Norddesign paper approved

These are good news, I will be presenting my paper: Emotional prosthetics: Artificialy replace physical manifestations of emotions with the purpose of enhance the Mother-Son multisensory bond inside the intensive care environment. Next August (22-24) in the Norddesign conference in Aalborg University in Denmark. Here I left you the the abstract.

Collecting the mother’s emotional physical manifestations (EPM) and replicate those into the incubator machine environment can help preterm baby’s self regulation. Here’s presented a method to assess mother-child emotional care situations and  extract the right stimuli (EPM) from them that could  produce in the baby a emotional response that help him to improve his health condition as well as a mediation interface that harvest the stimuli from the mother and deliver it to the baby

 

Disruptive innovation techniques: DeBono's last child

Edward De Bono in his ''Lateral thinking'' said, ''the whole purpose of lateral thinking is to restructure the mind patterns, to disrupt them, to be able to see the things in a different way''. When I watched this presentation it gave me the idea of being reading a really good summary of De Bono's book. Here Luke Williams apply the notion of disruptiveness to three main areas: strategies, thinking and expectations and explain how the introduction of this concept can leverage innovation, hence success, in your company.

This talk is full with real business cases of Frog design (where the speaker is a fellow) and other business leader that relate this theoretical process with real successful innovations. One thing that I personally found really interesting is that the organizational processes to innovate are shifting their focus from efficiency and system theory to a more anthropological area, actually they are going into the psychology of the people involve in these processes. What DeBono wrote thinking in the improvement of the creative performance of individuals now is been taken as a way to improve organizational performance on innovation, in other words, how we can make innovation part of our organization process? or how we can build an organization centered on innovation? well...improving the creative performance of each person involved in the organization. But it is still a gap of going from the individual to the organizational level, and it is how we translate an mind process in a collective process. Again De Bono give us a hand in his book the "Six thinking hats'', but even when he manage to describe how to deal with the collective addressing of problem there is still an environmental issues to solve in order to empowered the creative processes in collective work settings, but that's another post.

For now it's good to enjoy a very dynamic talk, full of nice examples, of how to address the innovation through disruptiveness, a concept cast almost forty years ago that still remain fresh.

For more information of the speaker go here

and for his book in disrupt innovation go here

Designer! which kind? ....mm...Designer

Design is a common noun for a big amount of different occupations. As people who have a degree on design sometimes we feel a rather disappointed with common notion of Design that able to almost everybody to become a designer just by personal statement, and because of this we usually try to separate ourselves from the crowd saying that we are Industrial, Graphic, Product, Information, Interaction, Car, Yacht, Fashion, Furniture, Interior, Stage, Green, Red, Blue or else Designer; we are good on that.

In contrast with this recently a group of Design researchers has publish a paper on Design Issues that try to find common places in diverse disciplines of the design though a very simple methodology, conversation. They realize a series of workshops with a handfull of expert Designers (more than 10 years of practice) from different fields. From the fashion design to jet engine design and from furniture design to TV documentary. The first thing they found was that, although with some nuances, all the Designers talk the same language. When an engine Designer was put into conversation with a graphic one the only idea that needed an explanation was ''thumbnail'' and it was quickly grasped... by the engine designer. So language, I mean technical language, even through heavy specialization is a common tool.

Other interesting finding of the study was that we relate the idea of good design mainly with the acceptance and recognition coming from our peers, and only then with the user acceptance, sintitutional recognition or commercial success.

One big resemblance in all the stories told by the designers is the creative relationship with the material. Great deal of the time expended in the projects and the actual search -and find- of solutions goes through the hands and the direct contact with the material. Though the ''conversations'' with the material can be more or less physically attended, the direct experience and experimentation seems to be extremely relevant. In this way the lamp designer play with the glass to find out new shapes, properties and effects that can be use in the design as the engine designer, as well as the graphic one, includes the properties and qualities of the steel or the typography as constrains and capabilities that drives de design process.

The research unveils that in the communication area the main tool is by far the Sketching. Even when the computer techniques allow us to render projects more accurately (and more convincingly for the clients) than the hand, the sketching still prevail when it comes to capture and develop ideas.

The study also goes through the relationship with the final user and the big amount of energy spent in every design project on managing the uncertainty of collaborations with people and policies and as a conclusion stress the wide range of commonalities that bring designers together rather than split them around different technical, cultural and business context; and how much we need tools that make us aware of this and foster respect across the design world.

Even though this research found some really important insight of the design praxis, there are still some questions that should be address in order to bring about information on how designers are connected to each other further than the common places of the practice, which can also be found in others disciplines. We need to ask us about, how designers work out the difficult relationship between creation of new things (or stuffs as R.Gold said) and the renovation of the already existent things? Also, which are (if there are) the commonalities of our generative process in contrast with other creative areas? Learn about this can drive us to a more deep understanding of our discipline and its practical values.

Biomimética aplicada al desarrollo de modelos de negocios

Gunter Pauli on Biomimetism (Lift France 09, EN) from Lift Conference on Vimeo.

En este blog la verdad creo que nunca he publicado nada acerca de negocios, mas bien esta dedicado a temas de diseño, tecnología, ciencia y una que otra disvariación acerca de como desarrollamos y trabajamos en base a procesos creativos. Pero aunque a veces no nos guste el negocio es una actividad transversal a casi todas las otras.

En el diseño el negocio...bueno casi se podría decir que el diseño es negocio. Desde el diseño como la venerable herramienta de marketing, que permite a las compañias dar una expresión formal, percibible, disfrutable y por que no deseable a los idolatrados estudios de mercado, hasta el diseño de debate plantea conceptos radicales y exploraciones filosóficas y éticas que nos llevan a cuestionarnos importantes elementos de nuestra cultura y sociedad y aunque por lo general no llegan a ser consumidos por las masas, llegan a ser apreciados por las masas en los museos los cuales pagan grandes sumas de dinero por estos objetos y así permiten a seguir generando dinero y nuevos debates con nuevos objetos, es decir continuar con el negocio.

En cuanto a la Tecnología se podría decir que desde sus inicios ha sido parte de la estructura fundamental de el negocio. Cada avance tecnológico implica primero un esfuerzo por desarrollarlo, lo que conlleva -sino una industria- un negocio en sí, pero además producto de la innovación tecnológica (desde la incremental hasta la profundamente disruptiva) se abren nuevos espacios ya sea para profundizar un negocio ya existente o para generar nuevos negocios o incluso nuevas industrias.

Cuando se trata de Ciencia el negocio permite generar y suplir la infraestructura necesaria para desarrollar el trabajo científico. Y el resultado de ese trabajo científico, el nuevo conocimiento, sustenta el negocio de su divulgación, y por cierto los negocios que se surten de ese conocimiento como el desarrollo tecnológico.

¿Pero por que tratar de encontrar el negocio en todas estas áreas cuando el objetivo de este blog nunca han sido los negocios? Y es aquí donde el vídeo posteado se justifica. De hace tiempo ya es de mi interés la idea de estudiar y aplicar los conceptos extraídos de la naturaleza en los diversos campos del conocimiento humano, la biomimética. Y en función de eso me he dejado asombrar por como la ciencia y sus nuevas técnicas nos permiten conocer los secretos microscopios de las estructuras naturales o por la tecnología cada ves se acerca mas a la eficiencia en materiales y recursos del modelo natural y por como el diseño se nutre de la inteligencia geométrica de los organismos vivos para desarrollar nuevos elementos de nuestro mundo material. Pero hasta el día de hoy jamas me había topado con la idea -bastante lógica por lo demás- de que nuestro ecosistema podría enseñarnos como estructurar una metodología para llevar a cabo algo tan propiamente humano como el negocio. Hasta hoy hemos aprendido de las estructuras de lo más pequeño y lo más grande de nuestro universo, desde las partículas elementales que componen la masa hasta los procesos siderales que dan forma al universo. Pero resulta ser que hemos pasado en alto el equilibrio base que da sustento a todos esos procesos. Podemos saber como las plantas son capaces de levantar agua hasta más de 100 metros sin la necesidad de poderosas bombas de succión pero si no sabemos por que han decidido acarrearla tan arriba y cual es la función sistémica dentro de su entorno perdemos las nociones que nos permitirían aplicar de manera coherente ese conocimiento. En una ciudad donde viven millones de personas la cantidad de desperdicio producido puede llegar a ocupar un volumen peligrosamente cercano al de la ciudad misma, en un bosque o selva donde la cantidad de habitantes -seres vivos- puede ser significativamente superior al de una ciudad los desperdicios simplemente no existen. El producto de cada proceso es alimento del siguiente.

En el sobre gerrificado lenguaje de los negocios siempre se ha de contar con ''daños colaterales'' que simplemente no entran en la ecuación. Así el fantástico negocio del biodiesel por ejemplo a costado cientos y cientos de hectáreas en el amazonas para plantar soya para hacer combustible. Pero que pasaría si en vez de buscar ser ''el mas fuerte'' en los negocios "bioficaramos" su lenguaje para hacerlo mas equilibrado, para balancear la cadena de suministros con la de desperdicios. Si en vez de pensar del todo en la etapa como desperdicio de la vida útil de los objetos habláramos de su segundo estado como suministro. En el bosque el cuerpo del animal muerto es suministro del los demás vivos y del suelo donde cae.

Esta es la impresión que me deja Gunter Paulin en esta charla, en este mundo tenemos la capacidad para convertir casi todo en objeto de negocio, quizás sea tiempo de convertir el negocio en parte de nuestro mundo.

The Plenitude of Rich Gold

Some weeks ago I went in a local bookstore just to kill some time , and after take a quick look into the shelves a small green spine cath my attention in the design theorie area (after that I notice that theorie books even when it comes to design, are usually graphically bored). I take it from the shelf and just there another two things call my interest. First, all the cover was illustrated with doodles that looks like made by a school kid -a thing that I found clever in a bookshelf full of elaborated computer renderings- very warm and very beautiful. The second thing was ''foreword by John Maeda'' writen under the autors name, Rich Gold. Then when I went into the book, to my surprise I didn't found any pictures, any renders, any oversimplify diagrams, nothing but words..and CARTOONS! yes cartoons. Every chapter or section starts with a cartoon, and also every main idea on the book is stressed with a cartoon. There is a cartoon to explain the overstuffed enviroment in wich we live that Gold calls ''the plenitude'', there is also a cartoon that show clearly the four disciplines (and professions pursuit by the autor) that have the responsability of around 97% of the plenitude, there is a cartoons to explain the seven path of innovation, the five problems of the Plenitude and the seven solutions for that; and even for explain how the Plenitude of ones is based in the poverty of others.

After been exposed to that amount of quality information two thoughts came to my mind, cartoons rules and I have to reed this book.

The book is about thing, or better say Stuff. What it is, from where it comes, where it goes, how we can deal with it and why we need to be sorrounded by this thing call ''the plenitude'' (after write this post I'm not sure anymore if this book it's really about ''stuff'')

The Plenitude, Creativity, Innovation and Making Stuff

autor: Rich Gold (foreword by John Maeda)

pages:111

the MIT press

Artificial foot recycles energy ...as a silicon gun!!

Probably the engineers from the University of Michigan weren't thinking about this when they came with the idea of storage energy through the same kind of mechanical device that makes the silicon gun works (looj at the hhel clutch in the upper picture), but the design analogy it's perfect. This hight-tech electromechanical prosthetic feet works (in the mechanical part) with the same basic principle that a silicon gun, a clever solution for a very complex problem and a really good sample of analogous thinking in the design process.

for the complete article with all the explanation follow this

for a video of the device working folow this

and for the paper who explain... everything follow this

What are the discussion on Design by these days?

fig 1

Some days ago I read in WYSIWYW a really interesting and visceral post about Design & Art. This relationship has been discussed (above all in design schools, I have never hear an artist say a word about that) since the beginning of the design as a discipline, and to be honest I’m quite tired of hear arguments going in both ways, and I agree when the people from ''Sindicato de la Imagen'' says Art is Art and Design is Design, get over, don't lose more time in nonsense.

But this closure leaves us another question: what is the discussion in design by these days? And, what are the topics of that discussion?

Design, as any other consolidated discipline, has several components that converge to give substance to his theoretical and practical body: Methodology, Ethics, Technical issues, Aesthetics, Relation with the industry, Connection with other disciplines and Cultural relevance, just for say some. All these components can also be analyze by them self to find new areas to debate and to extract polar concept that define the extension of the discussion. For example, if we look the arguments in Methodology we can find ''Design thinking'' as one of the mayor driver of the praxis by these days, but also we can find ''Problem solving'' (coming from engineering) as one of the most common approaches to design. In other areas like Aesthetics polar concepts can be a little more diffuse, and they can go from naturalism (Bouroullec) to new rationalism (Lehanneur), from the nostalgia (Hayon) to the material and structural efficiency (Grcic) (fig 1).

In the same way of analysis we can find polar concept in Ethics. Today in design every day we can contrast the Super luxury -of cars, yachts, interiors, electronics, high-end audio systems, clothes, watches and almost a endless list of product focus on give pleasure and social relevance to his owners- with product and projects focus on solving social issues like education (OLXC), Health (Lifestraw), shelter ( rectionhousingsystem), energy ( ceramic jiko). Social focus has permeated design even further than poverty issues to address health and social behaviors in the developed world (NYC Condom).

The word Design its use today almost as a synonym of innovation, and in this relationship lays the Cultural relevance of design. As material culture dynamo, Design has the responsibility to innovate, but innovation can also be decompose in the polar concepts of Incremental Innovation and Conceptual Innovation. The difference lies in if the innovation comes to improve something that already exists (incremental) or introduces a new way to achieve a desire effect. For example you can design a new washing machine in which you can wash color and white clothes at the same time without worry about the white clothes get stained in the process, which would be a really good improvement in washing. That would be an incremental innovation. But if you make yourself the question: why do we need a big and complex machine to wash our clothes? Or even better, why do we need water to wash our clothes? You can find some new ideas on how to clean the clothes that can drive you to develop new objects and process of cleaning, which would be a conceptual break through, a conceptual innovation. The main difference between this two ways of innovate is the physical product of them. In incremental innovation the most of the cases ends in a new variation of a pre-existing product (like a better washing machine), but the product of conceptual innovation usually is a complete new item, that open a new branch on the technological tree (like self cleaning surfaces).

Another big difference between incremental and conceptual innovation it’s the risk level, improve an existing product it’s a safer road than develop something complete new one. But that is a subject of business rather than design, as it is also the scale of the production. Design is –and this it’s my position- in the solution, not in the repetition or the scale of the production.

The discussion on today Design it is a lot bigger than we just talk here, and we have to be aware that this isn’t a light conversation about taste or how improve the business strategy. This is about what to do in a discipline that every day has a more relevant role in society and culture.

This conversation should continue and I think one good introduction is this video where Tim Brow talk about different aspects of Design and Design thinking.

From Art to Science...and back (Reuben Margolin's kinetic sculptures)

First of all, if it is anyone real follow this blog i would like to apologize me for the big time window between this post and the previous one. Now, i find this excelent example of the crossover between art and science. Reuben Margolin translate the physics of waves into the language of art with amazing results, big and complex instalations waving smoothly as a light water perturbation or as the peculiar gait of the caterpillar.

The crossing between Art and Science it's not new, but it is somehow one of the most interesting and revolutionary paths that the Arts is following these days. In the same field of kinetic sculpture we can find the amazing beach animals by Theo Hansen, but also we can count the phylosophical questioning made through hightech-interfaces by Natalie jeremijenko who put in evidence the nature of our relationships with other people, animals, the cities, and so on.

There is a lot of people working now in this area, bringing the concepts of science and using the new technologys to make some reflections about the world on what we live, and they are making amazing things. But also there is a few who follow the opposite path, from science to art, and they are discovering the big power who lies behind the human expression and how these knowledge -intuitive and irrational as usually is - can hold the keys of one of the most complex structures, the human behaviour.

amazing

BIOMIMICRY, or the green path of the new technologies

Biomimicry, must be one of the most beatiful word that i learned in last time. It means understand and apply biological principles in human designs. Simple, but not simplistic.

The first time that i heard this word was in a Robert Full talk in TED, where he shows his investigations on Geckos feet, and how he and his team manages to achieve a deep understanding of the mechanic that allow this little lizard to climb glass walls with almost no effort, and - here's the exiting part- develop a sinthetic simulation of this feet that recreate the special habilities of this animal. The incredible amount of work made by Full and his team had big rewards in patents of new materials, applications and designs.

Two of most intereting things -at least for me- were, first the multidisciplinary aproach, mostly in the part of developing the new feet and the bottomline of the talk. In the first one because the complexity of nature demand the integration of the differents sides of sciences and technology to produce holistic understanding and feasable designs. The second, the bottomline ''we most preserve the nature design before they are lost'' this words point to

a new issue in the enviromental crisis that we are living. Nature produce extremly eficient and creative solutions through thousands - if not millions- of years of iterations, solutions that can be lost in a couple of years because the habitats destruction and animal extintion.

Other thing that caught my attention was the Biomimicry as a methodology. As a designer most of the process involve on creation have to do with the interaction between the forms and the enviroments; so, as Christofer Alexander says long ago, we analize the ''surroundings'' of an object (fisical, semantic, perceptive, mechanic, etc) and we propose forms that ''fits'' properly with these surroundings...but what Nature do if it is not that!? I'm not saying that designers are a force of Nature, but the process of design -and with this i mean every process call design- has to do a lot with what Nature do. Multiple and consecutive iterations to

develop a specific form, function or behavior. In this way it is very interesting the example of FESTO, German company who take the concept of Biomimicry to develop Pneumatic Robots who works, looks and behave like real animals.

This robots born from the deep understanding of the motion of these animals, and it is the transference of that understanding of mechanical principles to the design of these pneumatic creatures where lays the relevance of the biomimicry research; the groundbreaking conceptual innovation, in this case, of how mechanical devices can stop to be mechanical devices and become creatures with specific functions, in a product more close to poetry than engineering.

Biomimicry in the form of Biomechanics it isn't new, in every culture we can find examples of how the men build tools based in the observation of nature, but what it is new is put the focus on the materials and behaviors. In the last years the research on how the Nature resolve his more smallest structures combined with the Nanoengineering had resulted in the revolution of the materials industry. But maybe the most promising area of Biomimicry it's the study of the naturals behaviors that can lead to the improvement of the responsiveness of our own enviroment due to the basic principle that the behaviors are modeled by the information that the subject can perceibe. If we can improve our undertanding on how the Nature ''talk'' and interact with him self we can start to design the enviroment it self, not just the material part of it but the way that the enviroment can generate by it self the responses (forms, structures, stimulus, ...)for the immediate needs. An self evolving artificial enviroment.

For now Biomimicry it is at service of the cutting edge technology insdustry, but why not expect that in the future this path also take us to a better comprention of how we can live in Nature and not just above the Nature.

information and source:
http://www.festo.com/cms/de_de/index.htm
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/1748-3190
http://www.biomimicry.net/
http://www.biomimeticsregistry.net/main.html
http___www.biomimeticsregistry.net_pietrzyk.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimicry