**2. The changing field of Industrial Design**

The field of Industrial Design is changing. At least that is the message when going to conferences like TED, the World Design Forum (WDF), ICSID World Design Congress and CHI. According to Stefano Marzano, CEO of Philips Design, we are moving towards an intellectual new renaissance based on humanistic values. Designers are catalysts for change and raise large societal questions. They are creating a vision in the first place and concrete ideas in the second (Marzano's presentation at WDF '10). Consequently the scope of design is changing. It is expanding towards all kind of systems: education, health-care, economic growth, transportation, defence, and political representation. Moreover, the role of designers is changing. Designers are dealing with a creative society in which we are all producers and consumers of value (Nussbaum, 2008). These changes have implications for educating future designers who can anticipate this changing design profession and their envisioned role, and who can even enhance these changes.

In this chapter, we describe four developments in the field of industrial design and design education, which in our opinion ask for a new view on design processes: disruptive innovation for societal transformation, intelligent systems, open design and self-directed competency-centred learning.

### **2.1 Disruptive innovation for societal transformation**

The first development that asks for a new view on design processes is disruptive innovation, in which disruptive refers to the absence of a well-established frame of reference. Not only the product as such is new, but it also enables the creation of radical new meaning for the user, the market and society. Especially nowadays, when technology is so rapidly and innovatively created by the technology providers of the world, and at the same time when we are facing large societal challenges like healthy living and aging, sustainability and mobility, there is a need for a new type of innovation that can transform the lives of people, the way they experience and act in the world, and consequently transform society.

All designed artefacts, be it systems, products or related services, are inextricably intertwined with society; they will have a social impact as soon as they enter society. Products arise in a social context, and consequently, are a reflection of that society. Moreover, a product is a vehicle to steer society implicitly as well as explicitly; it influences the behaviour and experiences of users (Hummels, 2000; Verbeek, 2006). For example, open office layout and furnishing, which originated in the 1920s, enabled the ideas of scientific management, such as efficiency, introduced by Frederick Taylor (Forty, 1986). Designing for disruptive innovation is a way of explicitly steering society, a way of actively exploring the possibilities for social and societal transformation.

At the department of Industrial Design we are employing and researching disruptive innovation for societal transformation and we are not alone in this focus. In 2004 the British Design Council set up RED, a 'do tank' that uses transformation design to tackle social and economic issues (Burns et al., 2006). Robert Fabricant, Vice President of Creative at Frog Design, sees a shift towards 'design with intent' that has an immediate impact on user behaviour through direct social engagement (Fabricant, 2009). Bruce Nussbaum, editor of the innovation and design coverage of Business Week, states that transformation takes the best of design thinking and innovation, and integrates them into a strategic guide for the unknowable and uncertain years ahead (Nussbaum, 2008). Also Roberto Verganti (2009), professor of Management of Innovation at Politecnico di Milano, shows that we are moving

The field of Industrial Design is changing. At least that is the message when going to conferences like TED, the World Design Forum (WDF), ICSID World Design Congress and CHI. According to Stefano Marzano, CEO of Philips Design, we are moving towards an intellectual new renaissance based on humanistic values. Designers are catalysts for change and raise large societal questions. They are creating a vision in the first place and concrete ideas in the second (Marzano's presentation at WDF '10). Consequently the scope of design is changing. It is expanding towards all kind of systems: education, health-care, economic growth, transportation, defence, and political representation. Moreover, the role of designers is changing. Designers are dealing with a creative society in which we are all producers and consumers of value (Nussbaum, 2008). These changes have implications for educating future designers who can anticipate this changing design profession and their

In this chapter, we describe four developments in the field of industrial design and design education, which in our opinion ask for a new view on design processes: disruptive innovation for societal transformation, intelligent systems, open design and self-directed

The first development that asks for a new view on design processes is disruptive innovation, in which disruptive refers to the absence of a well-established frame of reference. Not only the product as such is new, but it also enables the creation of radical new meaning for the user, the market and society. Especially nowadays, when technology is so rapidly and innovatively created by the technology providers of the world, and at the same time when we are facing large societal challenges like healthy living and aging, sustainability and mobility, there is a need for a new type of innovation that can transform the lives of people,

All designed artefacts, be it systems, products or related services, are inextricably intertwined with society; they will have a social impact as soon as they enter society. Products arise in a social context, and consequently, are a reflection of that society. Moreover, a product is a vehicle to steer society implicitly as well as explicitly; it influences the behaviour and experiences of users (Hummels, 2000; Verbeek, 2006). For example, open office layout and furnishing, which originated in the 1920s, enabled the ideas of scientific management, such as efficiency, introduced by Frederick Taylor (Forty, 1986). Designing for disruptive innovation is a way of explicitly steering society, a way of actively exploring the

At the department of Industrial Design we are employing and researching disruptive innovation for societal transformation and we are not alone in this focus. In 2004 the British Design Council set up RED, a 'do tank' that uses transformation design to tackle social and economic issues (Burns et al., 2006). Robert Fabricant, Vice President of Creative at Frog Design, sees a shift towards 'design with intent' that has an immediate impact on user behaviour through direct social engagement (Fabricant, 2009). Bruce Nussbaum, editor of the innovation and design coverage of Business Week, states that transformation takes the best of design thinking and innovation, and integrates them into a strategic guide for the unknowable and uncertain years ahead (Nussbaum, 2008). Also Roberto Verganti (2009), professor of Management of Innovation at Politecnico di Milano, shows that we are moving

the way they experience and act in the world, and consequently transform society.

**2. The changing field of Industrial Design** 

envisioned role, and who can even enhance these changes.

**2.1 Disruptive innovation for societal transformation** 

possibilities for social and societal transformation.

competency-centred learning.

towards disruptive innovation, or to put it in his words, we are moving towards designdriven innovation, that is based on a strong vision to create new markets. This type of innovation is not obtained by scrutinising user needs, which generally leads to incremental development, but by developing a strong vision that can guide disruptive innovation.

Fig. 1. The strategy of design-driven innovation through a radical change of meaning

Verganti shows that in order to realise such leaps, industry must build upon so-called interpreters, i.e. "the community of players - from artists to technology suppliers to design schools - that surround every product and deeply understand and influence how people give meaning to things." (cover, Verganti 2009). So, design schools are challenged to educate students as interpreters, with visionary design skills who can advance disruptive innovation in order to enable societal transformation. They are challenged to educate designers who are able to apply new technologies in ways that are new and daring, driven by a design vision of how our world could be, and validated by solid user research. So, educate designers who are able to transform our world, preferably in beautiful ways, instead of solving problems.

Designing disruptive innovations and envisioning societal transformation, is based on the concept of meaning, as is also indicated by Verganti. But what do we define as meaning? We adopt the phenomenological perspective in which meaning arises in interaction: "*How we think about the world is ... rooted in how we interact with it before we think, and so our intellectual thoughts cannot be used to explain away that pre-reflective experience. We move about the world, make use of the objects in it, respond to situations emotionally, act in order to change it, and so on. All these and other ways of interacting with the world give rise to its meaningfulness, so that the meaning of things in a sense, exist neither 'inside' our minds nor in the world itself, but in the space between us and the world, in the interaction*" (Matthews, 2006, p.33).

The core of phenomenology as Merleau-Ponty (2002) describes it is *'être au monde'*, which means not only being in the world but also belonging to it, having a relationship with it, interacting with it and perceiving it in all dimensions. We perceive the world in terms of

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 151

The second development that asks for a new view on design processes is the shift towards designing intelligent systems. When looking at the field of Industrial Design, we see that during the last decades design has shifted its focus from one person – one product (technology) interaction, to several persons via a product interaction, and it is now shifting towards a network of interactions between people and intelligent products within the context of use. Moreover, it is shifting from designing static worlds in which users adapt to objects, to co-constructed adaptive worlds in which objects and persons adapt to each other

Instead of designing "closed" products and human-product interaction, a growing number of designers are moving towards developing open intelligent systems that are not finished when they leave the factory, but evolve in interaction through, for example, services and adaptation. Given the inextricably intertwinement of the designed world and people, (see previous section) not only do intelligent systems have the ability to adapt to users, but also users will adapt themselves to these systems. For example, a smart phone will adapt to its user through the different applications, personal ring-tones, background images, content and physical appearance. Newer versions move towards adaption during use, by analysing user behaviour and consequently adjusting functionality and actions accordingly. However, adaptation also works the other way around; people adapt to these systems. With the introduction of the smart phone, people have to possibility to be online and accessible 24x7 and have Internet access independent of their physical location. This has huge consequences

for our behaviour, our perception of time, and our perception of leisure and work.

As a consequence of this mutual adaptation, mass customisation can grow to the level of individual user/product (system) combinations while in the mean time often unpredicted, usage patterns may emerge. Therefore designers of disruptive, intelligent systems, need a fast and good insight to what is happening with their experienceable prototypes and products in an, often increasingly diverse, social context and market (Gent van et al., 2011). Finally, when designing intelligent systems, the complexity increases significantly. Moving towards such complexity implies that the challenges cannot be formulated exhaustively and that both challenges and solutions are not simply false or true; challenges are unique and there are multiple opportunities for solution spaces (Rittel, 1972). Consequently, designing complex systems cannot be tackled through problem solving in a linear controlled process. Kelly (1994) states that they only way to develop or manage complex systems is by letting go of control and enable the system to evolve without central authority or imposed control mechanism. Although this last take might be too bold for many designers and even goes against the grain of that what design has been until now, it stresses the need for an open

**2.2 Intelligent systems** 

and co-evolve (Evenson et al., 2010)

Fig. 2. Moving towards networks of interaction.

what we can do with it, and by physically interacting with it we access and express this meaning. Moreover, we do not perceive ourselves as one more object in the world; we perceive ourselves as the point of view from which we perceive other objects. Disruptive innovation extends our current interaction with the world and its consequential meaning for us in ways that are new to us.

What is important for designers to realise is that arising of meaning occurs during the design process too. And because designers perceive themselves as the point of view from which they perceive systems and products, they are a part of their designs. They are designing from a first person perspective while intermittently taking a third person perspective. Therefore, their designs will be meaningful for them in a different way than for someone else (Trotto et al., 2011).

Designing disruptive innovative products provides challenges for designers and industry. Designing products that do not have a well-established frame of reference for users, the market and society, requires a different design process than is often used up till now. Both Roberto Verganti (2009) and Donald Norman (2010) indicate that the classic form of human/user-centred design is not suitable for designing large radical transformations. Since users have no frame of reference, it is not possible to ask them using traditional market and user research techniques, for their needs for and requirements of these future products. The actual added value of these products becomes only clear after a certain amount of time in which users have created in interaction meaning and added value of (the services provided by) these new products (Gent van et al., 2011). Therefore, the design process needs to stimulate the development of experienceable prototypes throughout the process, also at the early start, that enable potential users to create meaning in interaction.

A second consequence of taking a phenomenological approach towards disruptive innovation and a radical shift of meaning is the importance of intuition and design action during the design process. Making enables designers to explore the unknown by trusting their senses, exploring resistance and ambiguity, and by tapping into their intuition. Dijksterhuis & Nordgren (2006) show that intuition, or unconscious thought as they call it, is better suited for dealing with complex matters than conscious thought. Designing, which is based on creating, is the highest form of (cognitive) complexity according to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (Anderson, & Krathwohl, 2001). Intuition begins with the sense that what is not yet could be. Intuition is necessary to make leaps. It is *"an imaginative experience ... that guides us towards what we sense is an unknown reality latent with possibility "* (Sennet, 2008, p. 213). Therefore, a design process should enable or even stimulate intuition when designing systems and products that aim at a radical shift of meaning (Trotto et al., 2011).

Concluding, a design process for disruptive innovation needs on the one hand, to enable the designer to use her intuition and design action to envision new opportunities for social and societal transformation. It should stimulate the development of experienceable prototypes throughout the entire process, also at the early start. Coming from a first person perspective, the designer can also bring in her own value system and invite certain behaviour. This envisioning and making part should be intertwined with, on the other hand, a rooting in the real life context of use, through close cooperation with all stakeholders. This way designers can explore, discover, study, anticipate and react to meaning that emerges when people interact with these experienceable prototypes and (preliminary) products in a real life context, throughout the entire design process and beyond. This way the envisioned and emerging meaning of the design-to-be can be addressed in all phases of the design process.

#### **2.2 Intelligent systems**

150 Industrial Design – New Frontiers

what we can do with it, and by physically interacting with it we access and express this meaning. Moreover, we do not perceive ourselves as one more object in the world; we perceive ourselves as the point of view from which we perceive other objects. Disruptive innovation extends our current interaction with the world and its consequential meaning for

What is important for designers to realise is that arising of meaning occurs during the design process too. And because designers perceive themselves as the point of view from which they perceive systems and products, they are a part of their designs. They are designing from a first person perspective while intermittently taking a third person perspective. Therefore, their designs will be meaningful for them in a different way than for

Designing disruptive innovative products provides challenges for designers and industry. Designing products that do not have a well-established frame of reference for users, the market and society, requires a different design process than is often used up till now. Both Roberto Verganti (2009) and Donald Norman (2010) indicate that the classic form of human/user-centred design is not suitable for designing large radical transformations. Since users have no frame of reference, it is not possible to ask them using traditional market and user research techniques, for their needs for and requirements of these future products. The actual added value of these products becomes only clear after a certain amount of time in which users have created in interaction meaning and added value of (the services provided by) these new products (Gent van et al., 2011). Therefore, the design process needs to stimulate the development of experienceable prototypes throughout the process, also at the

A second consequence of taking a phenomenological approach towards disruptive innovation and a radical shift of meaning is the importance of intuition and design action during the design process. Making enables designers to explore the unknown by trusting their senses, exploring resistance and ambiguity, and by tapping into their intuition. Dijksterhuis & Nordgren (2006) show that intuition, or unconscious thought as they call it, is better suited for dealing with complex matters than conscious thought. Designing, which is based on creating, is the highest form of (cognitive) complexity according to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (Anderson, & Krathwohl, 2001). Intuition begins with the sense that what is not yet could be. Intuition is necessary to make leaps. It is *"an imaginative experience ... that guides us towards what we sense is an unknown reality latent with possibility "* (Sennet, 2008, p. 213). Therefore, a design process should enable or even stimulate intuition when designing systems and products that aim at a radical shift of meaning (Trotto et al., 2011). Concluding, a design process for disruptive innovation needs on the one hand, to enable the designer to use her intuition and design action to envision new opportunities for social and societal transformation. It should stimulate the development of experienceable prototypes throughout the entire process, also at the early start. Coming from a first person perspective, the designer can also bring in her own value system and invite certain behaviour. This envisioning and making part should be intertwined with, on the other hand, a rooting in the real life context of use, through close cooperation with all stakeholders. This way designers can explore, discover, study, anticipate and react to meaning that emerges when people interact with these experienceable prototypes and (preliminary) products in a real life context, throughout the entire design process and beyond. This way the envisioned and emerging meaning of the design-to-be can be addressed in all phases of the design process.

early start, that enable potential users to create meaning in interaction.

us in ways that are new to us.

someone else (Trotto et al., 2011).

The second development that asks for a new view on design processes is the shift towards designing intelligent systems. When looking at the field of Industrial Design, we see that during the last decades design has shifted its focus from one person – one product (technology) interaction, to several persons via a product interaction, and it is now shifting towards a network of interactions between people and intelligent products within the context of use. Moreover, it is shifting from designing static worlds in which users adapt to objects, to co-constructed adaptive worlds in which objects and persons adapt to each other and co-evolve (Evenson et al., 2010)

Fig. 2. Moving towards networks of interaction.

Instead of designing "closed" products and human-product interaction, a growing number of designers are moving towards developing open intelligent systems that are not finished when they leave the factory, but evolve in interaction through, for example, services and adaptation. Given the inextricably intertwinement of the designed world and people, (see previous section) not only do intelligent systems have the ability to adapt to users, but also users will adapt themselves to these systems. For example, a smart phone will adapt to its user through the different applications, personal ring-tones, background images, content and physical appearance. Newer versions move towards adaption during use, by analysing user behaviour and consequently adjusting functionality and actions accordingly. However, adaptation also works the other way around; people adapt to these systems. With the introduction of the smart phone, people have to possibility to be online and accessible 24x7 and have Internet access independent of their physical location. This has huge consequences for our behaviour, our perception of time, and our perception of leisure and work.

As a consequence of this mutual adaptation, mass customisation can grow to the level of individual user/product (system) combinations while in the mean time often unpredicted, usage patterns may emerge. Therefore designers of disruptive, intelligent systems, need a fast and good insight to what is happening with their experienceable prototypes and products in an, often increasingly diverse, social context and market (Gent van et al., 2011). Finally, when designing intelligent systems, the complexity increases significantly. Moving towards such complexity implies that the challenges cannot be formulated exhaustively and that both challenges and solutions are not simply false or true; challenges are unique and there are multiple opportunities for solution spaces (Rittel, 1972). Consequently, designing complex systems cannot be tackled through problem solving in a linear controlled process. Kelly (1994) states that they only way to develop or manage complex systems is by letting go of control and enable the system to evolve without central authority or imposed control mechanism. Although this last take might be too bold for many designers and even goes

against the grain of that what design has been until now, it stresses the need for an open

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 153

Concluding, a design process for open design should stimulate the generation of experienceable solutions to explore, generate and validate ideas and steer further developments. It should facilitate the communication between the different people/experts involved. Moreover, 'design making' opens up new solution spaces that go beyond imagination, which becomes especially important in group-settings and for designing disruptive innovative products. Especially for an open design setting we would recommend the adage: reaching quality through making quantity, which asks for a highly iterative process of generating dozens of solutions and testing them in-situ. Moreover, the process should enhance a first person perspective. Finally, open design requires a flexible and open design process that stimulates sharing between and learning from a variety of people.

The fourth and last important development we see that asks for a new design process is a new learning paradigm based on self-directed and competency-centred learning. Not only the focus and the way of designing is changing, as we have discussed in the previous sections, also the education of design is changing, which requires a new view on design

The new learning paradigm, self-directed and competency-centred learning, stems from a new view on science. Prigogine and Stengers (1984) show that the history of western thinking can be divided into three paradigms: 1) the classical-Christian view developed by e.g. Aristotle, Ptolemy and Thomas Aquinas, 2) the classical-scientific view developed by e.g. Newton and 3) quantum physics, relativity, dissipative & self-organising structure view

Einstein's theory of relativity dismantled the notion of objectivity and predictability as initiated by the classical-scientific view of Newton. Where Newton's world is essentially simple and closed: it can be modelled through time-reversible laws and all complexes can be reduced to simples, Prigogine's reality is multiple, temporal and complex. It is open and admissible to change. The non-linear nature of the interconnections within complex systems, implies that such systems cannot be reduced because the information is not comprised of separate elements but distributed in a pattern of connections (Fleener, 2005). These systems do not only refer to a sub-atomic level, but to all systems from micro- to macroscopic. As a consequence, the open, interconnected and complex character of the third paradigm disrupts the quest for certainty, truth, simplicity and objective knowledge, as is often aimed for in 'classical' research (Fleener, 2005), and in 'classical' education. In the classical teachercentred educational approach, teachers take a third person perspective, which Doll calls the God's-eye view. They determine what the student should know and they make use of a measured and uniform curriculum, with tests that are considered objective and predictive. The new paradigm however asks for a learner-centred approach based on a transformative curriculum that emphasises and supports a variety of procedures and interpretations, depending on the learner (Doll, 1986). It asks for new perspectives and learning theories that focus on learner-world relations (Birenbaum, 2003; Segers et al., 2003). In this new paradigm, novice designers learn to learn (what, how and why) and teachers facilitate their learning. Moreover, teachers have become learners too. This will switch their role towards

teaching from a first person perspective instead of a third person perspective.

Learning theories based on this new paradigm such as constructivism is gaining interest. The individual or cognitive variants of constructivism assume the locus of knowledge

**2.4 Self-directed and competency-centred learning** 

developed by e.g. Einstein, Bohr and Prigogine (Doll, 1986).

processes, as we show in this section.

process that supports evolving systems. According to Nelson (1994) it requires new strategies of design, intervention and management. He states that being undisciplined using system thinking and being out-of-control during a creative, hands-on design process are essential for creating a complex unnatural (designed) world.

Concluding, a design process for intelligent or complex systems cannot be based on linear problem solving, but needs to support openness and letting go of control. It needs to support design action and quick iterations within the real life context that give a fast and good insight to what is happening within interaction with experienceable prototypes. It needs to support the emergence of new meaning and usage patterns, preferably over a longer period of time, and support co-evolvement. Moreover, it should be possible to apply the process to an infinite number of individual user/product (system) combinations which all may bring their own unpredicted usage pattern.

#### **2.3 Open design**

The third development that has in our opinion consequences for the design processes refers to the stakeholders and participants involved in the process, especially collaborative forms like open design, co-creation and participatory design. We see open design as a specific approach to design, in which a group of intrinsically motivated people from various backgrounds develop design opportunities and solutions together in an open community, based on respect for each other's skills and expertise. Open design requires a flexible and open platform that assumes open access, sharing, active participation, responsibility, commitment to do good work for its own sake, respect, change, learning and ever evolving knowledge and skills (Hummels, 2011).

Not only designers are participating in open design; in principle everyone can participate. Key aspect is that everyone brings in their own expertise, and respects and builds on the expertise of others. Consequently, open design implies that the boundary between designers and users / customers is blurring at least with respect to motivation, initiative and needs. We agree with Bruce Sterling (2005) this does not imply that everyone is now a designer, as IKEA and many others are implying. The design profession is still something that requires many years of education and practice, like any other profession. However, (potential) users/customers now bring in their own experience as well as their specific competencies. This can be the case during the design process, for example, during co-creation sessions (Sanders, 2009) or through co-reflection (Tomico Plasencia, 2009). Especially when moving towards interactive and intelligent systems, products and services, the role of the user increases when personalising and adapting products, as was discussed in the previous section 'Intelligent systems'. For example, F# and Visual Studio on a Windows 7 mobile phone enable users to customise the functionality on their phone completely.

Given this changing role of non-designers in the design process, it is important that designers are able to co-operate with experts and users/customers, respect their competencies and simultaneously reflect on their own. More importantly, we believe that in an open design process designers should not merely function as facilitators that run co-design sessions. We believe that open design has enhanced the opportunity for and discussion about designers as subjective participants of a design process in which they are part of the solution space. Obviously, they are part of the solution space when they see themselves as potential user and customers. But based on phenomenology, designers are always an inherent part of their designs and they could even exploit that. Due to the nature of their profession they regularly take a first person perspective, as was discussed in section 2.1.

Concluding, a design process for open design should stimulate the generation of experienceable solutions to explore, generate and validate ideas and steer further developments. It should facilitate the communication between the different people/experts involved. Moreover, 'design making' opens up new solution spaces that go beyond imagination, which becomes especially important in group-settings and for designing disruptive innovative products. Especially for an open design setting we would recommend the adage: reaching quality through making quantity, which asks for a highly iterative process of generating dozens of solutions and testing them in-situ. Moreover, the process should enhance a first person perspective. Finally, open design requires a flexible and open design process that stimulates sharing between and learning from a variety of people.

#### **2.4 Self-directed and competency-centred learning**

152 Industrial Design – New Frontiers

process that supports evolving systems. According to Nelson (1994) it requires new strategies of design, intervention and management. He states that being undisciplined using system thinking and being out-of-control during a creative, hands-on design process are

Concluding, a design process for intelligent or complex systems cannot be based on linear problem solving, but needs to support openness and letting go of control. It needs to support design action and quick iterations within the real life context that give a fast and good insight to what is happening within interaction with experienceable prototypes. It needs to support the emergence of new meaning and usage patterns, preferably over a longer period of time, and support co-evolvement. Moreover, it should be possible to apply the process to an infinite number of individual user/product (system) combinations which

The third development that has in our opinion consequences for the design processes refers to the stakeholders and participants involved in the process, especially collaborative forms like open design, co-creation and participatory design. We see open design as a specific approach to design, in which a group of intrinsically motivated people from various backgrounds develop design opportunities and solutions together in an open community, based on respect for each other's skills and expertise. Open design requires a flexible and open platform that assumes open access, sharing, active participation, responsibility, commitment to do good work for its own sake, respect, change, learning and ever evolving

Not only designers are participating in open design; in principle everyone can participate. Key aspect is that everyone brings in their own expertise, and respects and builds on the expertise of others. Consequently, open design implies that the boundary between designers and users / customers is blurring at least with respect to motivation, initiative and needs. We agree with Bruce Sterling (2005) this does not imply that everyone is now a designer, as IKEA and many others are implying. The design profession is still something that requires many years of education and practice, like any other profession. However, (potential) users/customers now bring in their own experience as well as their specific competencies. This can be the case during the design process, for example, during co-creation sessions (Sanders, 2009) or through co-reflection (Tomico Plasencia, 2009). Especially when moving towards interactive and intelligent systems, products and services, the role of the user increases when personalising and adapting products, as was discussed in the previous section 'Intelligent systems'. For example, F# and Visual Studio on a Windows 7 mobile

Given this changing role of non-designers in the design process, it is important that designers are able to co-operate with experts and users/customers, respect their competencies and simultaneously reflect on their own. More importantly, we believe that in an open design process designers should not merely function as facilitators that run co-design sessions. We believe that open design has enhanced the opportunity for and discussion about designers as subjective participants of a design process in which they are part of the solution space. Obviously, they are part of the solution space when they see themselves as potential user and customers. But based on phenomenology, designers are always an inherent part of their designs and they could even exploit that. Due to the nature of their profession they regularly

phone enable users to customise the functionality on their phone completely.

take a first person perspective, as was discussed in section 2.1.

essential for creating a complex unnatural (designed) world.

all may bring their own unpredicted usage pattern.

knowledge and skills (Hummels, 2011).

**2.3 Open design** 

The fourth and last important development we see that asks for a new design process is a new learning paradigm based on self-directed and competency-centred learning. Not only the focus and the way of designing is changing, as we have discussed in the previous sections, also the education of design is changing, which requires a new view on design processes, as we show in this section.

The new learning paradigm, self-directed and competency-centred learning, stems from a new view on science. Prigogine and Stengers (1984) show that the history of western thinking can be divided into three paradigms: 1) the classical-Christian view developed by e.g. Aristotle, Ptolemy and Thomas Aquinas, 2) the classical-scientific view developed by e.g. Newton and 3) quantum physics, relativity, dissipative & self-organising structure view developed by e.g. Einstein, Bohr and Prigogine (Doll, 1986).

Einstein's theory of relativity dismantled the notion of objectivity and predictability as initiated by the classical-scientific view of Newton. Where Newton's world is essentially simple and closed: it can be modelled through time-reversible laws and all complexes can be reduced to simples, Prigogine's reality is multiple, temporal and complex. It is open and admissible to change. The non-linear nature of the interconnections within complex systems, implies that such systems cannot be reduced because the information is not comprised of separate elements but distributed in a pattern of connections (Fleener, 2005). These systems do not only refer to a sub-atomic level, but to all systems from micro- to macroscopic.

As a consequence, the open, interconnected and complex character of the third paradigm disrupts the quest for certainty, truth, simplicity and objective knowledge, as is often aimed for in 'classical' research (Fleener, 2005), and in 'classical' education. In the classical teachercentred educational approach, teachers take a third person perspective, which Doll calls the God's-eye view. They determine what the student should know and they make use of a measured and uniform curriculum, with tests that are considered objective and predictive. The new paradigm however asks for a learner-centred approach based on a transformative curriculum that emphasises and supports a variety of procedures and interpretations, depending on the learner (Doll, 1986). It asks for new perspectives and learning theories that focus on learner-world relations (Birenbaum, 2003; Segers et al., 2003). In this new paradigm, novice designers learn to learn (what, how and why) and teachers facilitate their learning. Moreover, teachers have become learners too. This will switch their role towards teaching from a first person perspective instead of a third person perspective.

Learning theories based on this new paradigm such as constructivism is gaining interest. The individual or cognitive variants of constructivism assume the locus of knowledge

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 155

we can learn from our actions. Or as Merleau-Ponty (2002) states, perception, through

It is important for novice designers to develop the ability to reflect in and on action as well as reflection for action, not only for designing itself, but also to stimulate learning and direct development. Especially in a learner-centred paradigm designers need to be able to direct their learning thus becoming autonomous and lifelong learners (Vinke & Hummels, 2010). The need to become self-directed lifelong learners is becoming even more important nowadays, because the advances in science and technology follow each other so quickly that large amounts of knowledge and information get outdated rapidly. When looking at the design education of the first author (between 1985 and 1993), there has been an enormous change in focus, tools and techniques. The focus back then was mainly on 'one person - one product' interactions within a fairly static world. Most of the engineering part of the curriculum was based on mechanical engineering and hardly on digital electronics or informatics. Computers were mainly large boxes on desktops and not the mini-processors that are in all interactive devices nowadays. Consequently, functioning effectively in a

So, what are the implications of a self-directed and competency-centred learning paradigm for design processes? Competency-based learning is a highly person- and contextdependent process. Since designers have different traits, characteristics and competencies, the new design process should accommodate these differences, breath flexibility and make designers aware that there are different ways to run a design project. The design process should enable chaos and a disequilibrium, next to a (re-)equilibrium, instead of breathing an atmosphere of control and rigidness. It should express that designers can make mistakes, and more importantly, that they can trust their intuition. Moreover, the design process should value design making (synthesising and concretising) next to design thinking (analysing and abstracting), and put a high emphasis on design action and experience. Moreover, the design process should emphasise and support reflection in, on and for action, not only to develop (tacit) knowledge and make decisions during the design process, but also to support novice designers becoming aware of what they have learned, and stimulate

**2.5 Implications of the changing field of design and education for the design process**  In the previous sections we elucidated four developments in the field of industrial design and design education, and have sketched the implications for the design process. We do realise that a design process is merely a model of reality that emphasises certain values and downplays or even ignores other values. Professional designers have often internalised the design process, using and adjusting it based on the situation at hand. Therefore we believe that design processes are especially beneficial for students who are learning to become a designer. Novice designers have not internalised a process yet, and subsequently have not experienced and decided upon their preferred values. Based on the aforementioned developments, we are looking for a design process that makes novice designers aware of

Next to stressing certain values, design processes are also a means to make ones activities explicit and thus have an opportunity to reflect on those actions. In addition, by making it explicit it can also smoothen the conversation to other stakeholders involved in the process, being it fellow students, participating experts and colleagues, clients or a coach. In addition, it can guide novice designers towards new possible activities within the design process.

action, precedes cognition: reflection is a consequence of action.

rapidly changing society requires the ability to learn continuously.

their overall development as a designer.

values like openness, diversity, flexibility and craftsmanship.

construction to be in the individual learner; the social or situative variants assume this locus to be in socially organised networks (Birenbaum, 2003). Common to both perspectives, however, is the notion of activity: it is the learner who creates meaning, affected by and reflecting her socio-cultural environment. It is about learning and performing through practical application, while simultaneously acquiring theoretical skills and building knowledge. It uses the making skills of the designer as well as her analytical skills to gain knowlegde (Hummels & Vinke, 2009). It is a unity of theory and practice, where experience plays a crucial role (Dewey 1938).

We call the conceptual learning model that fits the above, self-directed and competencycentred learning, which is based on the learning model from Voorhees (2001).

Fig. 3. Self-directed competency-centred learning model (Hummels & Vinke, 2009)

It starts from the traits and characteristics of the individual learner, who learns through doing and from experiences and thus develops knowledge, skills and attitudes in a specific context. When integrating these learning experiences the learner develops competencies which he can demonstrate when applying them. Competency-centred learning is experiential (learn by doing), exemplary (learn from specific situations), context-related (learn within a variety of contexts), reflective (in, on and for action) and it is self-directed, because it is the learner who creates meaning, which can lead to competency development.

Competency development within this paradigm and learning model follows an equilibrium – disequilibrium - re-equilibrium pattern (Piaget, 1971), where one goes from one stable state to another, in which the disequilibrium is often chaos through which one reaches order. Disequilibrium is the driving force of changing behaviour and development. Reflection and action are essential elements to regain order because they can change personal structures and ways of looking at the world and dealing with it (Doll, 1986). This fits Schön's reflective practice that is based on the ability of professionals to know, reflect and learn in and on action; to learn by doing, and through reflection gain an understanding that arises from experience (Schön, 1983). Consequently, designers need to trust their intuition, use their common sense, and dare to make mistakes, or as Schön states it, by entering into an experience, without judgment, responding to surprises through reflection,

construction to be in the individual learner; the social or situative variants assume this locus to be in socially organised networks (Birenbaum, 2003). Common to both perspectives, however, is the notion of activity: it is the learner who creates meaning, affected by and reflecting her socio-cultural environment. It is about learning and performing through practical application, while simultaneously acquiring theoretical skills and building knowledge. It uses the making skills of the designer as well as her analytical skills to gain knowlegde (Hummels & Vinke, 2009). It is a unity of theory and practice, where experience

We call the conceptual learning model that fits the above, self-directed and competency-

centred learning, which is based on the learning model from Voorhees (2001).

Fig. 3. Self-directed competency-centred learning model (Hummels & Vinke, 2009)

It starts from the traits and characteristics of the individual learner, who learns through doing and from experiences and thus develops knowledge, skills and attitudes in a specific context. When integrating these learning experiences the learner develops competencies which he can demonstrate when applying them. Competency-centred learning is experiential (learn by doing), exemplary (learn from specific situations), context-related (learn within a variety of contexts), reflective (in, on and for action) and it is self-directed, because it is the learner who creates meaning, which can lead to competency development. Competency development within this paradigm and learning model follows an equilibrium – disequilibrium - re-equilibrium pattern (Piaget, 1971), where one goes from one stable state to another, in which the disequilibrium is often chaos through which one reaches order. Disequilibrium is the driving force of changing behaviour and development. Reflection and action are essential elements to regain order because they can change personal structures and ways of looking at the world and dealing with it (Doll, 1986). This fits Schön's reflective practice that is based on the ability of professionals to know, reflect and learn in and on action; to learn by doing, and through reflection gain an understanding that arises from experience (Schön, 1983). Consequently, designers need to trust their intuition, use their common sense, and dare to make mistakes, or as Schön states it, by entering into an experience, without judgment, responding to surprises through reflection,

plays a crucial role (Dewey 1938).

we can learn from our actions. Or as Merleau-Ponty (2002) states, perception, through action, precedes cognition: reflection is a consequence of action.

It is important for novice designers to develop the ability to reflect in and on action as well as reflection for action, not only for designing itself, but also to stimulate learning and direct development. Especially in a learner-centred paradigm designers need to be able to direct their learning thus becoming autonomous and lifelong learners (Vinke & Hummels, 2010).

The need to become self-directed lifelong learners is becoming even more important nowadays, because the advances in science and technology follow each other so quickly that large amounts of knowledge and information get outdated rapidly. When looking at the design education of the first author (between 1985 and 1993), there has been an enormous change in focus, tools and techniques. The focus back then was mainly on 'one person - one product' interactions within a fairly static world. Most of the engineering part of the curriculum was based on mechanical engineering and hardly on digital electronics or informatics. Computers were mainly large boxes on desktops and not the mini-processors that are in all interactive devices nowadays. Consequently, functioning effectively in a rapidly changing society requires the ability to learn continuously.

So, what are the implications of a self-directed and competency-centred learning paradigm for design processes? Competency-based learning is a highly person- and contextdependent process. Since designers have different traits, characteristics and competencies, the new design process should accommodate these differences, breath flexibility and make designers aware that there are different ways to run a design project. The design process should enable chaos and a disequilibrium, next to a (re-)equilibrium, instead of breathing an atmosphere of control and rigidness. It should express that designers can make mistakes, and more importantly, that they can trust their intuition. Moreover, the design process should value design making (synthesising and concretising) next to design thinking (analysing and abstracting), and put a high emphasis on design action and experience. Moreover, the design process should emphasise and support reflection in, on and for action, not only to develop (tacit) knowledge and make decisions during the design process, but also to support novice designers becoming aware of what they have learned, and stimulate their overall development as a designer.

#### **2.5 Implications of the changing field of design and education for the design process**

In the previous sections we elucidated four developments in the field of industrial design and design education, and have sketched the implications for the design process. We do realise that a design process is merely a model of reality that emphasises certain values and downplays or even ignores other values. Professional designers have often internalised the design process, using and adjusting it based on the situation at hand. Therefore we believe that design processes are especially beneficial for students who are learning to become a designer. Novice designers have not internalised a process yet, and subsequently have not experienced and decided upon their preferred values. Based on the aforementioned developments, we are looking for a design process that makes novice designers aware of values like openness, diversity, flexibility and craftsmanship.

Next to stressing certain values, design processes are also a means to make ones activities explicit and thus have an opportunity to reflect on those actions. In addition, by making it explicit it can also smoothen the conversation to other stakeholders involved in the process, being it fellow students, participating experts and colleagues, clients or a coach. In addition, it can guide novice designers towards new possible activities within the design process.

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 157

problem solving involves searching the maze selectively and reducing it to manageable solutions.' (Simon, 1969). In order to find these solutions, the designer goes through the

There are many related processes that are based on this process such as the model of human-centred design activities as specified in ISO standard 13407 (Markopoulos et al., 2008). This model has comparable phases, although they are clustered differently and they

Although most of these models have iterative loops and the possibility to redo certain steps, the overall process has a clear order and timeline incorporated. When contrasting it with our conclusion in chapter two, we see several discrepancies. Firstly, this design process starts with analysis before moving towards synthesis, thus blocking approaches that start with design making and experience. In this sense, it does not give equal weight to knowledge, skills and attitudes. Secondly, although the process is iterative (the designer makes several loops of these four steps), the process is sequential and fixed. It doesn't allow for flexibility, personal freedom and context-dependency. Thirdly, although Simon stressed the ill defined and unstructured character of the design task, which we also consider important, he starts with a confined problem space, which does not comply with disruptive innovation and our search for transformation. According to the rational problem solving process, a designer can know beforehand, the width and breadth of his design challenge and its solution domain.

following basic design cycle:

Fig. 4. Rational problem solving process.

put a large emphasis on participation of users (see Figure 5).

Fig. 5. Human-centred design process as specified in ISO standard 13407

We have shown that when designing complex systems, the challenges cannot be formulated exhaustively, challenges are unique and there are multiple opportunities for solution spaces.

We summarize briefly our findings from this chapter for the design process based on the aforementioned developments: disruptive innovation for societal transformation, intelligent systems, open design and self-directed competency-centred learning.

A design process for *disruptive innovation* needs to enable the designer to use her *intuition*, *design action* and *experience* to *envision* new *opportunities* for social and societal *transformation*. It should stimulate design *making* (synthesising and concretising) to open up new solution spaces that go beyond *imagination*, next to design *thinking* (analysing and abstracting). It should be a process that values knowledge, skills and attitudes. Moreover, it needs to stimulate *quick iterations*, reaching quality through *quantity*, by *exploring*, *validating* and *launching* designs in the *real life context*. By developing *experienceable prototypes* throughout the entire process, the designer gets a fast and good insight to what is happening *within interaction* in a *diverse social context* and *market*. In addition, the process needs to express and enable ingredients like *sharing*, *openness*, *uncertainty*, *subjectivity* and *complexity*. The design process should enable *chaos* and a *disequilibrium*, next to a (*re)equilibrium*. It should be able to deal with an infinite number of *individual user/product (system) combinations*. The process should be *flexible* and highly *person- and context-dependent*; support the *diversity* of designers to find *their preferred way* of creating design solutions within a certain *context*. The design process should preferably stimulate the awareness that designing regularly takes a *first person perspective*. Moreover, the design process should emphasise and support *reflection in, on and for action*, not only to develop *(tacit) knowledge* and *make decisions* during the design process, but also to support *novice designers* becoming aware of what they have *learned*, and stimulate and direct their *overall development* as a designer.

### **3. Current paradigms of design methodology**

In the previous chapter we have formulated the characteristics of a process for designing disruptive innovative systems, products and services. Before developing our own process, we first explored if such a process already existed.

When looking at Dubberly's overview of design models (Dubberly, 2005), which is not an exhaustive but certainly a large collection of design models (well over eighty models) we see that a vast majority of the dozens of presented models start with some form of 'thinking' activity before moving towards synthesis, such as analysing, establishing needs, gathering and ordering information, understanding the context of use, establishing goals, planning, setting requirements, formulating the boundaries and the overall problem. Moreover, a vast majority of the presented models have a clear order and timeline line, be it linear, circular, a waterfall or wave-shaped, either with or without iterative loops and the possibility to redo certain steps.

The values that these models express seem to be incongruous with values like openness, flexibility and being out-of-control. Moreover, they seem to put cognition first, in contrast to Merleau-Ponty's stance that perception, through action, and pre-reflective experience precedes cognition: reflection is a consequence of action.

When looking at Dorst (1997) we see a similar pattern. He compares two influential paradigms of design methodology, one in which design is seen as a rational problem solving process (Simon, 1969; Roozenburg & Eekels, 1991), and one that regards design as an activity involving reflective practice (Schön, 1983).

#### **3.1 Rational problem solving**

This approach, which was introduced by Simon (1969), can be described as '… the search for a solution through the vast maze of possibilities (within the problem space) … Successful problem solving involves searching the maze selectively and reducing it to manageable solutions.' (Simon, 1969). In order to find these solutions, the designer goes through the following basic design cycle:

Fig. 4. Rational problem solving process.

156 Industrial Design – New Frontiers

We summarize briefly our findings from this chapter for the design process based on the aforementioned developments: disruptive innovation for societal transformation, intelligent

A design process for *disruptive innovation* needs to enable the designer to use her *intuition*, *design action* and *experience* to *envision* new *opportunities* for social and societal *transformation*. It should stimulate design *making* (synthesising and concretising) to open up new solution spaces that go beyond *imagination*, next to design *thinking* (analysing and abstracting). It should be a process that values knowledge, skills and attitudes. Moreover, it needs to stimulate *quick iterations*, reaching quality through *quantity*, by *exploring*, *validating* and *launching* designs in the *real life context*. By developing *experienceable prototypes* throughout the entire process, the designer gets a fast and good insight to what is happening *within interaction* in a *diverse social context* and *market*. In addition, the process needs to express and enable ingredients like *sharing*, *openness*, *uncertainty*, *subjectivity* and *complexity*. The design process should enable *chaos* and a *disequilibrium*, next to a (*re)equilibrium*. It should be able to deal with an infinite number of *individual user/product (system) combinations*. The process should be *flexible* and highly *person- and context-dependent*; support the *diversity* of designers to find *their preferred way* of creating design solutions within a certain *context*. The design process should preferably stimulate the awareness that designing regularly takes a *first person perspective*. Moreover, the design process should emphasise and support *reflection in, on and for action*, not only to develop *(tacit) knowledge* and *make decisions* during the design process, but also to support *novice designers* becoming aware of what they have *learned*, and

In the previous chapter we have formulated the characteristics of a process for designing disruptive innovative systems, products and services. Before developing our own process,

When looking at Dubberly's overview of design models (Dubberly, 2005), which is not an exhaustive but certainly a large collection of design models (well over eighty models) we see that a vast majority of the dozens of presented models start with some form of 'thinking' activity before moving towards synthesis, such as analysing, establishing needs, gathering and ordering information, understanding the context of use, establishing goals, planning, setting requirements, formulating the boundaries and the overall problem. Moreover, a vast majority of the presented models have a clear order and timeline line, be it linear, circular, a waterfall or wave-shaped, either with or without iterative loops and the possibility to redo certain steps. The values that these models express seem to be incongruous with values like openness, flexibility and being out-of-control. Moreover, they seem to put cognition first, in contrast to Merleau-Ponty's stance that perception, through action, and pre-reflective experience

When looking at Dorst (1997) we see a similar pattern. He compares two influential paradigms of design methodology, one in which design is seen as a rational problem solving process (Simon, 1969; Roozenburg & Eekels, 1991), and one that regards design as an

This approach, which was introduced by Simon (1969), can be described as '… the search for a solution through the vast maze of possibilities (within the problem space) … Successful

systems, open design and self-directed competency-centred learning.

stimulate and direct their *overall development* as a designer.

**3. Current paradigms of design methodology** 

we first explored if such a process already existed.

precedes cognition: reflection is a consequence of action.

activity involving reflective practice (Schön, 1983).

**3.1 Rational problem solving** 

There are many related processes that are based on this process such as the model of human-centred design activities as specified in ISO standard 13407 (Markopoulos et al., 2008). This model has comparable phases, although they are clustered differently and they put a large emphasis on participation of users (see Figure 5).

Although most of these models have iterative loops and the possibility to redo certain steps, the overall process has a clear order and timeline incorporated. When contrasting it with our conclusion in chapter two, we see several discrepancies. Firstly, this design process starts with analysis before moving towards synthesis, thus blocking approaches that start with design making and experience. In this sense, it does not give equal weight to knowledge, skills and attitudes. Secondly, although the process is iterative (the designer makes several loops of these four steps), the process is sequential and fixed. It doesn't allow for flexibility, personal freedom and context-dependency. Thirdly, although Simon stressed the ill defined and unstructured character of the design task, which we also consider important, he starts with a confined problem space, which does not comply with disruptive innovation and our search for transformation. According to the rational problem solving process, a designer can know beforehand, the width and breadth of his design challenge and its solution domain.

Fig. 5. Human-centred design process as specified in ISO standard 13407

We have shown that when designing complex systems, the challenges cannot be formulated exhaustively, challenges are unique and there are multiple opportunities for solution spaces.

Designing Disruptive Innovative Systems, Products and Services: RTD Process 159

designers understand the principles of disruptive innovation, of designing intelligent systems, products and related services, of open design and of learning to become a designer within a competency-centred and self-directed learning setting. This process is called the Reflective Transformative Design process (RTD process) (Hummels and Frens, 2008). With our RTD process we do not aim at negating the existence and value of other used design and developmental processes. In many cases other processes can even be incorporated in the RTD process, due to its open character. Nevertheless, we want to offer a process expressing

The Reflective Transformative Design process (RTD process) is especially created to address the changing field of design and design education as discussed in chapter two. It supports designing disruptive innovative products and intelligent, open systems. Moreover, it does not only aim at supporting the creation such designs, but also aim at supporting novice designers to learn and develop while becoming a designer. In this chapter, we first explain the model, before elucidating how it supports the changing field of design and education.

Developing design solutions, which are placed in the centre of this model, can be seen as a process of taking decisions based on too little information. The breadth and complexity of

specific values for the changing field of design and design education.

**4. Reflective Transformative Design process** 

Fig. 7. The Reflective Transformative Design process.

**4.1 The model** 

Consequently, designing complex systems cannot be tackled through problem solving in a linear or cyclical controlled process, like the ones described above.

On the positive side, one can say that the process incorporates natural moments of reflection. For example, in the beginning of the synthesis phase, the designer is stimulated to diverge and develop many solutions, reflect on these ideas, converge and finally work towards one solution. As can be expected, these moments of reflection are guided by the requirements set within the analysis phase, which is again too limiting for our approach.

#### **3.2 Reflective practice**

Schön introduced in 1983 the reflective practitioner to stress the importance of the training of practitioners in the profession and to link the design process and task in a concrete design situation. The implicit 'knowing-in-action' is important, but this, hard to formalise, knowledge is difficult to teach. Therefore, Schön introduced reflection-in/on-action, in order to train the 'knowing-in-action' habits. In this process the designer goes through four steps:

#### Fig. 6. Reflective practice design process.

Given the importance Schön attaches to implicit 'knowing-in-action' and reflection in and on action, the starting points of reflective practice match our conclusions in chapter two. It integrates knowledge, skills and attitude. It stimulates and acknowledges the ability of design professionals to know, reflect and learn in and on action; to learn by doing, and through reflection gain an understanding that arises from experience. Schön respects a designer's intuition, by letting her enter into an experience without judgment and respond to surprises through reflection, which is the way to learn from our actions.

So, why create a new design process and not adopt Schön's process? Firstly, the design process is rather global and it appears to offer insufficient support for our students to develop their vision and stimulate reflection. The moments of reflection are triggered by surprise during the process, which seems not enough for novice designers, because they have to develop their 'knowing-in-action' habits. Moreover, the design process is still sequential starting with naming and framing, which are both related to the analysis phases of the basic design cycle. So, in that sense, the analytical skills seem to prevail, even though Schön shows the importance of experience, making and intuition for reflective practice. Finally, although the design task is unique and context-dependent, the process as such is not flexible.

#### **3.3 Concluding**

Although there are many more design processes and approaches than we can describe here, we have concluded that most existing processes have positive and negative aspects for designing disruptive innovative intelligent systems, products and related services. Most processes use a sequential approach to gather information; a formal analysis phase precedes the creative conceptual phase. Moreover, the majority regards design action as something that implements knowledge instead as something that generates knowledge.

Since a design process is merely a model of reality which emphasises certain values and downplays or even ignores other values, we have created a new process to help novice designers understand the principles of disruptive innovation, of designing intelligent systems, products and related services, of open design and of learning to become a designer within a competency-centred and self-directed learning setting. This process is called the Reflective Transformative Design process (RTD process) (Hummels and Frens, 2008). With our RTD process we do not aim at negating the existence and value of other used design and developmental processes. In many cases other processes can even be incorporated in the RTD process, due to its open character. Nevertheless, we want to offer a process expressing specific values for the changing field of design and design education.
