hybrid virtual-physical design methodology”. Procedia CIRP, Vol. 78, pp. 394399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H. (2014), January. “Does gamification work?–a literature review of empirical studies on gamification”. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) (pp. 30253034). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansmeyer, M. (2012), “Building Unimaginable Shapes. Ted Global 2012”. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_building_unimaginable_shapes.Google Scholar
Hewlett, S.A., Marshall, M. and Sherbin, L., 2013. “How diversity can drive innovation”. Harvard business review, Vol. 91 No. 12, pp. 3030.Google Scholar
Howard, T.J., Achiche, S., Özkil, A. and McAloone, T.C. (2012), “Open design and crowdsourcing: maturity, methodology and business models”. In DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia (pp. 181190).Google Scholar
Howe, J. (2006), “The rise of crowdsourcing”. Wired magazine, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 14.Google Scholar
Huston, L. and Sakkab, N., 2006. “Connect and develop”. Harvard business review, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 5866.Google Scholar
Kent, L., Snider, C., Hicks, B. (2019), “Early Stage Digital-Physical Twinning to Engage Citizens with City Planning and Design”. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 2018Google Scholar
Koch, M.D. and Tumer, I.Y. (2009), “Towards Open Design: The Emergent Face of Engineering—A Position Paper”. In DS 58-3: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 3, Design Organization and Management, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24.-27.08. 2009 (pp. 97108).Google Scholar
Panchal, J.H. (2015), “Using Crowds in Engineering Design–Towards a Holistic Framework”. In DS 80-8 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol. 8: Innovation and Creativity, Milan, Italy, 27-30.07. 15.Google Scholar
Pieters, R. and Winiger, S. (2016), “On the Democratisation & Escalation of Creativity. Medium.com”. Available at: https://medium.com/@creativeai/creativeai-9d4b2346faf3 [Accessed December 6, 2017].Google Scholar
Prévost, R. et al. (2013), “Make It Stand: Balancing Shapes for 3D Fabrication”. ACM Trans. Graph., Vol. 32 No. 4, p. 81:181:10. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2461912.2461957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, K., Aish, R. and Gourtovaia, M. (2005), “Towards integrated performance-driven generative design tools”. Automation in Construction, Vol. 14, 2 SPEC. ISS., pp. 253264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.G., 2012. “New product development methods: a study of open design (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)Google Scholar
Tsang, A.S.Y. and Lee, Y.K. (2014), “Democratisation by design: new possibilities of design education by sharing design knowledge to the community”. In Design with the other 90%: Cumulus Johannesburg Conference Proceedings (pp. 336).Google Scholar
Werbach, K. (2014), May. “(Re) defining gamification: A process approach”. In International conference on persuasive technology (pp. 266272). Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yumer, M.E. et al. (2015a), “Semantic shape editing using deformation handles”. ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 34 No. 4, p. 86:186:12. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2809654.2766908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yumer, M.E. et al. (2015b), “Procedural Modeling Using Autoencoder Networks”. Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology - UIST ‘15, pp. 109118. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2807442.2807448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, J. (2009), “Open Collaborative Mechanical/Product Design-User as Developer A New Design Methodology for Internet Era Business Innovations and Entrepreneurship”.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 395 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 26th July 2019 - 15th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Different Approaches to Democratise Design - Are they Equal?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Different Approaches to Democratise Design - Are they Equal?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Different Approaches to Democratise Design - Are they Equal?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *