Ground for Ground -Reflection

The Product Service System (PSS) project was a major design challenge.  The project demanded a very thoughtful approach in order provide a useful product, a beneficial service and a realistic system.  In addition, it was critical that the PSS engaged the community, and encourage positive behaviour.

I have previously noted that, as my design process develops, I have become more aware of the need to ensure that the product/concept that I design has a utility that warrants it's development.  In a time when resources are increasingly scarce, it is no good to design for the sake of design. The PSS project made this awareness all the greater owing to the 3 elements, Product, Service and System.  Not only did the product need to be sustainable, but the service must prove to provide a significant benefit to the community.  Such systems require on-going involvement so there is the continuing added resource of time as the service operates.

The design process for this projcet highlighted the need for initial research, as well as continuing research through the development stages.  It has been generally noted, that innovation does not occur in a vacuum.  This project made the truth of that sentiment painfully apparent.  A great deal of research was undertaken to first identify potential existing problems.  Further research was required to ensure that best-practice solutions did not already exist (but may not have simply been adopted).  Finally, the soultion development required continuing research into related fields, as well as seemingly unrelated fields.  Our research included related fields such as cafes, espresso equipment, but also spanned cash register mechanisms, slot-machines, potato chip packaging and plumbing.

The project was undertaken in groups.  Designing in groups highlighted the need for clearly set roles and responsibilites.  Concept generation and development is a dynamic process, and trying to keep track of the progress can become very challenging.  During the course of the project, we started keeping formal records of the roles and responsibilities of each member, as well as the latest iteration of the design.  This helped to ensure that each member was accountable for their work, as well as ensuring that we were all 'on the same page' with regard to the design.

I think I am likely to adapt some of this formal documentation, even in my individual work in the future.  I currently keep track of idea generation through a visual diary, but I think I would benefit from keeping a simple list of requirements and outputs.  This way, I might easily refer back to these lists fring the design process to ensure that I have not overlooked an element.

Ground for Ground -Rationale

Ground for Ground is an integrated system that enables cafes to repurpose their used coffee grounds, while also benefitting the local community and gaining customer involvement.

Each year Australian's use in excess of 2.3kg of coffee beans (per capita) in brewing coffee (SMH, Coffee by Numbers, July 18, 2006).  The vast majority of these beans end up in landfill, owing to no formal recycling systems.

Despite this dearth of recycling, coffee grounds are, in fact, easily recycled.  Used coffee beans are a superb form of compost for plants. Used coffee grounds are a natural source of nitrate, phosphorus and potassium which are key nutrients for plants. According to Soil and Plant Laboratory Inc, used coffee grounds can "substantially improve availabilities of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and copper and will probably negate the need for chemical sources of these plant essential elements" (adapted from Sunset.com/garden/earth-friendly).

Used coffee grounds have the additional benefit over general food waste, in that the grounds require no treatment before applying to soil.

The Ground for Ground system works in the following manner:
1. Cafe collects used grounds in specially designed Ground for Ground bins
2. Used grounds are collected regularly
3. Used grounds are deposited at local depot
4. Local depot allocates grounds to council lands, local schools, playing fields, golf courses, etc

Additionally, a smaller proportion of the gounds are kept at the cafes, and offered directly to customers to use in thier own gardens.

The Ground for Ground PSS, aims to make the recycling process simple for cafes to adopt, while also providing a branding that will benefit cafes associated with the program.

To ensure simplicity and ease of adoption, a group of Ground for Ground cafe products was designed.  The Ground for Ground bin has been designed to be used as both a bin and a stool.  This way, cafes can use excess bins to provide simple seating.  Move over milk crate!  The additional interaction through the stool, also increases customer awareness of the system.  This is key to enabling customer awareness and subsequent involvement.

The knock-out stand has been designed to fit two bins (one in use, and one ready for replacement).  The height is comparable to existing knock-out tubes (910mm compared to 860mm).  However, the benefit is that cafe staff can easily remove a full bin of grounds without undue bending, etc.

The ground server offers customers an opportunity to collect grounds for their garden.  The height of the shelf is in-line with that of the knock-out stand.  This allows for a linear carriage from the stand to the ground server. The upper shelf is designed to hold the Grounds to Go container, while a customer pours grounds into it.  The shelf itself is sloped to ensure that wayward grounds fall back into the bin.

Genius of Design - Design for Living (episode 2)

Genius of Design is a six-part BBC series, produced in 2010.  The series focuses on the history of design, and the movement/concepts that shape today's design experience.

Design for Living is the second episode of this series.  It focuses on the contrasting design philosophies of Modernism and Design Consumerism/Individualism.

The episode starts with a background to Modernism, with its influence on Bauhaus and focus on utility.  This movement was noted as a response against the popular style of Art Nouveau which incorporated organic form, and involved a high degree of ornamental material.  In contrast Modernism focus on minimalism.  Pieces were reduced to their function, and the design was directed toward celebrating this function, while maximising quality.

Modernism was concerned with making pieces readily available to the masses.  Bauhaus encouraged this by mixing an eclectic group of skills together.  Artists were mixed with construction workers and tradespeople.  Thus a consideration for production was encapsulated in the design of pieces.

However, the documentary notes that the general public did not embrace Modernism, particularly in England (where the documentary was produced).  The public reluctance was attributed to the proscriptive nature of Modernism.  For instance, the Frankfurt Kitchen, although highly functional and efficient, it was cold and demanded that users arrange their kitchen activities to suit the kitchen, rather than the other way around.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of World War I, people sought comfort.  While Modernism, offered functionality, it did not offer comfort.  As noted in the documentary, Bauhaus chairs are designed to look at, not to sit in.  As such, the general public rejected Modernism.

What did they choose instead?  Bottom-Up-Consumerism/Individualism.  This movement was driven by money.  In order to sell products, design must be pragmatic and appeal to the mainstream.  Design was not solely for the elite.  These designs sought to design according to how people behaved, rather than how people should have behaved.

Reflection: Who Killed the Electric Car?

I recently watched a dvd copy of the 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?. It was a thoroughly interesting exploration of why the EV1, a seemingly wonderful car, was systematically removed from the marketplace. The documentary starts by focusing on the plight of General Motors' EV1, but continues to consider the American auto industry as a whole, and finally the involvement of the oil industry.

It is a disturbing tale.  The EV1 was by all reports an incredibly efficient, fast, functional and economical car. The EV1:  
- cost less to run than standard combustion engines,
- had a drive range suitable to around 90% of an urban population,
- lower maintenance costs than conventional cars
- convenient at-home charging.

However, by 2004 GM had taken possession of all the EV1's that it had sold.  Furthermore, these cars appear to have all been destroyed.  This is the kind of story that has conspiracy theorists smacking their lips. And for good reason, it is bizzare.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to money.

The documentary slowly outlines that the US automobile industry had no real interest in pursuing electric cars as they worried that they would lose short-term profit.  This seems particularly amusing given the current state of these companies.  However, the concern was that these cars were almost too good. Without a combustion engine, ongoing dealership fees would be reduced significantly.  This represents a major component of an automobile companies revenue.

In addition, the cars gained strong opposition from the oil industry, as these cars represented a real threat to future profits.

The documentary goes beyond simply considering the EV1, or just electric cars, to consider the US's general policy on oil reliance.  It is no surprise that progress on alternative fuel, and car efficiency, were halted and even repealled under both Bush presidencies.  In the interim, Clinton spent US$1 billion on developing hybrid engines.  This was ended during George W Bush's term in presidency, and US automobile manufacturers had not put one hybrid on the market by 2006.

A hugely concerning fact:

Electric car tax break 2002:      $4,000
+6,000lb auto tax beak 2003:  $100,000
This seems to epitomise the Bush government attitude to automobile efficiency.

The documentary highlights the apparent rouse that is the Hydrogen Fuel Cell projects.  According to the documentary, Hydrogen fuel has major obstacles to becoming remotely competitive in efficiency and cost to electric alternatives.  However, it would seem that the automobile companies are brandishing these Hydrogen projects because they are so remote, and unlikely to have any results any time soon.  Thus the public are satisfied that work is being down, while we all drive combustion engines.


In conclusion, it would appear that the key is public pressure.  But to create public pressure, the public need to be informed about these issues, and motivated to act.  Without public pressure it is unlikely that automobile companies or oil companies are going to change their practices... until we run out of oil.



 

Peer reviews

Wawen Chan
Jennifer Widjaja
Guida Arezzi
Susanna Li
Danielle Taouk

Designing for Disaster Rationale

Rationale

Nutri-test: Assisting subsistence farmers in recovering from drought, fire and heatwaves.

In August of 2010, Europe experienced a heatwave of unprecedented magnitude. During this period, Russia suffered the most severe temperatures. The impact of the heatwave was accentuated by the drought conditions which Russia had been experiencing since late June 2010, and the emergence of numerous wildfires across the country. It is typical that heatwaves are accompanied by wildfires and drought, as these disasters are highly related.

The real-time effect of the extreme temperatures must not be understated. During the heatwave, an estimated 55,000 people died from heat related illness. However, the major obstacle to recovery came from the fires and drought It is estimated that as much as 30% of Russia’s crop harvests were destroyed by fire and drought. This had placed an immediate strain on food supplies. Buckwheat, a staple of the Russian diet, was severely affected. As a result, Russia froze all exports of buckwheat du to fears that domestic supplies would be insufficient to meet domestic demand.

As this assignment was focused on providing assistance to people in developing countries, I focused on the needs of subsistence farmers. Unlike Australia, subsistence farming is still relatively common in rural Russia. These farmers rely on their farmed crop as their primary source of food. As such, the devastation of the fire and drought had an even more extreme effect on subsistence farmers than the general Russian public.

My design was focused on assisting the farmers in recovering from this devastation as quickly as possible, with as little cost as possible. My research highlighted that extreme temperatures alter nutrient levels in soil as well as affecting acidity levels. This poses a particular problem to subsistence farmers as no information is readily available on local soil conditions. The nutrient levels and soil acidity both play a tremendous role in the success of crop. By providing a simple method of evaluating these conditions a farmer could save money from avoiding unnecessary fertilisers, as well maximising recovery crop yields by planting suitable crop.

Existing methods typically require laboratory assistance which is not available to subsistence farmers. DIY kits currently involve complicated titration processes and are generally accompanied by pages of instructions, which again are not suited to the education or skill set of subsistence farmers.

The Nutri-test deals with these issues by using simple litmus paper. The item is disposable, and packaging is minimal, which saves on production costs and transport costs. The instructions, and results are all provided in pictorial form, which allows for anyone to readily understand the application and results of the test.

Reflection of Designing for Disaster

Reflections

The current brief required a design to meet the needs of people in the developing world, who have fallen victim to natural disaster. This focus placed a number of constraints on the type of design.

In many ways, the need to design for people in such dire situations accentuates the general requirements sought in responsible design. Items must be highly functional, affordable and easily distributed. Designing to these constraints has been a refreshing means of directing my efforts and ensuring that I avoid designing-for-design. By this I mean the concept of designing a product which is mor

e novelty than function.

I started with a variety of concepts to assist people in managing/surviving a heat-wave. However, while these concepts seemed entirely acceptable as consumer products, they didn’t seem essential. And thus they didn’t seem to meet the needs of people (in poverty) dealing with disaster.

This was an important distinction that I recognized in my design process. I became cogni

sant of the distinction between convenience products and essential products.

In developing my final concept, the Nutri-Test soil tester, I continually tried to draw it back to functionality and usability by subsistence farmers. The underlying concept was ensuring that the product needed to be inexpensive while being easy to use. Incorporating visual instructions was a key element to developing the final product. While the product form was designed for disposable, one-off use.

Another driving point to my design, was to ensure that the design was simple. In many ways, designing with simplicity in mind was more challenging. It forced a sense of economy in my designs, which I have often over-looked.

In terms of future design projects I think I will draw from this experience to continue to be critical of the nature of my design. Is it necessary? Is it economical in form and material?

The story of....

The Story of Stuff Project has a series of animated informational videos about the environmental and social cost associated with various products, and consumer behaviour.

I recently watched the 'Story of Electronics', and the 'Story of Bottled Water'.

Life-cycle
Both videos draw attention to the entire product life-cycle of the products. People are often familiar with the energy and resources that go into a product, but they forget the stages after consumer use. In the case of electronics, they are typically loaded with toxins such as cadmium, chromium, etc. When these gadget are thrown out, they end up in landfill, where the toxins leach into the environment. As for water bottles, these are often shipped overseas for processing. This adds to even greater energy consumption.

Recycling
The videos each outline that recycling is not always as environmentally beneficial as we would like to think. First, much of the recycling that occurs, actually takes place overseas. Thus additional energy is used in transporting the items thousands of kilometres. When electronics are recycled, this often means extracting the valuable resources (gold, copper, etc) and sending the remainder to landfill, or even burning it. Local workers are exposed to dangerous toxins, often without protection. The water bottles are often 'down-cycled' into lesser goods. The problem with this is that it increases the likelihood that the plastic will find it's way into landfill, rather than a closed cycle of being remade into a bottle.

Cause
Each video places the blame for these issues squarely on corporations, while urging consumers to take umbrage and demand change. The underlying cause for the electronics issue is known as 'Design for Dump', while the video urges consumers to demand products that are 'Design to Last'.

The video suggests that the water bottle problem is a result of 'manufactured demand'. The video outlines that this has been created through scare-campaigns, and seduction in order to turn people off tap-water. The video is rather convincing, especially given that bottled water is around 2,000 more expensive than the tap alternative. It seems silly that anyone in a developed region would even consider bottled water!

As a consumer of electronics, and drinker of bottled water, I yet again have to re-assess my behaviour. I can readily address the bottled water issue, but becoming more responsible with electronics is difficult. It really comes down to supporting companies that use best practice.

Giving Packaging a New Life

I recently watched a series of informational videos on the process of sorting and recycling consumer packaging, entitled "Giving Packaging a New Life" (link here).

As with many aspects of modern life, it is easy to under-estimate the complexity, energy and time involved in the recycling of packaging. I know that I have avoided giving it much thought, in the very same way that I'd rather not confront the process through which my steak arrives on my dish. This series of short videos provides a brief, but informative insight into the recycling process, and sheds light onto the rarely considered tasks.

The sorting process is an involved one. The current sorting process is very accurate, and largely automated. Different material is recognised by optical sorting, which uses infra-red/near-infra-red technology. The material is removed by pin-point compressed air jets. (My mind still boggles at the way in which the air jets can selectively remove tiny pieces while moving along a conveyor, or in free-fall).

As outlined in the videos, great energy/rescource savings can be made by recycling packaging. Recycled aluminium uses only 20% of the energy used in unrecycled aluminium. Tinplate, PET and aluminum can be re-used again and again without loss to the final product.

However, all this processing requires energy. As such, the sorting/recycling processes are still energy intensive (albeit less so). Thus, the greatest means of conservation is still reducing use.

This is a difficult task to tackle as an industrial designer. I think this means that designers must not ensure that their product is recyclable, but also to try to minimise resource and energy use in manufacture. Finally, it also places an onus on designers to ensure that their product warrants the energy and resources required in production in the first place.

PS The narrator in the videos is totally the same narrator from 'Deustch Warum Nicht' (produced by Deutch Welle and Goethe Institut).


The videos were produced by ECC Kohtes Klewes Bonn and realized by Film4Ma Köln.

Cripes! I need to change my ways!

This is a sad indictment of my current lifestyle.

The most interesting outcome from this quiz comes through playing around with the lifestyle inputs. The test provides real-time feed-back on your total footprint as you adjust the inputs. Cycling through various input options can show the corresponding increase/decrease in your footprint.

Not surprisingly, a vegetarian diet results in a significant decrease in one's 'food footprint'. My 'food footprin' is relatively high, so I'm going to consider eating less meat (baby steps).

Another shock was my travel behaviour, particularly my driving and air travel. It was quite horrifying to realise just how much I rely on cars, rather than public transport. I will need to adjust my travel behaviour. Maybe a bike? Or a weekly travel pass?