Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T22:24:27.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary Results Testing What Different Design Solutions Arise from Different Sustainable Design Methods

Part of: Responsible Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Jeremy Faludi ,
Omar Ali ,
Ola Srour ,
Selim Mecanna ,
Rami Kamareddine  and
Tejaswini Chatty
Jeremy Faludi*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College;
Omar Ali
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut;
Ola Srour
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut;
Selim Mecanna
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut;
Rami Kamareddine
Affiliation:
University of Balamand
Tejaswini Chatty
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College;

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Do different sustainable design methods generate different sustainable design ideas? Do they also drive different product innovation ideas? This project empirically tested three design methods: The Natural Step, Whole System Mapping, and Biomimicry. Testing involved qualitatively categorizing 1,115 design ideas from 23 workshops for over 30 companies, including consultancies and manufacturers in consumer electronics, furniture, and apparel. The categorized ideas were then counted to determine if the different design methods caused different kinds of ideas. They did. For example, The Natural Step drove more ideas on green material choice, circular end of life, and social impacts, while Biomimicry drove more durability ideas and Whole System Mapping drove more cost reduction ideas, among other differences. Overall, The Natural Step generated the highest percentage of sustainability ideas, Biomimicry generated the most innovation ideas, and Whole System Mapping generated a balance of both. These preliminary results should help designers and engineers choose design methods suited to the types of design solutions they desire.

Keywords

Design methodsSustainabilityInnovationCircular economy
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3351 - 3360
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Baumeister, D., Tocke, R., Dwyer, J., Ritter, S. and Benyus, J. (2013), “Biomimicry Resource Handbook: A Seed Bank of Best Practices”, 2013 Edition, Biomimicry 3.8, Missoula, MT.Google Scholar
Baxter, K., Boisvert, A., Lindberg, C. and Mackrael, K. (2009), “Sustainability Primer: Step By Natural Step”, The Natural Step Canada, available at: http://www.thenaturalstep.org/project/sustainability-primer-step-by-natural-step/ (accessed 21 July 2016).Google Scholar
Benyus, J.M. (1997), Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired By Nature, HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Brink, G., Destandau, N. and Hamlett, P. (2009), “Genealogy of the Living Principles”, AIGA Center for Sustainable Design, available at: https://carlosfiorentino.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/aiga_the-living-principles.pdf.Google Scholar
Broman, G.I. and Robèrt, K.-H. (2017), “A framework for strategic sustainable development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 17–31.Google Scholar
Christiaans, H.H.C.M. (2002), “Creativity as a Design Criterion”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41–54.Google Scholar
Collado-Ruiz, D. and Ghorabi, H.O.-A. (2010), “Influence of environmental information on creativity”, Design Studies, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 479–498.Google Scholar
Deutz, P., McGuire, M. and Neighbour, G. (2013), “Eco-design practice in the context of a structured design process: an interdisciplinary empirical study of UK manufacturers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 39, pp. 117–128.Google Scholar
Faludi, J. (2015), “A Sustainable Design Method Acting as an Innovation Tool”, ICoRD'15–Research into Design Across Boundaries Volume 2, Springer, pp. 201–212.Google Scholar
Faludi, J. (2017a), Golden Tools in Green Design: What Drives Sustainability, Innovation, and Value in Green Design Methods?, PhD Thesis, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Faludi, J. (2017b), “Recommending Sustainable Design Methods And Combinations By Characterizing Activities And Mindsets”, International Journal of Sustainable Design, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 100–136.Google Scholar
Faludi, J. and Agogino, A.M. (2018), “What Design Practices Do Professionals Use For Sustainability And Innovation?”, DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 2633–2644.Google Scholar
Faludi, J. and Menter, A. (2013), “Product Design: Biomimicry”, Autodesk Sustainability Workshop, May, available at: http://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/products/biomimicry (accessed 21 July 2016).Google Scholar
Häggman, A., Tsai, G., Elsen, C., Honda, T. and Yang, M.C. (2015), “Connections Between the Design Tool, Design Attributes, and User Preferences in Early Stage Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 137 No. 7, pp. 071408–071408.Google Scholar
Homans, G.C. (1949), “The strategy of industrial sociology”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 330–337.Google Scholar
Keeley, L., Walters, H., Pikkel, R. and Quinn, B. (2013), Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs, John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Knight, P. and Jenkins, J.O. (2009), “Adopting and applying eco-design techniques: a practitioners perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 549–558.Google Scholar
Oehlberg, L., Bayley, C., Hartman, C. and Agogino, A. (2012), “Mapping the Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability Impact of Design for Environment Principles”, Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World: Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Springer, Berkeley, CA USA, pp. 221–226.Google Scholar
Oman, S.K., Tumer, I.Y., Wood, K. and Seepersad, C. (2013), “A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 65–92.Google Scholar
Ramani, K., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W.Z., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J., Handwerker, C., Choi, J.-K., et al. (2010), “Integrated Sustainable Life Cycle Design: A Review”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 132 No. 9, p. 091004.Google Scholar
Robèrt, K.-H. (1991), “Educating A Nation: The Natural Step”, In Context, Vol. 28, pp. 10–15.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (2011), “Assessing design creativity”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 348–383.Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M., Vargas-Hernandez, N., Gerkens, D.R. and Wulan, M. (2003), “Empirical studies of design ideation: Alignment of design experiments with lab experiments”, ASME 2003 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 847–856.Google Scholar
Shedroff, N. (2009), Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must Be Sustainable, Rosenfeld Media, Brooklyn, NY USA.Google Scholar
Sheldrick, L. and Rahimifard, S. (2013), “Evolution in Ecodesign and Sustainable Design Methodologies”, in Nee, A.Y.C., Song, B. and Ong, S.-K. (Eds.), Re-Engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability, Springer Singapore, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
Telenko, C., O'Rourke, J.M., Conner Seepersad, C. and Webber, M.E. (2016), “A Compilation of Design for Environment Guidelines”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138 No. 3, pp. 031102–031102–11.Google Scholar
Tromp, N. and Hekkert, P. (2016), “Assessing methods for effect-driven design: Evaluation of a social design method”, Design Studies, Vol. 43, pp. 24–47.Google Scholar
Vallet, F., Eynard, B., Millet, D., Mahut, S.G., Tyl, B. and Bertoluci, G. (2013), “Using eco-design tools: An overview of experts’ practices”, Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 345–377.Google Scholar
Vandevenne, D., Pieters, T. and Duflou, J.R. (2016), “Enhancing novelty with knowledge-based support for Biologically-Inspired Design”, Design Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 152–173.Google Scholar
White, P., Belletire, S. and Pierre, L.S. (2013), Okala Practitioner: Integrating Ecological Design, IDSA, Phoenix, AZ USA.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., Daly, S.R., Seifert, C.M. and Gonzalez, R. (2016), “Evidence-based design heuristics for idea generation”, Design Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar