ANALYSYS OF THE DESIGN DISCOURSE OF PRODUCT DESIGNERS JÚLIO CARLOS DE SOUZA VAN DER LINDEN1 1 Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, julio.linden@ufrgs.br Abstract: This paper analyzes the design discourse of product designers and aims to understand the balance between the requirements imposed by the technical rationality and the emotional needs of designers. Eight designers were interviewed and organized in two groups, according to their profiles: experienced and young designers. The results indicate that the relations with the business and the type of experience with product development are more important than the academic background of the designers in their constitution of a design discourse. Keywords: product design, design discourse, design methodology 1. Introduction There has been constant evolution between the individual creative work and the process of innovation in organizations that can be described in terms of increased complexity, be it related to the nature of the objects being created / designed or to the nature of the creative process / project. The idea of designing products differs from the idea of creating an object and results from the specialization of functions, with noticeable work transformation in the last three centuries (NAVEIRO; OLIVEIRA, 2001; FORTY, 2007). In the context of world trade and skilled labor, creation is neither personal nor for the adjoining; furthermore, it no longer occurs during production itself, but before and, at times, far from it (BOMFIM, 1984; FORTY, 2007). This requires mastery of supplementary skills, in addition to what is within reach of the subject, leading to a preparation for the creation, even in the case of very simple objects, increasing the need of the project itself. Different relations in the individual creative process and the team design process can be observed, ranging from a level of intra-subjectivity (motivation, imagination, decision) to various levels of inter-subjectivity (team, organization, society), often hidden under the cloak of the technical objectivity of the discourse. More often than not there are issues connected to reason and emotion. In the last decades of the twentieth century, transformations of society, combined with advances in technology, have altered the roles of professions associated with innovation. Environmental requirements led to approaches to minimize negative impacts (as in Manzini, Vezzoli, 2002). The globalization of business and communication accessibility changed the pace of product development, with repercussions on the entire chain, including the processes of Engineering and Design (NAVEIRO; OLIVEIRA, 2001; ULRICH; EPPINGER, 2008). Effectiveness is now crucial to the survival of industrial organizations, leading to the implementation of tools and methods that enable the reduction of uncertainty and costs (BAXTER, 1998), assigning to design a strategic role in business (SANTOS, 2000; MARTINS; MERINO, 2008). New management practices for product development mean that each process activity, including design, is a factor to be controlled and measured. Such depiction of designers tends to disconnect their image from authorship. It implies changes that affect the rational grounds of the design process, especially emotional issues, related not only to self-image, but also to the final product. It is important to study the effects of contemporary ideas in the design process and its outcomes (artifacts, tools, machinery). The current discussion that associates Design with emotion (JORDAN, 2000; Norman, 2004) must be checked for both the process and the product. One way to understand this development and how it affects material production is to investigate the practice of designers that work for industries with formalized management processes. In this context, this research hypothesized that factors such as graduation (not just the area of the course, but also references taken over training), the project context (in industry or in office) and the project theme (products with greater emphasis on technological aspects or more influence on socio-cultural factors) affect discussion and design practice, with direct consequences on methodological procedures. Individual variables such as values and beliefs, as well as cognitive style, will probably have an important effect on discourse and design practice. This work aims to draw a map of design discourse and the rational and emotional reasons that foster the development of academic models or for entry-level professionals. . 2. The evolution of Design Methods One of the first descriptions of the design process was systematized by Bruce Archer in 1963, with a model that requires different approaches: systematic observation and inductive reasoning in the analytical phase, and subjective judgment and deductive reasoning in the creative phase. His conception permitted the formal inclusion of intuition and creativity in the context of the design process. At the same time, Morris Asimow proposed a model that can be seen as a predecessor of the model development phase of products. This model, which already considered the life cycle of a product, initiated analyzing the needs, going through a feasibility study, before entering the characteristic design stages, which came after the activities related to production, distribution, consumption and disposal. The need to reduce uncertainty in new product development, with increasing competition and market maturity, led to the creation of new methods, especially in Engineering, which converged to a "model phase, comprising four stages (...) found in slightly different versions in several books, especially French (1985), Pahl and Beitz (1984) and Hubka (1989) "(ROOZEMBURG; EECKELS, 1995, p.102). In the 1980s, Gui Bonsiepe presented a description of a model design process that is still a reference to Design Methodology in undergraduate courses in Brazil. These models, called first generation, were characterized by a linear design (Figure 1) and the scientific logic following it (inductive-deductive). Figure 1: models of first-generation design (Asimow, French and Bonsiepe), adapted from Asimow (1962), Roozemburg and Eeckels (1995) and Bonsiepe et al. (1984), respectively Other models were developed, to describe the design process, from the analysis of first-generation methods. One of them was proposed by March (1984) from the view that the inductive-deductive thought would be insufficient to describe the design process in Design. Based on the ideas of Charles Sanders Peirce, with respect to productive thinking, March described the process as a cyclical pattern that begins with production (preliminary requirements and assumptions on types of solutions that produce or describe a concept design), follows through deduction (to predict its performance) and goes through an inductive moment (indicating changes and refinements in the concept), resuming production (P), deduction (D) and induction (I), as many times as necessary, constantly refining and redefining the project (Figure 2). Another non-linear model of the design process was formulated by the Design Council, adopting the idea of divergent and convergent processes in two blocks of four phases: Discovery, Definition, Development and Distribution. Discovery and Development correspond to divergent processes, while Definition and Distribution are convergent. The elements disposed within the model indicate exploratory activities and concentration, in the "diamond" on the left, and iteration activities in the Development, which consist of prototype-testing-refinement cycles. The structure used to describe the model named it: Double Diamond. To complete this brief survey of nonlinear models, it is worth mentioning the model adopted by IDEO, an international design consultancy company. The process is "best described metaphorically as a system of spa e than as a se ies of p edefined o de ed steps B own, 2008, P. 88 . This design space involves three fields of activities: Inspiration, Idealization and Implementation. Inspiration corresponds to the circumstances that motivate the search for a solution; it can be a problem, an observation or both. The Idealization is the process of generation, development and testing of ideas that could lead to a solution. Implementation corresponds to the market launch. Throughout a project, the three spaces can be explored, particularly the first two, in order to refine ideas and walk new paths. Figure 2: nonlinear models of the design process (March, Design Council and IDEO), adapted from Cross (2008), Design Council (2007) and Brown (2008), respectively 3. Methodology This research, in the field of Design Praxiology, analyses the way people design (Cross, 2007). The approach adopted is qualitative and it is a descriptive research (Gil, 2008). In-depth interviews (GIBBS, 2009) were held in rooms prepared for capturing sound and images, and the designers were encouraged to register, in paper, models, schemes, diagrams, flowcharts or whatever they remembered during their speech. A protocol developed at three levels was used: guiding topics, general issues and specific questions. The guiding topics were defined based on the objectives of the research, while the general issues and specific questions were adapted from the work of Coran and Fraser (2004). Interviews began with the first guiding topic (On the career) and, according to answers, could proceed from general questions and, eventually, to specific issues. As a rule, it should move on to the second topic (On the designe ’s self-image), but this order was altered, in some cases, so as to follow the reasoning of interviewees and to prevent the loss of important contributions. Such procedure had already been stipulated in the protocol. Table 1 shows both guiding topics and general issues. Table 1: Protocol's guiding topics and general questions Guiding Topics General Issues ABOUT THE CAREER How has your career been developed? Initially, we will talk a out your career." What is your vision of the future in this career? How do you assess your career? ON THE DESIGNER’“ SELF-IMAGE "How do you assess yourself professionally?" What distinguishes your work from the work of other offices / professionals? Do your projects have a personal style? Product How is your work process? ON THE WORK PROCESS How would you summarize your design approach? "How do you work?" What words would you use to define your design process? ON DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES What difficulties have you faced as a product designer? "What barriers do you face?" What challenges do you see in your work? ON MOTIVATION What internal forces drive your work? "What motivates you at work?" What external factors drive your work? ABOUT PROJECT VISION What makes a good project? "Finally, what is good design?" When can you define that an object has a good design? We interviewed eight designers, diveded in two groups, according to different profiles: experienced and entry-level designers. The first group included two designers with undergraduate training in architecture, one with an arts background and one with a degree in industrial design. Such profiles are consistent with the time they started working. The second group had only graduated professionals. The eight designers work in different contexts: two are self employed and own their offices, two own furniture stores and have their own production, two work for industrial companies and two work for design offices (Table 2). Table 2: Profile of the interviewed designers Subject Background Classification Workplace Designer 1 Degree in Architecture Experient Design office Designer 2 Degree in Architecture Experient Furniture store Designer 3 Degree in Design Experient Furniture store Designer 4 Degree in Arts Experient Design office Designer 5 Degree in Design Entry-level professional Industry Designer 6 Degree in Design Entry-level professional Design office Designer 7 Degree in Design Entry-level professional Industry Designer 8 Degree in Design Entry-level professional Design office 4. Analysis of the Design discourse Interviews were analyzed according to the procedures recommended by GIBBS (2009). They were transcribed maintaining the characteristics of colloquial speech, omitting only passages in which respondents addressed issues that can not be made public. As a starting point for analysis, their discourses were summarized, considering the words used to describe the design process (Table 3). In the case of Designer 1, as he had not been asked, a phrase was chosen to describe his vision. In other cases, it is clear that responses adequately summarize their theories and practices as designers. In the cases of Designers 2 and 3, the focus is the product. Designers 4, 5 and 8 used words that describe the essence of the process. Designers 6 and 7 self-assessed their works with words that describe themselves. In this case, little work experience may not set designers apart from their design process, which is even more ideal (mental) than real. Table 3: Answe s to uestion Whi h wo ds would you use to define your design p o ess? Subject Words that define design process Designer 1 (...) we go through a process that we call strategic development with design.(...) . To ourselves, we make a critical analysis of what is outside. Designer 2 Maybe I'm unrelenting. I try not to circumvent much, you know? Like, trying to find excuses for this and that, you know. It's like, it worked or not, if it did not work well, let’s get this out, you know. Designer 3 Reference is background. I think it is similar to cleaning. Pursuance, I think, plays a primordial role. Designer 4 A lot of observation. (...) So, I would say, my activity, my work today, is the result of much observation, a way to educate myself through these twenty-odd years of activity. Designer 5 I think it would be ... task, opportunity, necessity, usability, ergonomics, and creativity. More or less everything. Designer 6 Restless, stubborn, unconventional, curious, simple. Designer 7 I consider myself, as I have several times perceived, perfectionist. (...) I consider myself an observer because I, just… it is a mixture with perfectionism, I try to find something else, there must be something else. Designer 8 Patience ... passion ... and ... proactivity. I skipped the fourth, it would be perseverance. (...) You can put them in a sequence; you can string them in the design process. Other dimensions analyzed in the comparison of the discourses of the designers interviewed refered to how they see themselves and design, as well as how they guide their own design processes. As regards their views (as designers), the profiles found in these interviews can be classified into three categories: the designer as an author of the product, the designer as an actor in the process of product development, and the designer as a factor of a successful product. As for their vision of design, two categories emerged from the interviews: business and social. Regarding the orientation of the design process, we found three categories: culture oriented, user-oriented, and business-oriented. In none of these ratings categories are totally exclusive, they are just the dominant part of the discourse of each designer. Their use, as shown in Table 4, allows us to identify some patterns that can be exploited in the analysis of their design discourses. The most homogeneous cases, if it is possible to use this term, tend to validate this proposal: Designers 4 and 5, classified as actors in the process / company / business; and Designers 2 and 3 ranked as the authors of product / social / culture. With respect to the others, the differences in the discourses put them in different classifications, despite their affinities in some categories. For example, while differing in two dimensions, they have a similar vision of the social aspect of design. However, designers 1 and 7 have affinities in two dimensions and differ in the orientation of the design process. Tabel 4: Classification of designers interviewed according to their views and orientation Subject View as designer View of design process orientation Designer 1 success factor company business Designer 2 author of the product social culture Designer 3 author of the product social culture Designer 4 actor in the process company business Designer 5 actor in the process company business Designer 6 success factor social user Designer 7 success factor company user Designer 8 author of the product social business Another aspect analyzed was the identification of similarities among the discourses of the eight respondents and methods available in the literature. Depending on the training and reference of each of them, association with another author can be either easier or extremely risky. One reason for this fact lies in the informal learning that led, in some cases, to the development of similar approaches to what some authors propose. For example, interactions and iterations shown in the description of the work process of Designer 1 correspond not only to the Double Diamond model (Design Council), which was selected as akin to his way of work, but also to the model of IDEO and March. Considering this, and also assuming that this is not an approach validated by the interviewees, a framework that synthesizes what has been named affinity of the discourse of the interviewees with the models was drawn up (Figure 3). It is important to recall that the models adopted are some of the most relevant available, although they do not exhaust the existing literature. This is part of a research, based on the criteria of the researcher. Asimow French Bonsiepe Designer 1 Designer 2 Designer 3 Designer 4 Designer 5 Designer 6 Designer 7 Designer 8 Figure 3: Affinity of the discourse of the interviewees with the literature models March Design Council IDEO In this context, half of the respondents were associated with one of the models: Designer 1 to the Design Council; Designers 2 and 3 to the model of March; and Designer 7 to the Bonsiepe model. The first case had already been reviewed. In the case of the March model, it is a description of a process that occurs at the individual level, treating cognitive operations of the creative process. For the case of those other two interviewees, this is the most appropriate model, since it focuses on the author. Obviously, it is susceptible to criticism: it is thought to ignore interactions with other people, such as the auxiliary staff (as in the case of Designer 2) and suppliers of prototypes (in both cases). But how can such a model represent the process that characterizes designers as authors, despite their differences and the complexity of their projective realities? In the case of Designer 7, the choice for the Bonsiepe model happened because it is in fact one of his academic references and because it is suitable to synthesize the ideal process, whose actual process of transcription was deleted due to the criticism to the reality of the company. In the other cases, affinities with two models were found; three cases showed a relationship of continuity and one case presented a level correlation of the process. In the case of Designers 4 and 5, the French model shows affinities in the early stages of the design process. For the first, from the definition of the concept, the affinity with the model of the Design Council seems greater, due to the successive iterations that occur in concept tests, as concept materializes (a linear process followed by an iterative one). In the second case, the model of Asimow shows affinity with what happens after the approval of the product, when concerns are related to production and market launch (a linear process followed by another one). Designer 6 also indicates a linear process followed by an iterative one, starting with the Bonsiepe model up to the generation of alternatives (this author is also one of his academic references) followed by the Design Council model to resume the process of analysis. As for Designer 8, by the emphasis on two aspects of project work, constant mental work and teamwork, the association with models of March and IDEO seemed the best solution to illustrate the case, once there are two levels instead of a process. 5. Final considerations Discourse analysis of eight designers who were interviewed in this study brought elements that allow multiple readings, depending on the researcher's interest. Thinking only of design methodology, all of them show a perceptible lack of an explicit link with one or another type of literature. In the case of level-entry designers, all with a degree in Product Design, this observation, despite lacking statistical value, draws attention to what really might be appropriate for students after graduating from the academy. As for the background, except for one, who is self-taught in design methodology for the design of products, they would be expected to demonstrate a more explicit reference range. This occurs in only one case, with a designer who holds a Master’s Degree, having thus approached new references. The results of the analysis of the interviews indicate that the relationship with the business and the type of experience with product development are more important than the education of designers in the constitution of their design discourse. Affective factors, manifested through relationship issues with customers and suppliers, as well as organizational culture, are barriers identified in four cases, including entry-level and experienced designers. An important aspect of this research will allow advance continuity in terms of qualitative methodology. The deepening of the instruments and the review of previous analyzes, and the inclusion of new cases that may require new categorization or inspire new conceptions of the review process, will expand the gains in addition to the knowledge produced by research itself. References ASIMOW, M. (1962) Introduction to Design, Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey. BAXTER, M. (1998) Projeto de produto. São Paulo: Edgard Blücher. BOMFIM, G. A. (1984). Metodologia para desenvolvimento de projeto. Campina Grande: UFPB. BONSIEPE, G., KELLNER, P., POESSNECKER, H. Metodologia experimental. Brasília: CNPq, 1984. BROWN, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, p. 84-92, June CONRAN, T.; FRASER, M. (2004) Designers on design. New York: HarperCollins. CROSS, N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser. CROSS, N. (2008) Engineering Design Methods. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DESIGN Council (2007). Eleven Lessons: managing design in eleven global companies. [online] Available at <http://www.designcouncil.org.uk> [Accessed 15 December 2009] . FORTY, A.(2007).Objetos de desejo. São Paulo: Cossac Naify. GIBBS, G. (2009). Análise de Dados Qualitativos. Porto Alegre: Bookman. GIL, A. C. (2008). Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social. São Paulo: Atlas. JORDAN, P. W. (2000) Designing Pleasurable Products. London: Taylor & Francis. MANZINI, E.; VEZZOLI, C. (2000). O Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Produtos. São Paulo: Edusp. MARTINS, R. F. de F.; MERINO, E. A. D. (2008). A Gestão do Design como estratégia Organizacional. Londrina: EDUEL. NAVEIRO, R. M.; OLIVEIRA, V. F. (2001). Evolução e Atualidade do Projeto. In: NAVEIRO, R. M.; OLIVEIRA, V. F. de (2001). O projeto de engenharia, arquitetura e desenho industrial: conceitos, reflexões, aplicações e formação profissional. Juiz de Fora: UFJF, p. 13-24. NORMAN, D. (2004). Emotional Design. New York: Basic Books. PERKS, H.; COOPER, R.; JONES, C. (2005). Characterizing the Role of Design in New Product Development: An Empirically Derived Taxonomy. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 22, p.111–127. ROOZEMBURG, N.F.M., EEKELS, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. SANTOS, F. A. N. V. (2000). O Design como diferencial competitivo. Itajaí: Univali. ULRICH, K.T; EPPINGER, S. D. (2008) Product Design and Development. Boston: Irwin, 4th Ed.