INDUSTRY AND UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE

DESIGN:
A RETROSPECTIVE CRITIQUE ON A RAPID
PROTOTYPING WORKSHOP
T. Venter1, E. van der Wath2

1
University of Pretoria (SOUTH AFRICA)
2
University of Pretoria (SOUTH AFRICA)

www.up.ac.za
DESIGN EDUCATION – GLOBALLY
Design education is often criticised for distancing itself from the everyday activities of practice.
Such distancing leads to graduates well versed in theory, creativity, and concept, but ill equipped for
the challenges associated with constructing their conceptual imaginings.

This paper argues that complexity and innovation in spatial design require a more pronounced link
between design theory, design drawing and the eventual technical articulation of design. This
link must be informed by technological advances in digital fabrication and should include a
deeper understanding of industry manufacturing processes and the embedded nature of materials.

Rapid prototyping will influence the nature and style of design, and by implication the approach to
design education. This manufacturing process is also a valuable design tool that should be
imbedded in students’ design processes.
DESIGN EDUCATION – LOCALLY (South
Africa)
In recent years, the restructuring of the technical colleges to technical universities resulted in a
closer relationship with academia than with industry, further widening the gap between theoretical
knowledge and the expectations of practice.

In this context, learners are rarely exposed to manufacturing processes of high complexity or to
digital fabrication methods and technology. When they are exposed, it is most often to the use of
rapid prototyping as a means of producing accurate final scale models of design proposals. This
singular representational approach to an iterative technology is especially prevalent in
architectural education [2].

In contrast, recent technological advances in the manufacturing sector, in conjunction with the
commercial availability of prototyping technologies have closed the gap between conceptual
‘design thinking’ and ‘design testing’.
AIM
This paper discusses a prototyping workshop that endeavours to bridge this gap in design
education by directly engaging with industry specialists through the process of testing and
making.

The case study describes the learning opportunities that co-operative design projects may offer
both university (lecturing staff and students) and industry. The paper evaluates a process of
immersive learning that traditionally falls outside the scope of academic design thinking.
 THE CASE STUDY
TECHNOLOGY
“design, innovation and hands-on MATERIALS
experimentation”

+ +

7 days
 THE CASE STUDY
ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRY &
CONTEXT & THEORY
CLASSROOM

+ +

Exposing students to real-life problems in contexts’ outside the safe environment of the studio or
classroom.
THE CASE STUDY: OBJECTIVES

 Expand multi-disciplinary design process;

 Fresh insight into problem-solving processes;
 Exposure and promotion.

 Practical experience in a ‘complete’ design process;

 Understanding of material, prototyping and manufacturing
through hands-on experimentation;
 Access to instant practical knowledge.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
Interior students from years one to four could apply for selection by submitting a written
motivation of no less than 250 words.

16 candidates were selected for the workshop – two from first year, three from second, seven from
third and four from the Honours programme (fourth year). This allowed for diversity in design
skills and experience in the workshop. The students were divided into four groups with junior
and senior students in each group.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART A: INTRODUCTION
Students were introduced to the materials, processes and technology used in manufacturing
plywood furniture. Industry specialists highlighted the importance of understanding both the
material and manufacturing process for successful design.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART A: INTRODUCTION
A range of ‘open source’ and proprietary joints were presented and discussed. This highlighted
the relationship between the material’s structural properties and the nature of the joint, as well as
the impact of detailing on the assembly process.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART A: INTRODUCTION
The brief required the design and eventual prototyping of a shopping trolley to be used at an
outdoor market (to be transported in the boot of an average motor vehicle). Students were
restricted to one 1220 x 2440 birch plywood sheet of 9mm or 12mm per group. All components
were to be cut using a three axis CNC machine.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 1 – CONCEPT &
SKETCH DESIGN
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 2 – SCALE MODELS
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 3 – LASER CUT SCALE
MODELS
For this purpose CAD drawings were prepared for laser cutting the components. This process
allowed the groups to quickly evaluate the pragmatics involved in assembling components.
Students were actively involved in testing performative complexity.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 3 – LASER CUT SCALE
MODELS
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 4 – FULL SCALE
PROTOTYPE
All the design proposals were re-evaluated before the final design drawings and cutting lists were
prepared for full scale cutting in plywood on day six. This introduced students to the concept of
nesting – a critical consideration for efficient cutting and the minimisation of material waste.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 4 – FULL SCALE
PROTOTYPE
The last day was spent at RAW's workshop where the trolleys were assembled with assistance from
staff members and lecturers..
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 4 – FULL SCALE
PROTOTYPE
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 4 – FULL SCALE
PROTOTYPE
Some designs required additional preparation and the completion of ‘second processes’.
necessary in future to fully resolve the designs.
THE CASE STUDY: ORGANISATION
PART B: ITERATION 4 – FULL SCALE
PROTOTYPE
Adjustments were made to the designs where necessary, and by the end of day seven, four working
prototypes were completed. The full-scale assembly process highlighted several design
shortcomings and all four the groups agreed that a second full-scale iteration would be
necessary in future to fully resolve the designs.
THE RESEARCH STUDY
This case study explores the outcomes of industry and university interactions within design
education, with specific focus on cooperative design driven by full-scale prototyping though
digital fabrication methods.

Data were obtained from reflective reports completed by participating students, based on
Hampton’s model of reflective writing [8]. This was supplemented by the experiences and
observations of the authors and their analysis of the designed products. The authors also obtained
written feedback from RAW’s staff members regarding their experiences of the workshop.

The feedback was analysed according to Tesch’s descriptive method of open-coding [9]. Significant
statements were identified and then grouped into themes. The themes were narrated and interpreted
through comparison to relevant literature.
RESULTS: THEME 1 – LEARNING
EXPERIENCES
1.1 LIMITATIONS
Students were limited to designing in a single material for a single manufacturing process. This was
however not perceived as a limitation to design, but as an opportunity for learning. Similarly, the
limited time frame was viewed as a “meaningful influence on personal design development” that
createdThe
a sense of urgency,
commitment to a rather
singlethan panic.allows for a thorough investigation into the
material
material and its design possibilities, thus showing the possibilities when
focussing on a single design element to achieve a full design resolution.
RESULTS: THEME 1 – LEARNING
EXPERIENCES
1.2 DIRECT INVOLVEMENT
The workshop exposed students directly to the materials, methods and manufacturing processes
employed by RAW. Hands-on exploration of the materials expanded their understanding of
designing with plywood (and similar engineered timber products) and generated an interest in
materiality in design.

Additionally, the workshop improved students’ comprehension of the relationship that exists
between materiality, detailing and manufacturing.

…hands-on learning experience was a massive confidence booster […] and

incited my interest in ‘materiality’ and in actively engaging and exploring
materials.

The whole process provided inspiration and guidance for an approach to

detailing as well as an overall design approach for interior architecture as it
emphasises the importance of understanding a material and using it from
concept to detailing.
RESULTS: THEME 1 – LEARNING
EXPERIENCES
1.2 DIRECT INVOLVEMENT
This experience extended to a deeper comprehension of the relationship between technical
innovation and design iteration in the form of prototyping. Students describe the prototyping
process in cardboard as “helpful”, and “informative”, and as a beneficial part of the design process
that “…revealed issues with the design and provided info towards bettering the design”.

Additionally, prototyping allowed for a “greater ease of understanding and freedom to experiment
with multiple iterations”. This insight extends beyond the experience of the workshop, as
highlighted by the following comment:

What I learnt from the experience was perseverance in terms of my design –

RAW goes through many prototypes in order to gain the final product, and
similarly so did we. So I have to keep at it. […] you learn even more through
trial and error.
RESULTS: THEME 1 – LEARNING
EXPERIENCES
1.3 COOPERATION
Student comments indicated a positive experience of the co-operative nature of the workshop.
Although “challenging”, they describe the variety in design processes, experience and knowledge
as a “more realistic team dynamic”. One student describes a sense of competition amongst the
groups that induced a “friendly rivalry and a vibrant atmosphere”.

Working in co-operative teams led to design process benefits. Additionally, the students gained soft
skills such as “compromise, recognising other perspectives and being exposed to other design
methods”.

Being able to investigate these possibilities in a group sped up the initial

brainstorming process and allowed for a more imaginative, innovative approach
and design.
RESULTS: THEME 2 – LEARNING
OBSERVATIONS
2.1 RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING
Practitioners commented that “what was clear to us was the willingness of the students to learn and
engage throughout the workshop”. Students exhibited excitement and positivity in the studio,
coupled with a sense of urgency.

Students could not depend on the ‘experts’ to solve problems as they were not always available, and
as a result they relied on one another and on experimentation for design feedback. Practitioners
remarked that the “growth and learning curve was exponential. The knowledge gained from the
beginning to the end of the week was amazing”. This observation is supported by the experience of
a junior student:

The activity was daunting at first… However as the process evolved and you
became more involved in it, it became easier and interesting to experiment with
the processes at hand.
RESULTS: THEME 2 – LEARNING
OBSERVATIONS
2.1 RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING
Although we proposed interim deadlines which sped design development up, students took
responsibility for the success of the workshop. They took control of the project – we did not need
to drive activity in the studio. This is evidenced by the following educator comment:

I learned that with very little input (less pedantic design and theoretical
discussions), an open brief, and very few [defined] expectations regarding the
product, the process built its own momentum.
RESULTS: THEME 2 – LEARNING
OBSERVATIONS
2.2 INNOVATION
The workshop produced complex designs of both formal and conceptual variety. According to
RAW “the outcomes included some very innovative solutions, well tolerated [sic] and interesting
joints that actually work and form a strong basis to develop the products further”. The proposals
incorporated “new, applicable to industry ideas”.

This innovation in design product seemed to stem from the variety in, and approach to, the
design processes. Practitioners commented that “students seem to approach the problem from
completely different angles – mainly devoid of the usual constraints of practice driven problem
solving”. Lecturers observed an organic group design development process in studio. Without any
direct instruction on process, the four groups naturally approached the project differently.
RESULTS: THEME 2 – LEARNING
OBSERVATIONS
2.2 INNOVATION
RESULTS: THEME 2 – LEARNING
OBSERVATIONS
2.2 INNOVATION
RESULTS: THEME 2 – LEARNING
OBSERVATIONS
2.3 ROLES
The workshop questioned and inverted the traditional roles of lecturers and students in the
educational environment. Lecturer observations indicate that a clear relationship between design
input and level of experience could not be identified.

Lecturer feedback indicates a reversal of roles: “The interaction with RAW expanded my
understanding of digital manufacturing processes. At times I was learning as much as the students
were”. Lecturers seemed to shift imperceptibly between roles as ‘facilitator’, ‘co-designer’ and
‘practitioner’. This is evidenced by the following lecturer reflection:

As part educator and part practitioner, this was a little outside my comfort zone
in terms of education as well as practice, even though I know the specific
process rather well. The practical guidance was driven by RAW, but with some
knowledge [of] their manufacturing process I could help out early in the studio,
as a practitioner as well as lecturer; which is never the case.
RESULTS: THEME 2 – LEARNING
OBSERVATIONS
2.3 ROLES
The role of the practitioner was also challenged. Practitioners described themselves as
supportive; allowing students to engage confidently in experimentation: “…they felt confident as
we ‘had their backs’ so to say”. In the studio, practitioners not only “guided [students] as artificers”,
but also acted as educators who had to firstly impart knowledge, and secondly make their
implicit design process explicit to inexperienced designers-in-training.

Students felt that the sharing of knowledge contributed positively to their design process and
“helped significantly in designing with a purpose and making informed decisions about the design
itself”. Students described their interaction with “experts” as “insightful” and “helpful” in
exploring design possibilities. One student commented that she found the exposure to the “thought
processes and methods of RAW staff (that was completely different to the way students think)”
meaningful to her personal development as designer.
DISCUSSION
CONTEXT
Firstly, the workshop took place outside the pedagogical structures that guide studio activities
during the semester. Students were focused on a single design problem, did not need to be
concerned with assessment and had the freedom to use time and resources as they saw fit.

Secondly, practitioners functioned outside the boundaries that typically constrain industry.

Thirdly, lecturers operated outside of curriculum and content restrictions and could focus
solely on facilitating learning.

The outcomes of the workshop were open-ended and the process was not shaped by pre-conceived
expectations. As a result, students experimented freely and embraced the core values of
explorative, iterative design – an approach that led to design innovation and a learning
experience valued by all involved.
DISCUSSION
STUDENT-CENTRED LEARNING
Demirblek and Demirblek [11] are of the opinion that such an approach allows students learn
effectively and deeply, as they have a sense of ownership in learning, are motivated to learn and
can engage in a constructive activity where they can connect new concepts to prior experiences and
existing knowledge.

Lecturing staff and practitioners positioned themselves as facilitators and advisors; offering advice
and enabling rather than instructing. Malmqvist, Young, Hallström, Kuttenkeuler & Svensson [12]
refer to the shift from ‘lecturer as authoritarian’ to ‘lecturer as mentor’ as a positive shift which
enables a less constrained learning environment where students dare to discuss, reason and explore.
DISCUSSION
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Students narrated positive experiences of the co-operative work and valued the variations in
perspective that their interactions with one-another offered. According to Tynjälä et al [1]
sociocultural and situated-learning theories have emphasised that learning takes places though
participating in communities of practice. This workshop presented opportunities for informal,
socially shared learning to take place, which contributed to the successful acquisition of a vast
amount of new skills in a comparatively short period of time.

The fact that older and more experienced students were part of each group meant that
skills/knowledge transfer happened on a micro level first through group work, on a mesa level by
means of input from lecturers and practitioners and on a macro level through assembly. The
workshop simulated the conditions of practice more directly than the design studio. Students
found these conditions to be useful as they lent focus to the design process.
DISCUSSION
AUTHENTIC LEARNING
Slabbert, de Kock and Hattingh [13] argue that there is an abundance of evidence that prove that our
traditional educational concept of ‘learning to know’ in order to apply is not an efficient model of
learning. They argue that higher education should instead focus on encouraging authentic learning in
students – a process which requires the immersion into a real-life challenge, where students must
engage individually and cooperatively with the challenge, and where existing knowledge and skills
are insufficient to resolve the challenge.

This workshop did not shield students from the real complexity of digital fabrication, but instead
exposed them to the entire process and the full strata of the industry work force. Students were able
to obtain detailed practical and theoretical knowledge from each of these individuals through
studio discussions based on problem solving, rather than through authoritative lecturing.
DISCUSSION
DIRECT KNOWLEDGE TRANSFERRAL
Although the workshop embraced a problem-based learning model, which discourages
instructional guidance, the authors call for a more balanced approach to the model. Kirschner,
Sweller and Clark [15] argue that unguided learning is “less effective and less efficient than
instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process”.
They state that the advantage of guidance begins to recede when students have obtained sufficient
prior knowledge to guide themselves. In a workshop that integrates junior and senior students,
junior students may therefore benefit from the addition of a focused theoretical introduction to
designing with plywood; addressing the manufacture, nature, structural properties and opportunities
embedded in this material.

Workshops of this kind should be focused on facilitating learning, but may benefit from
limited direct knowledge transferal.
DISCUSSION
SHORTCOMINGS
Dealing with software challenges was more successful than anticipated. The learning curve for
software integration can be very steep and it often takes substantial time and effort from students to
successfully integrate computer drawing skills into their design process. However, faced with the
prospect of ‘making’, learners were forced to engage empirically with the specific requirements of
the software.

Learners were able to translate their designs via CAD for laser cutting, which set up the next step of
translation to Rhino and RhinoCAM for cutting and nesting purposes. Intermediate software
platforms can cause problems through translation and adds an extra level of complexity and
pressure, especially during a workshop where time is limited. Future workshops should be
structured around a single CAD platform that can accommodate most aspects of 3-D modeling
and manufacture [14].
DISCUSSION
SHORTCOMINGS
Learning opportunities of this kind require thorough and structured documentation to
contribute effectively to a scholarly understanding of their value. The risk of over-structuring
the workshop to suit an academic need could however be detrimental to the workshop as ‘event for
learning’ and requires carefully consideration.

Logistically all components of the workshop should ideally be in one space or in close
proximity. If this shortcoming is addressed, learners should be able to test ideas, tolerances and
processes with the actual material iteratively prior to final full-scale assembly. Material tolerances
could only be tested on the last day of the workshop – earlier testing would have resulted in more
successful products.

In future a full iteration of the entire workshop with the same learners will be the test of
knowledge gained. Future workshop should aim to include some of the senior students from the
first round, as this should have a positive impact on the group’s co-operative potential.
CONCLUSION
Performative architectural complexity and uniqueness of artefacts are ever increasing. To achieve
such complexity and innovation, designers should integrate the appropriate technological tools
into their design processes from an early stage. For a prototyping exercise to achieve a higher
level of complexity, the technological tools used should be re-evaluated. Also the link between
design education, thinking and the software should be more distinct. We are not proposing a
pure dianoetic process [16] but rather a closer reciprocal relationship between design theory,
drawing and design articulation through CAD modelling. The latter, by nature, includes aspects
closer related to manufacturing and performative design [17].
CONCLUSION
For design learning institutions to stay current and relevant to practice, their curriculums and use of
technological tools must be evaluated regularly. Implementing change in higher education
institutions is a lengthy process. Subsequently a disparity between advances in technology and
educational approach is inevitable. Workshops, such as the one discussed in this paper, may
provide an alternative to the delays inherent to large institutions, as they function outside the
rigid framework of formal higher education

The adaptability of these workshops renders them useful in a wide spectrum of education
applications with varying complexity. It is the authors’ intention to increase the level of iterative
complexity of future workshops and further explore the reciprocal pedagogic nature that
could exist between design theory and the design industry.
REFERENCES CONCLUSION
REFERENCES REFERENCES
[1] Tynjälä, P, Välimaa & Sarja, A. (2003). Pedagogical perspectives on the [14] Brell-Çokcan, S. & Braumann, J. (2010). A Parametric design tool for Robot
relationships between higher education and working life. Higher Education 46: 146- Milling, in Proceedings of the 30th Annual conference of the Association for Computer
166 Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), New York: 357-363
[2] Columbano, A & Dring, M. (2010). The pedagogy of using a RP architectural [15] Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During
model. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 5(4): 195-200 Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery,
[3] Daniels, P. Adonis, T., Mpofu, R. & Waggiem, F. (2013). How service learning Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational psychologist,
enables interdisciplinary learning: A case study in the health sciences at the University 41(2): 75-86
of the Western Cape. In R. Osman & N. Petersen (Eds.), Service Learning in South [16] Colletti, M. (2013). An Open Theory of Design Research in Architecture: Digital
Africa. Cape Town, Oxford University Press. Poetics. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing limited.
[4] RAW Studios. (2014). RAW Mission. Available from: [17] Schumacher, P. (2012). The Autopoiesis of Architecture, Volume 2: A New
http://www.rawstudios.co.za/studio/raw-mission-statement/. Accessed on 2014.09.27 Agenda for Architecture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
[5] Designing Ways. (2011). Talking to Julia 2. Designing Ways 134: 62-63 [18] Center for Bits and Atoms. (2013). Fab Lab FAQ. Available from
[6] TOOLINGU. (2014). What is the definition of “computer numerical control”?. http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/faq/. Accessed on 2014.10.02
Available from: http://www.toolingu.com/definition-300100-12468-computer-
numerical-control.html. Accessed on 2014.10.02
[7] Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among
Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
[8] Hampton, M. (2003). Reflective writing: a basic introduction. Available from: .
http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-departments/student-support-
services/ask/downloads/Reflective-writing---a-basic-introduction.pdf. Accessed on
2014.08.01
[9] Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
[10] Optimation. (2012). What is CNC Nesting. Available from:
www.optinest.com/optiblog/category/what_is_cnc_nesting/. Accessed on 2014.10.02
[11] Demirbilek, N. & Demirbilek, O. (2007). Architectural science and student-
teaching learning, in Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Architectural
Science Association (ANZAScA), Deakin: 85-91
[12] Malmqvist, J., Young, P. W., Hallström, S., Kuttenkeuler, J., & Svensson, T.
(2004).Lessons learned from design-build-test based project courses, in Proceedings
from International Design Conference –Design 2004, Dubrovnik: 1-8
[13] Slabbert, J.A., de Kock, D.M. & Hattingh, A. (2009). The ‘Brave’ New World of
Education: creating a unique professionalism. Cape Town: Juta