Prototypes - approach with caution?

In the opening talk of Day 2 Glen Adamson presented us with the idea that a prototype can be a positive or negative thing.

A prototype can be used to persuade, to sell a vision - which can be slightly sinister in some cases. It can trick us into a false sense of security, letting us think we are seeing something completely resolved which can prevent us from questioning and exploring - 'a prototype can be a troublesome thing.'

During the discussion that followed the morning session Rosan Chow defended the prototype from this level of criticism, telling us that prototypes do no harm - it's the way people use them that can be harmful - or as another delegate put it - 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

I had never previously thought of a prototype as something which could be negative - that it's powers could be used for evil rather than for good!

During the short film 'The American Look - A tribute to the men and women who design' you see the management team looking over a slick prototype of a 1950's Chevrolet. They glance at it, then shake hands with each other, nodding and patting each other on the back before heading off to smoke their pipes.

Still taken from 'The American Look'

I have to say that this is never the way I have seen a prototype treated in industry.

In my experience prototypes are scrutinised, pulled apart and questioned

The type of analysis required from different groups and the type of prototype required can depend on who the audience for your prototype is and at what level they will need to engage with it.

Throughout the conference the 'rough and ready', lo-fi prototyping method was a popular approach for our speakers. This reinforced the idea that a prototype was an unfinished, developmental tool.

Stuart Brown presented a slightly different angle. The high flying, time poor surgeons he was designing for would not have engaged with a basic prototype and so the design team employed high end rapid prototyping techniques to present their concept.

This Symposium as a Prototype?

It was mentioned on several occasions that this conference was a prototype. If so, did it fulfil the 'characteristics of a prototype' which were discussed over the two days?

The event was exploratory, opened up a discussion space, brought people together across different cultural and professional barriers, sparked conversations in the lecture theatre and outside.

Michael Schrage, Alex Murray-Leslie, Cat Rossi, Liz Sanders and Chris Van der Kuyl

The symposium was a carrier of many different types of knowledge which the delegates could pick and choose from according to their interests and experiences. The conference has also helped us make some sense of the future and explore where craft, design and prototyping is going.

In my opinion all the characteristics of the best kind of prototype!

Too much R&D?

Speaker: Dr Stuart Brown, University of Dundee : Prototyping for High Value, Time Poor Users

From hearing an artist talk, to the views of a mechanical engineer, Dr Stuart Brown leader of the Surgical Technology Group, an R&D group at the University of Dundee, closed the morning session with his take on the ‘value of prototyping.’

Prototypers can spend years investing (both time and financially) designing a product that in 20 years time can become cheap and everyone has one…indeed I can’t believe the number of people who have an i-phone. Is this something we should get frustrated about or is it just the way of the world?

When I was growing up I remember my mum used to spend two hours cooking up a fresh curry, only for it to be gobbled up by the family in five minutes. It’s a fact of life that research and making (and cooking!) takes ages and when you get to the end product all that gets forgotten. Chicks on Speed’s guitar stiletto is another example, when you see it on display at DCA, you could never imagine the process that went into making in, the fact Alex explained the ‘tale’, makes seeing the shoe in real life so much more impressive.

But can we keep going this way? Isn’t that why he have computers these days to make the design process quicker/easier and cheaper? Would digital prototypes suit a client’s needs or is a physical product still expected?
Stuart put forward some of his opinions with reference to the design process of tools in the ‘surgical’ industry.

Clearly there are benefits to the technical approach – its quick, does the job and adds some prestige. So why aren’t we doing everything by computer instead of clay? Doesn’t real life need things to be done the real way? As we heard yesterday in the aerospace world, the construction of lifesize prototypes are still necessary in that industry.

One of the points that Stuart raised was that he is required to make high value products but because his clients (top surgeons) are time poor, they aren’t always available to get involved in the collaborative process prototyping requires, and that’s where the problem lies. This led him to talk about ‘abstract prototyping’.

Prototypes are vehicles of concept, and to show someone your concept you need to give them some sort of visual aid, whether that’s a physical object or virtual construction. The ‘debate’ itself is not one that was ‘solved’ in the talk but it’s certainly something for us to think about. My own interpretation is that you need to adapt your prototyping to each situation, I’ve never been a fan of spending ages and ages in R&D but clearly it’s vital in some industries and as makers/designers/artists etc, we should be respectful of that – there are always things to be learned from the way other people do things.
s