Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen  

NORDIC SWAN ECOLABEL 3041 0903

Printed by Media-Tryck, Lund 2018
A Material Framework for
Product Design

A Material Framework for Product Design

The development of reflective material practices
Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen
Department of Design Sciences | Faculty of engineering | Lund University

9 789177 538790

Lund University
Department of Design Sciences

ISBN 978-91-7753-879-0
2018

ISBN 978-91-7753-880-6
 A Material Framework
for
Product Design
The development of reflective material practices

Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen

LICENTIATE DISSERTATION
by due permission of the Department of Design Sciences,
Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden.
To be defended at DC:3044, IKDC, Sölvegatan 26
the 19th of October 2018 at 10:00-12:00 am.

Faculty opponent
Dr. Valentina Rognoli
Assistant Professor at the Design Department at the School of Design,
Politecnico di Milano, Italy

1
2
A Material Framework
for
Product Design
The development of
reflective material practices

Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen

3
Cover photo by Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen

Copyright © Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen

Faculty of Engineering and Department of Design Sciences

ISBN (printed version) 978-91-7753-879-0

ISBN (electronic version) 978-91-7753-880-6

Printed in Sweden by Media-Tryck, Lund University

Lund 2018

N
SWA ECO
C
DI

LA
NOR

B EL

Media-Tryck is an environmentally
certified and ISO 14001 certified
1234 5678 provider of printed material.
Read more about our environmental
work at www.mediatryck.lu.se

4
To my family with love ♥

5
Table of Contents

Abstract ..........................................................................................................8
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................11
Preface ..........................................................................................................12
List of figures ...............................................................................................14
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................15
1.1. Background.....................................................................................16
1.2. Material Practices and Design Processes ........................................17
1.3. Aim and research questions ............................................................18
1.4. Thesis outline..................................................................................19
2. Theoretical frame of reference .....................................................................21
2.1. Experiential learning.......................................................................21
2.2. Learning processes .........................................................................23
2.3. Learning environments ...................................................................24
2.4. Meta-cognition ...............................................................................25
2.5. FLIP ................................................................................................25
2.6. Tinkering ........................................................................................27
2.7. DOT-Framework and ‘triangulation first’ ......................................28
2.8. Methods in design education ..........................................................29
2.9. Material Selection or Material Exploration ....................................31
2.10. Materials and manufacturing processes ..........................................31
2.11. The relationships between materials and elements of design .........32
2.12. The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas ......................................................33
2.13. Meaning of Materials tool and model.............................................34
2.14. Material Driven Design ..................................................................36
3. Empirical studies ..........................................................................................41
3.1. Study 1: Challenges for material education ....................................42
3.1.1. Study design – retention and course evaluation .....................42
3.1.2. Execution ................................................................................42
3.1.3. Reflection ...............................................................................43

6
 3.2. Study 2: A new pedagogical framework ........................................44
3.2.1. Study design – implementation and iterations ........................45
3.2.2. Execution ................................................................................46
3.2.3. Reflection ...............................................................................51
3.3. Study 3: Professional material practices .........................................55
3.3.1. Study design ...........................................................................55
3.3.2. Execution ................................................................................57
3.3.3. Reflection ...............................................................................60
4. Discussion and contributions .......................................................................63
4.1. Summarising the findings ...............................................................63
4.2. Discussion of methods ....................................................................66
4.3. Discussion of findings ....................................................................68
Evaluation of design education ...........................................................68
A multidisciplinary teaching environment ..........................................69
Critical thinking ...................................................................................70
4.4. A new pedagogical framework .......................................................70
The need for support in explorative processes ....................................70
4.5. Materials and professional practices...............................................71
4.6. Final discussion ..............................................................................72
5. Limitations and future research ....................................................................73
6. Conclusion....................................................................................................75
7. References ....................................................................................................77

7
Abstract
A new paradigm is slowly making its way into society, affecting our material
practice as designers. Materials selection in design and product development has for
a long time been dominated by a purely technical approach, mainly focusing on
properties and performance. With the increasing evidence of climate change, waste
and pollution, environmental effects, we are slowly realizing that unsustainable
consumption of materials is no longer an alternative. Previous studies of material
practices, both within design educations and the design profession, has primarily
dealt with the development of material related methods. This thesis has focused on
gaining an in-depth understanding of material practices within design processes, in
order to develop a pedagogical framework that facilitates the development of
reflective material practices in design education.

There are four primary aims of the research presented in this licentiate thesis: (1)
ascertain obstacles in the traditional ways of teaching materials to design students,
(2) to bridge the differences in language, research culture and pedagogic approaches
in design education, (3) to investigate current professional material practices in
industrial design, and (4) to develop a new material framework for teaching
reflective material practices for design students. During the project, the material
framework has been tested and evaluated in two mandatory material courses with
first and second year bachelor students from Product Design education over a period
of four academic years. A comparative case study was conducted with five design
consultancies. The qualitative interviews were transcribed and analysed using
category zooming. The outcomes of this research are: (1) a new pedagogic
framework for teaching materials to Product Design students in higher education,
and (2) insights into professional practices of selecting and designing with materials.

The pedagogic model A Material Framework for Product Design is designed to

facilitate the development of reflective material practices in design education. The
Framework consist of four levels: (1) a pedagogical foundation based on
Experiential Learning theory that provide a framework for how to approach teaching
and learning, (2) designing and structuring learning activities, (3) creating learning
environments that facilitate learning activities, and (4) defining learning objectives,
assessment of learning outcomes and detecting signs of learning.

The main insights from the study of professional practices suggest: (1) that risk
management has a major influence on the material selection process, (2) that
negotiations of project boundaries in the ‘fuzzy’ pre-design phase has crucial
influence on the risk management aspect of the material criteria activities, and (3) a
lack of awareness, that design briefs usually outline material criteria expressed as

8
sensorial characteristics, which are later translated by engineering into final material
criteria used for the material selection process. The findings implies that design
students would benefit from developing reflective material practices in design
education.

9
10
Acknowledgments
First, I want to say thank you to my supporting colleagues at K3, the School of Arts
and Communication, Malmö University, for giving advice, comfort and
encouragement whenever needed. I feel fortunate to work in a creative and inspiring
team and institution. Many thanks to my wise colleagues in the research department
for providing me with different academic approaches to the design discipline.
Anders Warell, thank you for your excellent support and for asking questions I did
not dare to ask myself. Santosh Jagtap, I really enjoyed your constructive comments
and engagement in my writing process of the papers and licentiate thesis. I want to
thank Åsa Havard Maare and Christel Brost for always listening and helping. I have
found our conversations much inspiring and relevant, and I look forward to future
collaboration. I want to thank Jonas Larsen and Mattias Nordberg for great
collaboration in the materials courses, and for letting me integrate and test my ideas.
I would especially like to say thank you to Dr. Elvin Karana and the Material
Experience Lab for stimulating experiences, discussions and a good laugh.
Valentina Rognoli, I really appreciate that you said yes to be my opponent.

I want to give thanks to my husband and daughters for having patience and for
supporting me through thick and thin. I want to thank my mother for practical
support while encouraging me to follow my dreams and my brother for bringing
tinkering into our childhood. Grandmother, thank you for handing down craft skills
and material knowledge. I am still not sure if you really understand what this project
is about, but hopingly this thesis can shed some light.

Thank you to the industrial designers that was generous with their time and
contributed with valuable insights in the project. Last, but not the least, I want to
thank all the students that have been part of the project through courses, interviews
and discussions on materials and reflective material practices.

Thank you Viktor Hiort af Ornäs ( 1976 - †2016) for supervision in the beginning
of the project. You should have been here - it is finally finished.

Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen

Malmö October 2018

11
Preface
As an industrial designer coming back to academia after ten years in industry made
me reflect a great deal about what we chose to teach our design students and how
that is done. I have a background as a cabinet maker with a close relationship with
materials. When I was a student at the Danish Design School (KADAK) materials
became a driving force in my design process. It was a five year long journey of
exploring manufacturing processes and pushing the boarders for what could be done
with a material. My first employment was in China working with major US clients,
developing furniture and consumer goods for Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, Walmart
and others. I then moved on to the automotive industry and worked with, on one
hand super cars like Koenigsegg and RUF Porche, and on the other hand brands like
Opel and SAAB. When working with the automotive industry and big scale
manufacturing for the US market, materials became restricted aspects of the design
process and often off-limits for me as a designer. My frustration grew over time and
so did my knowledge about materials and manufacturing processes. In parallel to
working on the big scale projects, I continued to experiment with materials and
working with conceptual furniture design to keep my wit.
When I was contacted by Malmö University in 2007, a whole new world opened up.
The Bologna process was being implemented and design educations were rethought
with a greater portion of theory than before. Becoming a lecturer in a new product
design education was a great and inspiring challenge. During my years at Malmö
University, I have tried different roles from being a lecturer for students from
Product Design and Design Engineering, becoming Principal of Studies for
Mechanical engineering, Material Science and Product Design and then becoming
a part time PhD scholar. As a Principal of Studies in a technical faculty it became
very evident that design, material science and engineering not always are
sweethearts. The urge to bridge the differences in language, research culture and
pedagogic approaches became the starting point of my PhD application in 2012. In
August 2015, during my part-time PhD studies, the Product Design education
moved from the Faculty of Technology and Society to the School of Arts and
Communication (K3) in the Faculty of Culture and Society. As a design education,
we had reached an important long-term goal that opened up for implementing a
thoroughgoing pedagogic change. It also gave me the opportunity to engage in
practice-based research employing my design students as research subjects and the
learning environment as the context during a period of three years, testing a material
framework and continuously undertaking iterations and evaluations.

12
It has been an inspiring, challenging and illuminating professional journey so far,
and that I hope will continue in the future. During my PhD studies, I have given
birth to two wonderful girls. Being a parent has taught me to be efficient, to
appreciate and prioritize my time. Being a PhD scholar has taught me to be humble
towards my students and hopefully to become a better tutor. I hope this licentiate
thesis can contribute to a continued development of reflective material practices for
designers, tutors and students in a continuously changing society.

13
List of figures
Table 1. Short description of participating industrial designers. ............................57

14
1.Introduction

Materials selection in design and product development has for a long time been
dominated by a purely technical approach, mainly focusing on properties and
performance. With the increasing evidence of climate change, waste and pollution,
environmental effects, we are slowly realizing that unsustainable consumption of
materials is no longer an alternative. Materials constitute the physical appearance of
a product, and choosing the right materials is fundamental for, how a product will
function and how it will be appraised, but also for assessing its environmental
impact. As part of design education, students need to develop material practices that
incorporates material thinking in their overall design practice, which includes how
materials are contextualized, evaluated and selected. This work aims at contributing
to a solution to this problem, by introducing a Material Framework for Product
Design, to accommodate both the experiential and the technical side of materials in
material practices.

The project has focused on gaining an in-depth understanding of material

practices within design processes. This licentiate thesis presents a framework of
design and material related methods and connects these with supporting pedagogic
approaches. During the project, the material framework has been tested and
evaluated in two mandatory material courses with first and second year bachelor
students from Product Design education over a period of four academic years. The
outcomes of this research are: (1) a new pedagogic framework for teaching materials
to Product Design students in higher education, and (2) insights into professional
practices of selecting and designing with materials.

With my own background in the furniture and automotive industry, coming into
academia, it became clear to me that we need to continue developing existing
material practices. The world is moving towards a critical turning point in regards
to material and energy consumption, and the manmade materials of the
Anthropocene era (Crutzen, 2010) are now to be renegotiated as we slowly move
towards circular systems inspired by nature. The recently launched European
strategy for plastics (European Commission, 2018a) and the Proposal for a single-
use plastics directive (European Commission, 2018b) are shifting the focus of
current practices into considering plastic waste as a valuable resource rather than as
a waste management problem.

15
 In circular economy, product longevity is introduced as a strategy (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017). How do we create long term relationships with
products and how do we create products with materials offering graceful ageing? A
new paradigm is slowly making its way into society, affecting our material practice
as designers. Introducing Product Design students to new material practices can
contribute to make future designers more aware of the consequences of the decisions
they make and thereby develop a reflective practice in relation to materials in their
design processes. It is hoped that the work reported in this licentiate thesis will
encourage designers, both practitioners and educators, to pay attention to and
explore the intricate web of materials, materiality and making. As these are powerful
agents in communicating stories and building relationships between users and
objects, I believe that a reflective material practice can contribute to a sustainable
and circular future.

1.1. Background
Design education placed at technical faculties is often characterized by a curriculum
for materials education with a predominant focus on technical properties. This might
be due to the more technical aspects of engineering that form a structured analytical
field, which can be recorded and taught as a set of formal procedures (Ashby &
Johnson, 2013; Deng & Edwards, 2007a). Due to a long scientific and technological
tradition, the engineering disciplines are supported with numerous textbooks and
software tools. The majority of these focus on finding a match between material
properties, technical requirements of design and the science of materials. Design on
the other hand cannot so easily be formulated as a method; it relies instead on
‘visual’ thinking, sketching and modelling, and exploration of aesthetics and
perception, behaviours and storytelling (Ashby & Johnson, 2013). Materials
teaching in Product Design education is often pervaded by the tension between a
natural scientific, engineering oriented topic and the practice based constructive
tradition that most design educations are rooted in (Hasling, 2015). There has been
a tendency of ‘watering down’ the material education for design students, instead
of using adequate, up-to-date scientific methods from the field of design to cover
both the technical properties and sensorial characteristics (Asbjørn Sörensen,
Jagtap, & Warell, 2017a). Based on the my own didactic experience from a decade
of tutoring product design students at bachelor level on the subject of material
practices within design, I believe that a long-term strategy is required to overcome
the related barriers in materials education. Engineering students, at bachelor level,
study well-established textbooks with scientific knowledge that is ‘unquestionable’
and developed during the past two centuries (Bucciarelli, 2003). This kind of
‘content knowledge’ can be seen as static and difficult to apply in an open-ended

16
learning exercise typical for design students. Design education has over time made
use of and adapted some resources developed from the field of engineering, but also
created methods and tools of its own (Rognoli, 2010). Design students need to be
taught multiple perspectives on materials, such as technical properties, sensorial
characteristics and sustainability aspects (Karana, Pedgley and Rognoli, 2015).
Design students also need to be introduced to materiality and making in order to
develop their own material practice. With my background in the Danish Design
tradition, where experimentation and practical work were (and perhaps still are)
considered more important than the theoretical side of design, it has been
challenging but rewarding to try to make the two paradigms of design and material
science come together in a pedagogic framework for teaching material practices in
design education.

1.2. Material Practices and Design Processes

Looking for a suitable epithet defining the material related activities within a design
process, which includes theoretical and applied knowledge of materials, turned out
to be challenging. In the dictionaries, typical definitions of material and practice
include those in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Dictionary definitions of the words material and practice.

17
But are these definitions sufficient? Reckwitz (Reckwitz, 2002) defines practice
from the social theoretical perspective of practice theory as follows:

“First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between ‘practice’ and ‘practices’ (in

German there is the useful difference between Praxis and Praktiken). ‘Practice’
(Praxis) in the singular represents merely an emphatic term to describe the whole of
human action (in contrast to ‘theory’ and mere thinking). ‘Practices’ in the sense of
the theory of social practices, however, is something else. A ‘practice’ (Praktik) is a
routinized type of behavior, which consists of several elements, interconnected to one
other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a
background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion
and motivational knowledge”.

A material practice within design is by nature an explorative and reflective practice.

The reflective aspect of design as defined by scholars such as Donald Schön (Schön,
1983; Schön, 1992) and John Dewey (Dewey, 1938) becomes central in a designer’s
material practice as designers articulate meaning through the materials that embody
a design. Designers keep developing their personal material practice over time. They
can choose to become specialized in a few materials (craft/art tradition) or become
generalists (industrial design) and develop their own way of approaching new
materials. As tutors in a design education, we have the responsibility to introduce
material practices instead of the traditional decontextualized theory on materials. To
develop a practice, the learner traditionally mimicked a technique or a sequence of
actions – the master and apprentice tradition was the foundation of most of today’s
design education (Abercrombie, 2001; Findeli, 2001; Hasling, 2015; Sennett, 2009).
However, as Dewey so well articulates it, design education is situated in “a society
where change is the rule, not the exception” (Dewey, 1938). Throughout this thesis,
the term material practices refers to material related activities and applied
knowledge of materials within a design process. Applied knowledge of materials
will be addressed in chapter 3 and material related activities will be further defined
in chapter 3.3.

1.3. Aim and research questions

There are four primary aims of the research presented in this thesis: (1) to ascertain
obstacles in the traditional ways of teaching materials to design students, (2) to
bridge the differences in language, research culture and pedagogic approaches in
design education, (3) to investigate current professional material practices in
product design, (4) to develop a new material framework for teaching reflective

18
material practices for design students. The project consist of a literature study and
three empirical studies that sought to answer the following research questions.

Study 1:
• What are the obstacles and challenges in the traditional ways of teaching
materials to design students?
• What are the most challenging learning goals for design students in material
related courses?

Study 2:
• How can materials and design be taught in a manner that bridges theory and
practice, within design education, and specifically in material related
courses?
• How can multiple perspectives on materials be introduced into an existing
curriculum currently focusing on technical properties?

Study 3:
• What are the existing material practices of professional industrial
designers?
• What commonalities and individual differences can be found in material
practices of professional industrial designers?

The project has gained inspiration from different research fields; however is
predominantly a design-led research project. It has been conducted in a design
education based on an evidence-based paradigm, using design students as research
subjects and the learning environment as the context. The topics, which are
addressed, are generic for design courses, design practice and industry.

1.4. Thesis outline

The use of theory in this licentiate thesis is not divided into specific sections, rather
it has been merged and integrated with the practice-based findings. Theory has been
used to define boundaries and to understand the relevance of the scope as well as to
motivate, develop and validate experimental and practice based findings. Due to the
multiple aspects treated in the project, different kinds of theories have been
integrated and merged. The theories have been chosen from different research
disciplines to cover learning processes, theoretical and practiced based knowledge
creation, as well as technical and experiential understanding of materials.

19
 The thesis has been organized as follows: the first part of the thesis contextualizes
the project in an introduction. The aims of the project are then presented, followed
by a theoretical frame of reference and a literature review of material related design
methods. The second part of the thesis includes the three empirical studies, followed
by discussion, conclusion and finally implications of the findings for future
research.

20
2.Theoretical frame of reference

When developing a pedagogic approach for teaching materials to design students it

becomes central to create a strong interaction between theory and practice. Previous
approaches have not succeeded in teaching students how to apply their theoretical
knowledge in design projects. In a new approach, it was also considered important
to explore how students could be actively involved in knowledge production, to
further strengthen the interplay between theory and practice. Earlier research and
own experiences from tutoring, design and engineering students, and assessing their
achievements suggested that students need to be guided and introduced to tools or
methods to achieve an interplay (Asbjørn Sörensen, Jagtap, & Warell, 2017a;
Bucciarelli, 2001; Hasling, 2015). Looking back at the last 150 years of design
education, we come from studio or workshop based teaching, acknowledging tacit
knowledge, an iterative approach and individual student projects rather than a
generalized curriculum. This is noted by Frayling (Frayling, 1993) who points out;
‘… an action based mixture of the conceptual recognition of problems and their
resolution in the form of tangible things’. Looking back into the history of design,
applied art and applied science reveals the two dominating paradigms over time.
Gropius suggested, in the first Bauhaus manifest in 1919, a threefold structure of
teaching: (1) Craft, (2) Drawing and painting, (3) Science and theory (Wick, 2001).
However, already in 1926, Gropius’ threefold structure introduced a polarity
between theory and practice (Findeli, 2001), so it is not a new challenge in design
education. When the Bologna process was in the beginning of its implementation in
48 European member countries of The European Higher Education Area (The
European Higher Education Area, EHEA, 2018), the traditional, practice and arts
based design education with roots in the craft practice had to make way for a new
type of design education with increased theoretical studies. The ‘learning-by-doing’
tradition had to be integrated with an increased degree of theoretical knowledge.

2.1. Experiential learning

Experiential Learning Theory builds on a philosophy of education, based the work
of Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget and what John Dewey, originally called a theory of
experience (Dewey, 1938) or ‘learning-by-doing’.

21
 "(There is a) need of forming a theory of experience in an order that education may
be intelligently conducted upon the basis of experience." (Dewey, 1938)

The Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) is a holistic model that builds on six
propositions agreed upon by the founding scholars (Dewey, 1938; Alice Y. Kolb &
Kolb, 2005). These are; (1) learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of
outcomes, (2) all learning is relearning, (3) conflict, differences and disagreement
are what drive the learning process - in the process of learning one is called upon to
move back and forth between opposing modes of reflection, action, feeling and
thinking, (4) learning is a holistic process of adaptation to the world, learning
involves the integrated functioning of the total person, (5) learning results from
synergetic transactions between the person and the environment, assimilating new
experiences into existing concepts and accommodating existing concepts to new
experience, and (6) learning is the process of creating knowledge.

Figure 2. The experiential learning cycle adopted from Kolb & Kolb (Alice Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

ELT proposes a constructivist theory of learning, whereby social knowledge is

created and recreated, within the personal knowledge of the leaner (Kolb & Kolb,
2005). ELT has been used as a holistic approach to learning in the framework
defined by Kolb (Kolb, 1984); ‘Learning is the process whereby knowledge is
created through the transformation of experience’. Kolb suggests that learning is
the major determinant of human development, and the way individuals learn shapes

22
the course of their personal development. ELT suggests that learning is cyclic,
involving four modes of learning; experience, reflect, generalize, and test. In Kolb’s
experiential learning cycle (Fig.2), the different modes of learning are associated
with distinct learning styles. Individuals differ in their preferred learning styles,
recognizing this is the first step in raising students' awareness of the alternative
approaches to learning. By offering different modes of learning, students become
more flexible in meeting the variation of learning situations. Teachers also need to
recognize their own individual learning styles as a basis for the development of
effective teaching and learning strategies (Healey & Jenkins, 2000).

2.2. Learning processes

In the initial process of developing a pedagogic approach for teaching materials to
design students, designing for learning was considered essential as well as to
understand teaching as making learning possible (Ramsden, 2000). Kress and
Selander (2017) use the term didactic design to describe both how a tutor can shape
social processes, and thereby create conditions for learning, as well as how the
learner continuously recreates (re-designs) the information in his or her own
individual meaning-making process. By thinking of the tutor as a facilitator and
designer of learning processes, who creates spaces for learning and points towards
useful resources, the learner is given the agency to create an individual path of
learning. The individual learning path is then created by the choices the learner
actively or passively makes during the learning process as well as the transformation
of information and the creation of new representations that are the results of the
processes or signs of learning (Selander & Kress, 2017). The signs of learning are
not necessarily directly correlating to the course specific curriculum, but can still be
very valuable for the learner even if the academic system does not acknowledge or
show formal appreciation to all signs of learning. To be able to assess the signs of
learning, in a design education, different kinds of documentation are used, e.g.
different types of portfolios, visual diaries or short films. They all have in common
a strong visual representation of the learning process but can at times suffer from
the lack of meta-reflection. This might be caused by the constant flow of micro
decisions made during the learning process and by the difficulty of distancing
oneself in the end to get a ‘helicopter view’ of the process and to be able to make a
meta-reflection on the actual learning outcomes. Sennett (Sennett, 2009) points out
that as design or craft skills develop, the techniques transform from being
mechanical to being reflective. In a design or craft discipline, the process of doing
is traditionally not formalized as they are in an academic setting, where course
curricula demand that the learner reflects upon, communicates, and argues for the
choices made in the design process.

23
Figure 3. Ramsden’s model of teaching in higher education. (Ramsden, 2000).

According to Ramsden (2000) there is a set of six core principles of effective

teaching in higher education; (1) interest and explanation, (2) concern and respect
for student learning, (3) appropriate assessment and feedback, (4) clear goals and
intellectual challenge, (5) independence, control and active engagement, (6)
learning from students. These principles were used as a guide in developing existing
curricula and then to transform the gathered experience and knowledge into a
framework for teaching materials to design students. A tutor’s theory of teaching is
brought into action in Ramsden’s model of teaching in higher education (Fig.3) and
shows the reflective practice needed for the tutor to refine and develop his or her
teaching practices over time.

2.3. Learning environments

Learning happens in specific environments; environments of learning make specific
semiotic/conceptual resources are made available in particular configurations
(Kress, 2009). Designing for learning material practices in a design education needs
to offer environments that facilitate both the theoretical and the practical aspects of
material practices. The learning environment influences what role the student plays
in the learning activities. In a traditional lecture theatre the students become an
audience, while in the workshop, the students set the stage and become actors
performing together with the tutor. The learning environment mirrors the didactic

24
design and reflects what role the student is expected to play (Dewey, 1907; Leijon,
2016). When students and tutors enter a room, they read it in a similar way; they
have expectations of the genre and the affordance of the room. A study by Leijon
(2016) showed that a space designed for learning is something students read,
transform, and re-design in action. In design education, students in general
encounter three different learning environments: the lecture theater, the studio and
the workshop facilities. The workshop facilities typically offer a digital
manufacturing space (i.e. 3D-printer, laser cutter, CNC milling machine), a wood
workshop and a metal workshop. The workshop environments combined with
classroom didactics create an experimental dimension, transforming the traditional
material didactics into participatory activities (Zhou, Rognoli, & Ayala-Garcia,
2018).

2.4. Meta-cognition
By developing skills as learners, students can be empowered to take responsibility
for their own learning and knowledge creation, also in regions that are
uncomfortable for them (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Brost (2014) argues that the students
become agents of change as they are introduced to real events and manage to reach
a level where they can construct questions and ideas that have an effect. By creating
open-ended assignments that encourage reflective dialogue and cooperation
between tutors and students, it is possible for some students to reach a meta-
cognitive knowledge level in the second year course, as defined by Bloom’s
Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). Cooperation, as Sennett (Sennett, 2009) so well
expresses it, ‘is a craft, and the foundations for skillful cooperation lie in learning
to listen well and discuss rather than debate’. In order to reach a meta-cognitive
knowledge level it is necessary to create assignments that are open and complex
enough to allow the students to continue to elaborate rather than stopping at the first
level of altering (Brost, 2014). They need to reach the underlying layer, such as why
this needs to be done in the first place and to analyze what effects the changes or
new solutions might have. It takes time for a student to become a skilled learner and
she/he needs guidance in the process.

2.5. FLIP
Flipped learning helps tutors to move away from direct instruction as the primary
teaching mode towards a more student-centered approach suitable for experiential
learning. FLIP engages students in higher-order thinking, utilizes face-to-face time
with the tutor in an efficient way, and thereby contributes to active knowledge

25
creation (Sams & Bergmann, 2013). The flipped learning model, FLIP, is defined
as: ‘… a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group
learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is
transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator
guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter’
(Flipped Learning Network, 2014). The FLIP learning model is based on the
following four pillars (Flipped Learning Network, 2014):

(F) a flexible environment in the classroom or workshop

(L) a learning culture with a learner-centered approach where in-class time is

dedicated to exploring topics in greater depth and creating rich learning experiences
where students are actively involved in knowledge creation

(I) intentional content that helps the students to develop conceptual understanding
as well as procedural fluency through the tutor deciding what materials students
should explore in-class and on their own, to maximize classroom time for student-
centred active learning strategies

(P) a professional educator is challenged by continuously observing students in the

classroom and providing feedback relevant in the moment as well as assessing their
work

Working with the FLIP model demands that the tutor tolerates controlled chaos in
the classroom. It is important to take on a less visible and prominent role as
facilitator to make the flipped learning situation occur. One could critique the choice
of FLIP in higher education as still being underutilized and underexplored.
However, FLIP has strong similarities to the existing tradition in design educations,
e.g. using flexible learning environments and regarding the tutor as a facilitator.

One study suggests a developed model of FLIP for higher education by adding
PED (Progressive network learning activities; Engaging & effective learning
experience and Diversified platforms) to the FLIP acronym (Chen, Wang, & Chen,
2014). Progressive network learning activities refers to the necessity for dynamic
activity delivery, how to teach in an activity-oriented manner. This has to be a joint
strategy from the teaching team in a course if FLIP is to be used in a truly holistic
way. Engaging and effective learning experience intend to reduce the transactional
distance (communication and psychological distance) between the learner and tutor
by increased dialogue and by decreased pre-determined structure. Diversified
platforms refer to requirements of digital platforms with a ubiquitous nature, and
connects to the physical flexible classroom in FLIP. In the development of a new

26
pedagogic framework, the original part of the flipped learning model has gained
extra attention and the PED part has partially been integrated, as it is difficult to
influence diversified platforms in the university, especially within the project
timeframe.

2.6. Tinkering

Figure 4. A systematical tinkering with material samples to understand the technical properties (Alexandra
Ericsson, 2018).

Tinkering in an academic context can contribute to bridge the gap between

knowledge about materials and experience in materials. The chosen definition of
tinkering is: ‘The tinkering approach is characterized by a playful, experimental,
iterative style of engagement, in which makers are continuously reassessing their
goals, exploring new paths, and imagining new possibilities’ (Resnick &
Rosenbaum, 2013). Tinkering has strong roots in the crafts tradition and can be used
in an educational context to stimulate a reflective material practices. The HCI-
community has acknowledged tinkering’s influence on students’ experiential
learning and engagements with materials, and so has the materials community
within design (Parisi, Rognoli, & Sonneveld, 2017; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013;
Vallgårda & Fernaeus, 2015). The method itself is non-hierarchal, hands-on and
analytical. Material tinkering embraces a multi-sensorial aspect of materials, e.g.
how it may look, smell, sound, and feel. Tinkering with materials develops a
sensibility for the less prioritized aspects of materials (in material literature and
material selection software), such as tactile qualities, sound, taste and smell (Parisi
et al., 2017). From a user perspective these sensorial aspects are important as they
strongly contribute to the user experience through the affective influence the
material has on how the user interact with a product (Camere & Karana, 2018;
Karana, Hekkert, & Kandachar, 2010; Parisi et al., 2017).

27
 2.7. DOT-Framework and ‘triangulation first’
The Development Oriented Triangulation (DOT) framework and the ‘triangulation
first’ pedagogy offers an experiential learning approach to teaching research in
design education. Traditionally research methods are introduced to students in a
small scale, to enable students’ to master skills and knowledge needed to carry out
a particular method. In the traditional skills-centred (or rule-based) approach,
knowledge and skills are seen as the most important components of research
competence. Research attitude, is regarded as the outcome of mastering research
skills and methods in the skills-centred approach. The DOT-framework (fig.5), on
the other hand, is an experience-centred model for research education (Van
Turnhout, Coppens, Craenmehr, & Bakker, 2016), and treat research attitude as the
foundation for the acquisition of research experience, and in turn treat research
experience as the necessary ground for deep learning of research knowledge and
skills.

Figure 5. The DOT framework (Van Turnhout et al., 2016)

The ‘triangulation first’ pedagogy favours examples over rules, and open-ended
problems combined with student-defined questions, which stimulate students to
solve research problems using individual approaches. The tutor support students
through critical reflecting conversations and by discussing possible alternatives. The
DOT framework might be regarded as unconventional, however there is some

28
evidence that it leads to deep learning, increased retention and knowledge transfer
(Bereiter, 2005; Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007; van der Linden, 2012),
provided that students have access to good role models and just-in-time teaching to
address specific knowledge needs (Van Turnhout et al., 2016). The research
strategies of the DOT-framework is designed to help students to operationalize their
research questions and supporting research planning. The DOT-framework facilitate
the understanding of the relationship between research and design process. The
‘triangulation first’ pedagogy can thus be characterized as follows: (1) favour a
practical and pluralistic view of research, (2) advocates a mixed-methods approach
for solving real world problems, (3) nurturing an open minded research attitude has
precedence over teaching specific methods, (4) building experience has precedence
over building knowledge, and (5) experiential knowledge has precedence over rule-
based knowledge. Tutors value the DOT-framework as a shared language, however
not all teachers share the pluralistic values underlying the framework, and express
a recurring difficulty to distance themselves from their own educational background
(Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017c; Van Turnhout et al., 2016). The DOT-framework
contributes to broaden the view on research, and assist tutors and students in
recognizing other approaches than their ‘own’.

2.8. Methods in design education

Methods assist design students in skill development and to reinforce practice that is
necessary for developing intuitive expertise over time (Kahneman & Klein, 2009).
Methods can be seen as mental tools or mind-set supporting design students in
navigating complexity and ambiguity (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017a; Hasling,
2015). Design methods in comparison with engineering methods or procedures are
not prescriptive, algorithmic nor constructed to resolve trade-offs to achieve
consensus in concept selection (Bucciarelli, 2003; Haase, 2017). It is important to
understand how designers approach methods, how methods are situated and how
designers and the environment in which the method is used interact. Methods are
especially helpful in uncertain situations, where they can guide the designer in how
to proceed in an effective manner (Daalhuizen, 2014). Methods within design often
work as a way to frame and contextualize a problem and a combination of methods
can act as a framework for reflection, negotiation and action in a design process.
Learning to frame and reframe is a vital skill both in the design process and in
developing one’s own material practice. Frames are often communicated through
storytelling and simple metaphors that contains quite complex information that
provides the designer with information about: (1) the project’s values and goals, (2)
the relevant issues, (3) boundaries to the design situation, and (4) criteria for
evaluation (Haase, 2017; Ingold, 2001).

29
 ‘The solution, I argue, is to move beyond the dichotomy between innate capacities
and acquired competencies, through a focus on the emergent properties of dynamic
systems. Skills, I suggest, are best understood as properties of this kind. It is through
a process of enskilment, not enculturation, that every generation grows into and
beyond the wisdom of its predecessors. This leads me to conclude that in the growth
of human knowledge, the contribution that each generation makes to the next is not
an accumulated stock of representations but an education of attention’ (Ingold,
2001).

In design education, the framing process is often learned through a process of

enskilment, and as education in where to put one’s attention when tasks are
performed within the interlocked domains of technical and social activity (Ingold,
1993). As tutors, we provide information or signposts that guides the student on the
route towards knowledge about and enskilment in framing and reframing. By first
introducing the student to the framing process through learning-by-doing, and then
provide a guided reflection during supervision, contributes to meta-reflection that
provide both the student and the tutor with an outline of the students’ personal
material practices.

Every framing process needs frames. Frames are defined by the methods a
designer selects to apply in a given process or a specific project. The frames offer a
structure to deal with unfamiliar territories and over time, the reinforced practice
contributes to the development of intuitive expertise. Intuitive expertise is defined
by Simon (Chase & Simon, 1973; Simon, 1992) as ‘the recognition of patterns
stored in memory’. The intuitive decisions a skilled designer makes come often to
mind on their own, without explicit awareness of the evoking cues and without an
explicit evaluation of the validity of these cues (Kahneman & Klein, 2009).
Reflection-in-action contributes to a reinforced practice by paying attention to, and
learning from, decisions and actions that lead to mistakes or unexpected outcomes
of method usage (Schön, 1983). Learning to master the reframing process is strongly
connected to the ability of reflect-on-action and the development of intuitive
expertise or knowing-in-action. Studies of framing processes indicate that: (1) the
quality of a design team’s project corresponds with the number of iterations of the
project framing (Valkenburg & Dorst, 1998), (2) expert designers search for the
paradox in the data, as a starting point of their framing (Christiaans, 1992), (3)
skilled students are more specific in the initial framing, they continue to reframe
through a project (Haase, 2017), (4) skilled students apply a research strategy and
zoom in, as less experienced students tend to zoom out to cover more ground (Haase,
2017), (5) skilled students document both what they know and what they don’t know
and reflect on critical questions as less skilled students tend to end up with a
summary instead of a reflection (Haase, 2017).

30
 2.9. Material Selection or Material Exploration
It is important to make a distinction between material selection and material
exploration, as they are two different ways of approaching materials (van Bezooyen,
2014). Generally material selection processes are described as formulating material
criteria, making a set of candidate materials, comparing candidate materials and
choosing candidate materials (Ashby, Bréchet, Cebon, & Salvo, 2004; Chiner, 1988;
Farag, 2006; Van Kesteren, Kandachar, & Stappers, 2006). While the extant
literature presents material selection processes as a sequence of activities aimed at
finding candidate materials, there is paucity of research on material criteria
activities (Asbjørn Sörensen, Warell, & Jagtap, 2017b). Formulating material
criteria is an activity that is performed during all design phases and they become
clearer and more complete throughout a project. Materials are pre-dominantly seen
as the features of a physical structure in material selection literature and as a result
they are considered only after the conceptual design stage, in 'system/embodiment
design' or 'detailed design' (Deng & Edwards, 2007b; Edwards & Deng, 2007;
Hodgson & Harper, 2004). This contradicts with the notion that material selection
is an interdisciplinary effort combining social, economic and environmental
domains (Hodgson & Harper, 2004; Veelaert, Ragaert, Hubo, Van Kets, & Du Bois,
2016). Materials considered in the fuzzy front end of the design process are dealt
with at a more abstract and holistic level, e.g. through creating a material vision and
exploring their experiential qualities, instead of defining materials requirements for
product realization (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017b).

2.10. Materials and manufacturing processes

Materials are shaped into products, but materials are more than a matter from which
the design is embodied and can rather be considered as the integrating element of
form, function and fabrication. Materials and manufacturing are inevitable linked to
one another both in relation to the technological development and the design
process. Materials are dependent on the limitations of tooling and manufacturing
processes, but can also be the driver of the technological development for tooling
and manufacturing. By first creating an understanding for the possibilities and
limitations of a material one then can utilize that knowledge into an exploration of
new possible manufacturing processes. A classic example is Grete Jalk’s Bow chair
that challenged the prevailing traditions of manufacturing in the late 1950’s and
early 1960’s. The Bow chair involves a highly complex method of manufacturing
processes, and is a great example of Jalk’s sheer technical daring experiments with
form and molded plywood. It took seven years of material experiments and tooling
development before it could be put into production, only composed by two organic

31
and elegant conjoined pieces (Fig.6). The choice of material, form and
manufacturing processes results in a strong and light piece of furniture with good
ergonomic and tactile qualities.

Figure 6. Bow Chair line drawing (Jalk, 1963)

2.11. The relationships between materials and

elements of design
In the Hodgson & Harper’s Form, Function and Fabrication model (Fig.7), the
three elements of form, function and fabrication are broadened to consider a more
detailed range of ten materials related product attributes by which these elements
are realized. These in turn ultimately determine both the ‘cost’ and ‘value’ of the
product, which must ultimately match needs or market demand (Hodgson & Harper,
2004). The strength of Hodgson and Harper’s model is the holistic approach to
materials and fabrication in a design process. The model handles how the attributes
relate both to each other and to the surrounding context. The model supports the
design student in reflecting on both the potential and consequences of each attribute
in relation to the surrounding attributes. These attributes must be considered within
the context of the market need for the product. This is itself determined by the
factors which comprise the ‘value’ of the product to consumers balanced by the
product ‘costs’ (as defined by the manufacturing costs and margins). The model is
developed as a reaction against how material selection is traditionally taught in
design education. By integrating cost and value, it reflects a realistic scenario that
could support professional designers as well.

32
Figure 7. The Form, Function and Fabrication model, describing the relationship between materials and
elements of design and fabrication (Hodgson & Harper, 2004).

2.12. The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas

The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas by Rognoli (2010) focuses on expressive-sensorial
description of materials and how the complexity of phenomenological, perceptive
and sensorial aspects of materials can be interpreted (Fig.8). At a didactic level, the
‘atlas’ can be used as an interactive tool to teach design students the sensory
dimensions of materials, consisting of tactile and photometric sensations, and how
they correlate with technical properties (Rognoli, 2010). The Expressive-Sensorial
Atlas uses four theoretical ‘charts’, namely texture, touch, brilliancy and
transparency. The ‘charts’ provide illustration of sensorial qualities using a sample
of material combined with a simple, concise textual definition. The Expressive-
Sensorial Atlas also consist of a collection of sensorial maps that do not grade or
privilege the materials, hence the name atlas. The three sensorial maps that have
been developed by Rognoli (2010) are light/ heavy (density), cold/ hot (thermal

33
conductivity) and soft/ hard (Young’s Modulus). Students rank material samples,
based on personal sensation that results in a subjective and qualitative sensorial scale
from one sensorial extremity to another e.g. from light to heavy. Organising the
materials on subjective scales triggers relevant discussions between the students
when they realize that they do not always correspond to the scale derived from
objective properties e.g. from low to high density.

Figure 8. Left: Correlations between parameters and properties of the expressive-sensorial dimension of
materials for design. Centre: Theoretical charts - example of the touch table describing the tactile aspects of
materials. Right: Sensorial map - example of light/ heavy (density) of materials (Rognoli, 2010).

The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas (Parisi et al., 2017; Rognoli, 2010) based on the
relationship between phenomenological aspects and physical/technical properties of
materials, has proven to be a good tool to stimulate reflection and discussion
(Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017a; Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017c). In design
education, students learn to translate meanings and make sense in all stages of their
work from sketches and mockups to finished products, and this is often done tacitly
in a social manner as there is a threshold to be conquered before it is externalized
or verbalized (Hasling, 2015; Parisi et al., 2017; Selander & Kress, 2017). Students
must be trained in reflecting and discussing the complexity of why a certain material
has been chosen and with the purpose of developing a material vocabulary. Without
a material vocabulary a student cannot express, describe and discuss the sensorial
and technical aspects of a material and then as a consequence the material
experience becomes personal and enclosed (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017a; Asbjørn
Sörensen et al., 2017c; Hasling & Lenau, 2014; Karana, Pedgley, & Rognoli, 2015;
Zhou et al., 2018).

2.13. Meaning of Materials tool and model

Meanings of materials are what we think about materials and what kind of values
we attribute after the initial sensorial input in a particular context (Elvin Karana et

34
al., 2010). Meaning of materials cannot be reduced to a single property or a single
sensory domain (Karana, 2009a; Rognoli, 2010; Van Kesteren, Stappers, & de
Bruijn, 2007) and thus the Meaning of Materials (MoM) model and tool were
developed by Karana to assist designers in manipulating meaning creation in
materials selection (Fig.8). Meaning of Materials are what we think about materials
and what kind of values we attribute after the initial sensorial input in a particular
context (Karana et al., 2010). Meaning of materials cannot be reduced to a single
property or a single sensory domain (Karana, 2009; Rognoli, 2010; Van Kesteren,
Stappers, & de Bruijn, 2007) and thus the Meaning of Materials (MoM) model and
tool were developed by Karana to assist designers in manipulating meaning creation
in materials selection (Fig.9).

Figure 9. Meanings of Materials model (Karana, 2009b; Karana, Hekkert, & Kandachar, 2009).

The MoM model offers a multifaceted framework that embraces both intangible
and sensorial characteristics as well as technical properties that are embedded in a
material. The MoM tool is applied in three steps with a group of informants. They
are individually asked to: (1) select a material embodied in a product (or part
thereof) that they think expresses a specified meaning, (2) provide pictures of the
material embodied in example products, and (3) explain their choice and evaluate
the material on provided sensorial scales. The results are then analysed by the
designer, and become an important contribution to the material selection process.
The final interpretation of the result from using the MoM model is left to the
designer (Karana et al., 2015a). By regarding oneself as a creative filter and using
intuition to pick up the relevant points for a specific design, the designer contributes
to defining the meaning evoking patterns of a material found using the tool. The

35
results can then be communicated through the MoM model. See Karana (2009) and
Karana et al. (2009) for related details.

2.14. Material Driven Design

Material Driven Design (MDD) brings the materials into focus in the front end of
the design process, unlike problems, functions, or forms, the materials themselves
are the starting point of a project (van Bezooyen, 2014). In Danish design education,
the experimental, hands-on approach to materials has a long tradition rooted in
crafts practices, but has never been formalized. The MDD method can be seen as a
formalized way of experimenting with materials in a design process and is
developed by a group of researchers, coordinated by Karana, from the Department
of Design Engineering of the Delft University of Technology in collaboration with
the Design Department of the Politecnico di Milano. Turning around the design
process contributes to finding new applications for materials and allows for a more
holistic approach that considers not only the surface of a nearly finished product but
also considers the bigger picture of the product’s lifecycle (van Bezooyen, 2014).
The MDD method (fig.10) is developed to facilitate design processes in which
materials are the main driver (Karana, Barati, Rognoli, & Zeeuw van der Laan,
2015). One could describe it as a reversed design process if compared to a traditional
design process and material selection process.
The MDD-method encourages hands-on interaction with the material at hand, from
the first encounter through to exploring and understanding the material in detail with
its unique qualities and limitations (Karana, Barati, Rognoli, & Zeeuw van der Laan,
2015). By working with an explorative approach, the designer understands the
material in depth e.g. experiential qualities, physical properties and ‘the material’s
purpose within a situational whole’ (Karana et al., 2015). The MDD-method guides
the design student in a journey from material properties and experiential qualities to
materials experience vision, then to experiential qualities, material properties and
finally to products. Activities to support this journey are organized under four main
steps as: (1) Understanding the Material: Technical and Experiential
Characterization, (2) Creating Materials Experience Vision, (3) Manifesting
Materials Experience Patterns, (4) Designing Material/Product Concepts.

First step
In MDD, a designer is first expected to understand the material in hand and
characterize it both technically and experientially, so as to articulate the material’s
unique role (in contrast to alternative materials) when applied in products.

36
Figure 10. Material Driven Design model (Karana et al., 2015).

This step includes: (1) tinkering with the material to get insights on what the material
affords, its technical/ mechanical properties, as well as how it can be shaped/
embodied in products, (2) material benchmarking to position the material amongst
similar and/or alternative materials, to generate insights on potential application
areas, emerging materials experiences and other emerging issues within the design
domain, and (3) user studies to explore how the material is received by people, how
it is appraised (i.e. experiences related to aesthetics, meanings, and emotions), as
well as what the material elicits from us, what it makes us do (Giaccardi & Karana,
2015).

37
Second step
In the second step, a Materials Experience Vision, that articulates the design
intentions, is crafted to communicate the ultimate aim of the design process. The
purpose of the vision is to summarise the findings from the first step of the MDD-
method, in order to help the designer to recognize a visionary path towards a future
application. First, the designer is expected to encapsulate and reflect on the overall
material characterization, then construct the Materials Experience Vision, which
may accommodate various statements that could be interpretative (e.g., the material
will express naturalness), affective (e.g., the material will surprise people), or
performative (e.g., the material will require delicate use). In addition, the unique
role and purpose of the material within a broader context may be defined (e.g., the
material will make people aware of their consumption patterns, the material will
make people appreciate products made of ‘waste’ materials) (Karana et al., 2015).
The Material Experience Vision can be communicated as a clear concise statement
supported with visual material.

Third step
In the third step, Karana et al. (2015) suggest that the designer extract two or more
key meanings from the Material Experience Vision, and explore how they are
connected to formal properties such as shape and manufacturing processes. This
could be done by, for example, using the Meaning Driven Materials Selection tool
(Karana, Hekkert, & Kandachar, 2010). The results are then evaluated both by
analysing the provided images and descriptions from the participants, and by
performing a statistical analysis of sensorial scale ratings. At the end of phase three,
the designer summarises the findings of the study, using his/her own intuition to
interpret the findings, and finally formulate the relationships between the formal
properties of materials/products and the explored meanings. The result, i.e. the
Material Experience Patterns, can then be structured and illustrated using the MoM
model (Karana, 2009; Karana et al., 2009).

Fourth step
In the fourth step, possible future material-product concepts are then generated
based on all the main findings from step 1 to 3, e.g. the Material Vison, the Material
Experience Patterns and the technical specification of the material. At this stage,
further tinkering with the material can be necessary to create a promising prototype
in the intended material. The chosen material-product concept can then
subsequently be developed in a regular design process. To ensure that the final
product concept still conveys the intended meanings and experiences, it is essential
to involve end users in the final stage. A final evaluation is then performed,
comparing the material-product concepts against their fit to the intended Materials

38
Experience Vision; their feasibility (for cost and production), and their technical
performance (whether the material can fulfil the required function).

39
40
3.Empirical studies

Figure 11. Relations between studies conducted in the project.

Three separate studies were conducted after the initial literature study (Fig.11). The
first study analysed qualitative data from written and verbal student-course-
evaluations, in relation to statistical data from student retention in the two courses.
The first study continued during the full length of the project to monitor the results
of the second study. The second study was conducted as practice-based research.
The findings from the literature study, the first study, and the author’s own
experience of ten years of tutoring, were used to outline a new pedagogic framework
for teaching materials in design education. Iterations were generated in one-year
loops, and evaluated continuously over a sequence of three years, 2015-2017. A
third separate study was carried out simultaneously with the second study in 2016,
based on a multiple comparative case studies of qualitative interviews with design
professionals. The result of the third study influenced the iterations made in the
second study.

41
 3.1. Study 1: Challenges for material education
During 2008-2012 the materials courses were taught by material science department
in joint section between product design and mechanical engineering students. From
2012-2014 the courses were taught by material science department exclusively for
product design students, however still based on the same lectures and lab-exercises,
under the motto ‘that is the traditional way of teaching materials’. An unpublished
study was conducted to explore the relations between learning goals, learning
outcomes, pedagogic framework and learning strategies in order to get a clearer
picture of the challenges at the time and possible strategies to improve the quality
of the education in general and more specifically the materials courses. The two
mandatory material courses taught to the first and second year students in the
Product Design education were selected for the study, to answer the research
question: what are the obstacles and challenges in the traditional ways of teaching
materials to design students?

3.1.1. Study design – retention and course evaluation

Mixed methods became a way forward in an attempt of creating a new method for
systematic evaluation of changes made in pedagogic approaches in a fixed
curriculum. Mixed methods research takes advantage of using multiple ways to
explore a research problem. The mixed methods have been used to first obtain
qualitative data (course evaluations), that later could be compared to quantitative
data (student retention), and finally triangulated and validated by theory and
feedback from external stakeholders, i.e. the Product Design education’s external
advisory board. This study design is an attempt to propose criteria and appropriate
measurement of the effectiveness of design education in general and material related
courses in particular. Both the qualitative and the quantitative data were then
connected to the learning goals from the two material courses that were offered in
the period 2008-2014. This mix of methods offered a multifaceted picture of the
relations between learning goals, learning outcomes, pedagogic framework and
learning strategies.

3.1.2. Execution
For the first study, the two mandatory materials courses, taught to the first and
second year students in the Product Design education at bachelor level, were
selected. Data was gathered over the period 2008-2014, consisting of: (1)
summarized course evaluations based on oral evaluations from both students and
teachers together with individually written evaluations from students, and (2)
statistical data on the student retention, i.e. how many students were registered on

42
the specific course and how many students completed the course. The course
evaluations are a combination of multiple-choice questions (quantitative) and open-
ended questions (qualitative). The multiple-choice questions were pre-determined
by the university and so were some of the open-ended questions as well. Tutors were
given the option to add a few questions themselves to the on-line questionnaires.
The data was automatically anonymised in the online questionnaires. During the
period of 2008-2014, there were also frequently conducted oral evaluations in class,
with students and teachers as equals in the dialogue. Protocols were written, signed
and added to the summarized evaluation document. A qualitative data analysis of
the individual open-ended answers was conducted using concept driven coding
(Gibbs, 2008) with the addition of the possibility to add codes during the coding.
The categories or concepts that the codes represent were based on the topics in the
questionnaires, the literature study and didactic experience.
In each course, the learning goals relates to different course modules with course
credits connected to them. The statistical data on student retention was retrieved on
course module level, so that the data could be related to specific learning goals in
the curriculum. Each course module is connected to a certain amount of ECTS, i.e.
one week of full time studies (40h) equals 1,5 ECTS. When all modules are passed,
a final grade is given for the full course. The students can only be evaluated ‘passed’
or ‘failed’ in both courses. The statistical data was extracted from LADOK (Local
EDP based documentation system), a national student registration and grading
documentation system in Swedish higher education. To access the statistical data, a
specialist, with unrestricted access to the system, assisted me. It took several
attempts, and different strategies were tested, in order to retrieve the data sets in a
manageable size. The technical challenge was to retrieve data on a module level
within a course and not the data from a summarized course. The process of accessing
retention data needs to be further developed. This could be done by, for example,
creating a routine for retrieving the retention data, and add it to the standardized
course evaluation report. Adding the information to the course evaluation report
could offer valuable feedback to the team of tutors teaching a course, on how
changes in pedagogic strategies affect different learning outcomes for the students
in a course.

3.1.3. Reflection
When analysing course evaluation documents from the period 2008-2014, some
comments were frequently observed, e.g. ‘the material lectures should be made
relevant for product design students, not only for the mechanical engineering
students’ and ‘the theoretical questions in the written exam didn’t feel relevant from
a design perspective’. When product design students and engineering students are
taught the same courses in material and production methods, the courses tend to

43
become too general and decontextualized (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2016; Asbjørn
Sörensen et al., 2017a). Design students are generally interested in applied materials
and often discouraged by the technical approach in the introductory courses. The
findings indicate that it became difficult for the design students to relate the purely
technical aspects of materials to the applied material knowledge gained through the
design projects. By evaluating the early versions of the courses in materials and
manufacturing, it also became clear that when design education only offers
theoretical perspectives on materials from material science and mechanical
engineering, students had difficulties applying the gained content knowledge in
applied design projects. Material selection and manufacturing processes became an
added layer quite late in the students’ projects and therefore not embedded in the
object itself.

Implications of a more general character, found in the study included that if

students perceived an assignment as a heavy workload, they perform less efficiently
in comparison to if the assignment was perceived as stimulating and inspiring. In
general, traditional theoretical studies, assessed with a written test, were considered
as a heavy workload that students ‘coped with’ rather than achieving the intended
learning outcomes. The study of Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, (2002) support the
finding. They also found ‘teaching quality’ to have the strongest single influence on
learning outcomes. Teaching quality is defined by Lizzio et al. (2002) as:
reciprocally interactive and motivating transactions between teacher and student,
clear goals and standards, appropriate assessment and emphasis on independence.
This suggests that the factors that influence students’ perception of the learning
environment have to be considered when developing a pedagogical framework.

3.2. Study 2: A new pedagogical framework

The findings from the literature study were combined with the findings generated in
the first study from the period 2008-2014 to create a new pedagogical framework
for teaching materials in design education. A second study was designed to test the
new framework, and to answer the following research questions:

(1) How can theory and practice be taught in an integrated manner in design
education and more specifically in material related courses?
(2) How can intangible and sensorial material characteristics be introduced into
existing curriculum, currently focusing on technical properties?

Theory from experiential learning, the FLIP learning model, active learning and
active knowledge production influenced the direction of the project at this stage. A

44
new pedagogic framework was outlined and new learning strategies were
implemented within the existing curriculum for the first time in 2015. The students
participated as test subjects in the educational environment. Iterations to the
framework were generated in one-year loops, and evaluated continuously over a
sequence of three years, 2015-2017, using the method outlined in the first study.
The result of the study contributed to three new curricula for material related courses
introduced for the period 2017-2019.

3.2.1. Study design – implementation and iterations

An initial framework was outlined based on the literature study, the findings in the
first study and my own didactic experience. Ramsden’s six core principles (Fig.12)
of effective teaching in higher education (Ramsden, 2000) were used as a foundation
for choosing learning strategies, designing learning activities and evaluating
learning outcomes in relation to the learning goals (i.e. reflection on experience).
The mixed method that was developed in the first study was also used to further
evaluate the results of the iterations undertaken each year in the period of 2015-
2017.

Figure 12. The foundation for iterations made in the study, based on Ramsden’s six core principles.

45
 3.2.2. Execution
Early in the development of the new framework, it became clear that it was
important to make a distinction between material selection and material
exploration, as they are two different strategies of approaching materials. Based on
the findings from the first study, material exploration was chosen as a learning
strategy for gaining deep knowledge and material selection for gaining a broad
knowledge. Multimodal learning activities were applied as it contributes to
experiential knowledge creation when theory and practice become intertwined.
Figure 13 shows an example of the combination of multimodal learning activities in
the first material course module (4,5ECTS) in the introductory course. The learning
activities where typically planned so that they supported each other, e.g. a lecture in
the morning, followed by hands-on learning activities later in the day.

Theoretical knowledge
Lectures on materials &
Applied knowledge
manufacturing processes
Course literature
Recieve a technical drawing
Reflection
of an object
Replicate the same object in Guided reflection on the
four different materials process and the learning
outcomes in seminar groups
Choose most suitable
technique for each material,
by tinkering with the materials
Create four modified technical
drawings of the final result

Figure 13. An example from a course module based on multimodal learning activities.

In the first materials course module in the first year material tinkering in the
workshop is combined with lectures on materials technical properties, sensorial
characteristics and environmental aspects (with material samples present during
lectures). Tinkering with materials creates a personal experience and relationship
between the tinkerer and the material that transforms the material into a partner in
the process (Parisi et al., 2017).

The multimodality of ways of approaching materials offer a deeper understanding

at theoretical, experiential and practical levels. Tinkering offer a methodology for
exploring the complex interplay between the tangible material properties
(mechanical, thermal, etc.), sensorial material characteristics (smooth, warm, soft,

46
etc.) and the intangible material characteristics (experienced when interacting with
the product) in relation to the manufacturing processes. Encouraging students to use,
test and dismantle a product, in order to analyze and describe the materials’ tangible,
sensorial and intangible qualities, can be a first step in exposing students to the
contextual complexity of functionality, product identity, materials and
manufacturing.

In the materials course in the second year, tinkering is introduced as a part of the
Material Driven Design (MDD) method. Here the tinkering process often starts
from a bottom-up approach without a clear goal. In the early stages of the course,
the students develop their own materials using tinkering as the dominant method
and later tinkering is used for understanding technical, sensorial and intangible
aspects of the developed material.

Figure 14. Students ranking material samples subjectively from light to heavy and, the column to the left in
the second picture, according to density.

The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas is introduced, in the first materials course in the

first year, to train the students in reflecting and discussing the complexity of why a
certain material has been chosen, with the purpose of also developing a material
vocabulary. The sensorial scales have been adapted so that pairs of students arrange
ten material samples (Fig.14) in scales from how they experience the samples, and
then by its technical properties e.g. from heavy to light (density), from warm to cold
(thermal conductivity) and soft to hard (Young’s Modulus). After arranging the
material samples a group discussion is initiated on: (1) how they experienced the
sensorial characteristics in the material samples, (2) why there are a variation in the
ranking across the class, (3) the relationship between sensorial characteristics and
technical properties, (4) further development of a material vocabulary. The exercise
sheds light on the dynamic interaction between technical properties and sensorial
characteristics however, it also works as a trigger to externalize internal knowledge
and experiences in the dialogue.

In the materials course in the second year (15 ECTS), Material Driven Design
(MDD) was introduced as a method to offer deep knowledge creation as a

47
compliment to the broader theoretical knowledge offered in lectures. The common
goal of the Material Driven Design course is to be able to communicate the
adaptation of the MDD-method, the context the material is situated in and possible
future applications. In the MDD course the students are presented with different
cases relating to current societal challenges connected to materials, e.g. how to
utilize discarded polyester (to prevent it from ending up in landfills), possible future
applications for bacterial cellulose, algae or mycelium based materials or exploring
the potential of sustainable DIY-polymers. Do-It-Yourself (DIY) materials are
introduced as an option in the course.

In the first part of the project, tinkering is a dominant approach. The students are
asked to create their own materials by using tinkering in a systematically way,
documenting and analysing each sample in a diary or a protocol. The tinkering goes
from being chaotic and open-ended towards being highly structured and analytical
in the project. Here the tutors’ knowing-in-action contributes with valuable feedback
and guidance. The tinkering process tests the students’ (and the tutors) ability to
navigate ambiguity and to utilize the power of uncertainty in the explorative and
creative process. By combining the theoretical knowledge with tinkering, the
students manage to create their own range of materials.

Figure 15. (1) Students performing a pull test on their DIY-materials, (2) analyzing the materials stress strain
curve to calculate Young’s modulus, (3) DIY-materials developed by Amelia Burdette, Tim Lindkvist and
Niklas Krig (2016).

To understand the technical properties of the new materials, they are tested (e.g.
tensile strength, fire resistance, water resistance). The data can then be processed in
CES-EduPack to find other materials with similar technical profile. The testing of
technical properties using selected material samples produced through tinkering
(Fig.15) highly motivates the students in comparison to before introducing MDD
when for example the mandatory pull test lab was conducted with prefabricated
metal rods.

48
 The guided user study, aimed at exploring how the materials’ experiential
qualities are perceived by users, initiated interesting discussions about how
materials relate to cultural context. For these user studies, an early version of the
‘experiential characterization toolkit’ (Karana et al., 2015a) was introduced. The
visual references used in the toolkit were created in a central European context and
the students found that it has to be adopted to a Scandinavian context, although the
students have a multicultural background, the local Swedish informants do not
(Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017b).

Figure 16. Two examples of material visions for agar based DIY-materials by the students Madeleine Borg
(2017) and Alexandra Ericsson (2018).

The next step, the material vision (Fig.16), is basically story telling in a few lines,
the distillation of tangible material properties, sensorial material characteristics, the
intangible material characteristics and possible manufacturing processes. In this
step, the students’ analytical skills are challenged. Skilled learners demonstrate the
ability to formulate a short and precise material vision, as less skilled learners need
extra attention and support from the tutor in this stage to be able to create a material
vision. There is a clear relation between the quality of the material vision and the
quality of the final application. A less precise material vision often results in a
general application that is not able to mediate the vision and thereby the essential
material qualities. Working with the material visions puts extra attention to
language, the use of metaphors and how designers often communicate through
storytelling in their professional role.

49
Figure 17. The ‘material experience patterns’ for the agar DIY-material by student Alexandra Ericsson (2018).

The MoM model and the related tool (Karana et al., 2015a) was introduced when
working with the third step of MDD to help students to understand how the complex
combination of manufacturing processes, form and function relate to the user
experience defined by, for example, expertise, gender, age, and cultural background
(Fig.17). The MoM tool used in an educational setting is intended to support
students in achieving second-order understanding (Krippendorff, 2005), in other
words to understand other people’s understanding of material experience (Pedgley,
Rognoli, & Karana, 2015).

50
Figure 18. Showing final material/ product concepts as results from the MDD-process. From the left: Scopy
(bacterial cellulose) by Ragnar Hagström Persson, Sofia Palm & Linda Claesson (2017), Stux (polyester
based) by Isabelle Zetterman, Clara Neråfors & Victor Svensson (2017) and finally Biofilic structures (3D-
printed biopolymer) by Emelie Molinder (2018).

In the last step, the students design material/product concepts with the material
vision, the material experience patterns and the materials technical properties in
mind. During the three years, the greatest challenge for the students has been to find
suitable production methods in the workshop and the primitive kitchen lab. The
second challenge has been to explore how this could be done at a larger scale. It is
a major step to develop a small material sample into a larger piece of material or a
prototype. However, the majority of students has managed to reflect-in-action, be
creative and find a systematically approach, see examples of results in Fig.18.

3.2.3. Reflection
The theoretical learning in the material courses were in the past focused on
traditional auditorium lectures, formal lab-exercises and written exams. The
material part of the courses was taught in a decontextualized manner, without
emphasis on the relation between design and material practices. When
implementing the new framework, unexperienced design students tended to prefer
the content knowledge taught in the lectures instead of the conceptual knowledge
that they gained in the workshop and studio environment (Asbjørn Sörensen,
Warell, & Jagtap, 2016; Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017c; Hasling, 2015; Lenau,
2002). Content knowledge is often regarded as unquestionable, and therefore, it is
within the comfort zone of the unexperienced students. In lectures, it was regarded
essential to offer both content knowledge, conceptual knowledge and procedural
knowledge to facilitate the students’ material exploration in order to create personal
material practices. By introducing methods and procedures to explore applied
materials, the students gained a contextualized understanding of the content
knowledge from the textbooks and lectures.

51
Material vocabulary
To stimulate and guide reflective material practices the students also had to conquer
a language to articulate both sensorial and technical material qualities. For a
designer it is important to be able to communicate why certain materials have been
chosen or developed for specific products (based on intentions and expected use)
for other stakeholders or else there is a high risk that the intended material qualities
are lost before the product is finalized (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017c; Hasling,
2015; Karana, 2009).

Learning environment
By transforming auditorium lectures to classroom lectures, and some of the lectures
to text seminars with small groups of students, the learning environment contributed
to create a reflective mode or level of learning. The workshop facilities offered as a
contrast an environment where the learner could control the environment to a larger
degree. The characteristics of learning environments and the shape of the
configurations have large effects on possibilities of learning (Kress, 2009; Selander
& Kress, 2017). The three different learning environments described offer a variety
of configurations that both the tutor and the learner can influence. However, for a
learner to take active charge of the learning environment requires maturity and
communication skills.

Tinkering in academic context

The analysis of retentions and the evaluation of learning goals in relation to learning
outcomes indicates that the more experienced tinkerer the students become, the
better they get at navigating ambiguity in the beginning of a design process (Asbjørn
Sörensen et al., 2017a; Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017c). Sketching or tinkering with
materials, is closely related to the skills of navigating ambiguity by constant process
of framing and reframing. A study by Goel (2001) showed that ambiguity in
sketches triggered constant reinterpretation or reframing. Tinkering in groups
demand careful negotiations in the making and the ability to know and reflect in
action. To create a positive environment for tinkering the space has to accommodate
material tinkering on a suitable level, e.g. basic kitchen (equipment to heat, cool and
dry materials), workshop facilities, or more advanced lab facilities. One needs to
facilitate experimentation with the material and collaborations between participants
during and after the session, as some materials can take time to set or keep on
maturing or changing over some time. By posing questions instead of giving
answers stimulates the students’ reflection and reframing. The tutor can support the
students in their material explorations by asking questions, pointing out interesting
phenomena, or wonder aloud about alternative possibilities. It is also important to
acknowledge the importance of failure in a tinkering process, as there is a lot to be
learned from both the failure and the success (Mader & Dertien, 2016; Resnick &

52
Rosenbaum, 2013). Discussing these aspects contribute to train the students’
analytical skills and ability to reframe as well as to build and enhance their material
vocabulary. Tinkering is an important skill in the students’ future material practice
as design professionals.

Material Selection and Material Exploration

Material practices embracing a holistic approach through the design process
acknowledges both the importance of a material’s experiential qualities as well as
its technical properties. Material exploration performed as an initial step in material
criteria activities in the front end of the design process tends to have greater
influence in the final material selection process in the embodiment stage. Material
exploration contributes to integration of intangible and experiential material
qualities in an early stage of the design process and thereby become embedded in
both the design process and final product. In traditional material selection processes,
material criteria are typically based on technical properties. Material exploration
offers the students a strategy for integrating both their theoretical and applied
material knowledge in the design process, from the fuzzy front end to the structured
back end (Fig.19).

Figure 19. A holistic model embracing both a material’s experiential qualities as well as its technical
properties in a design process.

Materials and manufacturing processes

A combination of theory, tinkering in the workshop and observation (field trips to
observe manufacturing) has proven to be a viable combination to explore how the
intended experiential material qualities in an initial prototype can be nurtured
through the process of designing a product for manufacturing. Traditional material
selection typically neglects the non-technical characteristics of materials. Therefore,

53
it has been a strategic choice not to initially introduce CES-EduPack as a tool for
material selection but instead as a useful resource for performing a life cycle
analysis (LCA) in relation to sustainability. These kind of systems fail to consider
the complex interactions, which in reality occur between various factors, i.e. how a
material affects the user’s experience of and interaction with a product (Asbjörn
Sörensen, Jagtap, & Warell, 2016). It is of course much simpler to identify a material
with an elastic modulus of X on a clearly defined numerical scale than it is to define
a more subtle characteristic such as tactile response (although these may be
dependent on each other). However, non-technical, intangible, sensorial
characteristics are likely to be the dominant factors in the consumer purchasing
decisions for a product which are major concerns of the designer (Hodgson &
Harper, 2004). Although engineering property requirements are important
considerations, they can be given secondary consideration in the material selection
process in order to create a product that can satisfy users’ preferences for intangible
and sensorial characteristics of materials in products.

Material Driven Design

The MDD project has to be positioned in relation to a theory or phenomena that
drive the result of the process and places the result in a context. Introducing three
optional ways of framing the MDD project, i.e. Do-It-Yourself (DIY), Cook-It-
Yourself (CIY) and Grow-It-Yourself (GIY) have offered a way for the students to
approach an open-ended assignment. DIY-materials are materials, which are created
through individual or collective self-production practices, often by techniques and
processes of the designer's own invention (Ayala Garcia, Rognoli, & Karana, 2017;
Rognoli, Bianchini, Maffei, & Karana, 2015). It can be new materials, modified, or
further developed versions of existing materials. CIY-materials refers to the
hybridization between design, material physics and molecular gastronomy, i.e. how
to produce materials by using the principles and processes from traditional cooking,
and to some extent, ingredients i.e. food waste, gluten, starch (Ayala Garcia, 2015;
Humier & Tardieu, 2012; Rognoli et al., 2015). The tinkering process in this case
utilizes methods from cooking practices, for example, casting, kneading and
extruding. GIY-materials refers to materials co-produced with nature, so far most
commonly produced materials are from mycelium, bacteria and algae (Camere &
Karana, 2017; Ayala Garcia et al., 2017; Collet, 2018; Ng & Wang, 2016).

Introducing a complex open-ended exercise at bachelor level demands a

responsive approach from both tutors and students. Because of the explorative
nature of the assignment, the tutor invests time in negotiating the borders of each
student team’s project. It demands active discussions to define and refine the
constraints for each team. The challenge lies in not having a common well-defined
list of deliverables when handing out the assignment. Each team has to negotiate
what resources and tools they might need in order to finalize their project, as well

54
as how much time they are prepared to invest. Less skilled students need guidance
in navigating the initial ambiguity in the explorative parts of the process. This can
be done by offering milestones that are negotiated within the student team and with
the supervisor. The success of the MDD course was made possible by facilitating
the process with adequate learning environments, mandatory logbooks, and by
making a recipe book with basic DIY, GIY and CIY materials.

3.3. Study 3: Professional material practices

Industrial designers have unique skills to combine technical properties and sensorial
characteristics of materials in the product development process. The third study is a
qualitative case study that was conducted to investigate when and how professional
designers, working in design consultancies, engaged in activities that influenced
material selection in the design process. An initial literature study was carried out
and the findings indicated a paucity in related research. During the last decade
design professionals have experienced many changes. Despite the importance of
materials in product design, there are time constraints in design projects and
condensed educational programs in dealing with aspects of materials (van
Bezooyen, 2014). Design professionals tend to invent their own ways (or just use
their own intuitions) constantly developing their personal material practices over
time (Hodgson & Harper, 2004; Karana et al., 2010; Ljungberg & Edwards, 2003;
Van Kesteren, Stappers, & De Bruijn, 2007; van Kesteren, de Bruijn, & Stappers,
2008). But, are the personal material practices unique for the individual or can a
systematic pattern of commonalities be found?

3.3.1. Study design

For the case studies, an explorative semi-structured interview form was chosen. To
obtain realistic accounts of material related activities in the design process, the
interviewees were not informed in advance of the research background and specific
aims. The interviewees received a short general introduction when scheduling the
interview. Each interviewee was asked to choose a typical case and was asked to
'talk me through it'. The informant prepared visual portfolio material from a typical
'bread and butter' design project to be used as a guide during the interview. It was
considered important to avoid 'innovation' projects since they generally do not
represent a typical 'everyday' design process. The interviews were carried out in the
interviewees' design offices for easy accessibility of visual and physical materials
during the interviews.

55
Figure 20. Interview guide with four main topics used during the interviews, italic text indicates questions
added after the initial interview.

The four main topics (Fig.20) remained the same during all interviews, but after
each interview, transcription and coding were undertaken, the questions were
refined and some questions were added, so that the depth of information could be
optimised. The interviews lasted between 48-72 minutes. The interviews were
recorded, transcribed, coded in NVivo with open coding, and then analysed using a
cross-case comparison approach (Gibbs, 2008). Four of the interviews were
conducted and transcribed in Swedish and the fifth was conducted and transcribed
in English. No translations were made before coding the data, instead the final
results were translated, to avoid losing important details in the data. The interviewer
has experience of working as an industrial designer in the automotive industry.
Being familiar with the vocabulary and the context was helpful in conducting the
interviews, as one of the interviewees pointed out. This experience might also have
a disadvantage, e.g. interviewees may hold back some information believing that it
is common knowledge in the industry.

The challenges were first to analyse the qualitative data and then to make
analytical generalization of these findings. For this reason, I chose a practice
theoretical perspective of Category Zooming (Halkier, 2011). Category Zooming is
a way of generalizing by zooming in on particular aspects of the qualitative data
material. This way of generalizing goes into depth with the details and complexities
in one single point of the study. In the multiple comparative studies, comparison

56
between cases was undertaken to ensure what was compared was analytically and
sufficiently identical across the cases.

3.3.2. Execution
The participants recruited for the interview study were five industrial designers with
ten or more years of professional experience (Tab.1). The participants all work in
multidisciplinary design consultancies, which is important in relation to having first-
hand experience of complex material selection processes. Due to their long
experience in industry, all five designers had advanced to senior design positions
and two of the interviewees were partners in their respective companies. The design
consultancies varied in size from 6 to 40 employees trained as industrial designers,
graphic designers, interaction designers, Computer Generated Imagery (CGI)
artists, mechanical engineers, etc. They mainly work with well-established
international brands (e.g. medical devices, consumer electronics and sports
equipment) and occasionally with smaller start-up companies. In the screening
process eight design consultancies in Scandinavia were found and contacted. From
these eight design consultancies, six participants were recruited. One interview, was
unfortunately, cancelled by the participant for personal reasons. All five participants
came from different design consultancies. It is worth noting that all participants are
male and that no females were found in the screening process.

A B C D E
Age 40-45 40-45 40-45 45-50 35-40
Gender M M M M M
Educational background:
Industrial designer MFA MFA MFA MFA
Design Engineer BA BA
Professional experience (years) 12 14 15 16 14
Title:
Senior Industrial Designer X X X X
Design Director X X
Partner X X
Type of case:
Consumer electronics X X
Sport equiptment X
Health care X X X
Consumer goods X X
Technical equiptment X X
Employees: 30-40 30-40 10-20 5-10 5-10

Table 1. Short description of participating industrial designers.

57
 Exploratory semi-structured interviews are rich in information but time
consuming to analyse. The main themes that recurred during the open coding were:

• Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
• The 'fuzzy' pre-design phase
• Material criteria activities
• Material selection activities
• Risk management

Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
The results of our interviews indicate that the design consultancies applied different
strategies. The smaller design consultancies (5-10 employees) tended to work in
multidisciplinary manner, whereas the bigger ones (20-40 employees) strived to
work in an interdisciplinary way. One of the smaller consultancies worked in an
interdisciplinary manner with some of their regular clients in the healthcare industry
as they had developed strong relationships over time. The relationship contributed
to increased influence already in the pre-design phase.

The ’fuzzy’ pre-design phase

The pre-design phase is often referred to as ‘fuzzy’ because of the ambiguity and
chaotic nature that characterises it. The findings implicated that the communication
skills of the lead designer became crucial in the negotiation of the project boundaries
in the ‘fuzzy’ pre-design phase. The results of our research indicate that the more
skilled the negotiator is in understanding the consequences of the different stages of
the design process, the greater influence he/she has on the final brief (Fig.21). The
industrial designers had all developed abilities over time to identify problems and
to see 'the bigger picture', this also contributed to identifying opportunities in a
project.

Figure 21. Factors that influence the negotiations of project boundaries.

58
The interviewees described their relationship with new clients as a maturing process
and they nurtured the client to become a skilled design client. The Design Ladder
(Fig. 22) is useful in understanding the client's experience and relation to design.

Figure 22. The Design Ladder is a tool for rating a company’s use of design and was developed by the Danish
Design Centre in 2001 to illustrate that companies’ use of design may take on a variety of forms.

Material criteria activities

Awareness of when initial steps are taken to define material criteria in a project was
generally lacking in all of the design consultancies. They regarded the material
criteria as mainly the engineers' responsibility. A reason for this might be that the
industrial designers interpreted material criteria as purely technical properties and
not sensorial characteristics. In the pre-design phase it is possible for the design
consultancies to influence how the brief is written. By describing the interaction
between the product and the user as rich as possible in the brief, one opens up the
problem-space as well as the solution-space. For example, a brief for a medical
device described how the product should feel when it came in contact with the user's
body. The brief also described that the product expression in some of the parts
should signal the short lifespan of the part and that it is ok to dispose of as the main
housing should be made a trusted friend. The brief outlines material criteria
expressed as intangible and sensorial characteristics. Being aware of this can
contribute to translating the intangible and sensorial characteristics into technical
properties in the later phases of the design process. These translated technical
properties contribute to formulate the final material criteria used for the material
selection process by the engineers.

Material selection activities

In the interviews, two scenarios of material selection processes emerged. In projects
based on incremental design, e.g. a new up-dated version of a mobile phone, the
possibilities to influence the material selection as a design consultancy are very
limited. In projects based on new product development or radical design, the

59
influence depends on the material knowledge embedded in the project team and the
skills of the negotiator in the pre-design phase. Earlier studies have shown that
material selection should be taken into account from the early design phases in order
to create an impact on the product life cycle cost and to support the
conceptualization (Veelaert et al., 2016).

Risk management
Risk management is often mentioned in the interviews as an argument for not
implementing alternative materials that could contribute to improve the
performance of a product. Risk management becomes an especially dominant factor
in the implementation phase of a product development project, (Narayana 2005) but
affects the design process as a whole. As a design consultancy it can be valuable to
identify and understand what is considered a risk by the client and then to
systematically address them one by one (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017b).

3.3.3. Reflection
The results indicate that a lot of new information is gathered during the 'fuzzy front-
end' of the design process. Many aspects are considered in this critical phase, e.g.
understanding of users and contexts of use, exploration and selection of new
technologies such as new materials and information technologies, etc. When time
available to gather and process information in the ‘fuzzy front-end’ is limited, the
designers tend to rely on the re-use of their own experience about products,
processes and materials. A creative start-up session is an efficient tool to frame the
problem-space and the solution-space together with all the relevant stakeholders.
This allows everybody to personally engage in the project, creating ownership and
a sense that everybody can contribute with knowledge in stages that are not
necessarily within their area of expertise and comfort zone. These creative start-up
sessions attempt to bring as much knowledge as possible in the project and to
visualize some of the initial ideas. Previous studies suggest that design sketches
serve not only as external memory or as a provider of visual cues for association of
non-visual information, but also as a physical setting in which design thoughts are
constructed on the fly (Suwa, Gero, & Purcell, 1998). Already in the 'fuzzy front-
end', initial material criteria activities are performed.
Materials considered in the ‘fuzzy front-end’ of the design process are dealt with at
a more abstract and holistic level where materials can be used for creating a material
vision and material criteria. Material selection refers to the well-defined process
applied in the later stages of a design process where the materials selection criteria
finally are defined by context of manufacturing and cost to realize an already mature
product concept. Moving from the conceptual level of ideas towards the selection
of tangible qualities can be challenging for designers, because of the diversity of

60
aspects to consider (Camere, Schifferstein, & Bordegoni, 2016). Often the material
selection becomes a secondary priority for the industrial designers in complex
projects; instead, they tend to rely on the skills of engineers. Consequently, it is
crucial to translate the sensorial properties into technical properties so that the result
from the design process keeps its qualities in the final stages of the embodiment
design and pre-production. All product features contribute to users’ holistic
appreciation, and although products will be experienced as a whole (Schifferstein &
Desmet, 2008), it is important for designers to fine-tune every detail. The
materialization of their experiential vision brings the experience to life (Hassenzahl,
Wiklund-Engblom, Bengs, Hägglund, & Diefenbach, 2015). For these reasons,
moving from conceptual intentions to tangible qualities is a delicate moment of
transformation, in which every decision matters, and on which the final success of
the product depends (Camere et al., 2016). Reflection is crucial in a material
selection process since there is no specific answer; only contextually related
material candidates are available (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2016).

61
62
4.Discussion and contributions

In the previous chapter of this dissertation, three empirical studies were presented:
(1) Challenges for material education (2) A new pedagogic framework, and (3)
Professional material practices. Each study had a slightly different scope, and a
varying set of research methods were used to study material practices from different
point of views. Collectively, these three views generated a rich understanding of
material related activities in the design process. This chapter has been organised in
the following way: the first section summarises the findings, then a discussion of
methods is presented, followed by a discussion of findings, and finally a reflection
on the research process.

4.1. Summarising the findings

There are four primary aims of the research presented in this licentiate thesis: (1)
ascertain obstacles in the traditional ways of teaching materials to design students,
(2) to bridge the differences in language, research culture and pedagogic approaches
in design education, (3) to investigate current professional material practices in
product design, and (4) to develop a new material framework for teaching reflective
material practices for design students. Based on the findings from a literature study
and three empirical studies a Material Framework for Product Design has been
developed.
The pedagogic model A Material Framework for Product Design is designed to
facilitate the development of reflective material practices in design education. The
Framework consist of four levels: (1) a pedagogical foundation based on
Experiential Learning theory that provide a framework for how to approach teaching
and learning, (2) designing and structuring learning activities, (3) creating learning
environments that facilitate learning activities, and (4) defining learning objectives,
assessment of learning outcomes and detecting signs of learning.

The foundation of the framework is based on Experiential Learning Theory

(Dewey, 1907; Dewey, 1938; Kolb & Kolb, 2005) and the understanding of learning
as a social practice. This has strongly influenced the choice of didactic theories and
design methods, which has been integrated in the framework (Fig.23). Bloom’s

63
Taxonomy is used to clarify learning goals and objectives in the curriculum, and to
secure a common language for communicating these. Bloom’s Taxonomy from the
1950s has become the dominant way of structuring learning in higher education,
including Malmö University and this project. Ramsden’s six core principles
(Ramsden, 2000) is used to structure reflections on how applied theory of teaching
effects the learning activities in the classroom, and the learning outcomes.

Figure 23 The pedagogic model A Material Framework for Product Design is designed to facilitate the
development of reflective material practices in design education.
The Framework consist of four levels: (1) a pedagogical foundation based on Experiential Learning theory that provide
a framework for how to approach teaching and learning, (2) designing and structuring learning activities, (3) creating
learning environments that facilitate learning activities, and (4) defining learning objectives, assessment of learning
outcomes and detecting signs of learning.

64
 Didactic design and signs of learning, as suggested by Selander and Kress (2017),
is used for understanding how to facilitate students’ individual processes of
becoming skilled learners. Ingold’s theories on framing, and enskilment in how to
frame, contextualize and re-frame a problem, connects well with Simon’s notion of
how to develop of intuitive expertise. Intuitive expertise grows out of reflective
practices as defined in Schön’s theories (Schön, 1983; Schön, 1992). Reflection-in-
action, reflection-on-action and knowing-in-action is strongly connected to the
practice of tinkering in an academic context, and contributes to bridging the gap
between theory and practice in current design education. The DOT framework and
‘triangulation first’ pedagogy (Van Turnhout, Coppens, Craenmehr, & Bakker,
2016) contribute to establish a common language and an experiential research
approach across the design education.

Designing for learning material practices in design education needs to offer

environments that facilitate both the theoretical and the practical aspects of material
practices. Learning environments influence what role the student plays in the
learning activities and needs to be considered when designing for learning. Theories
from Dewey (1907), Leijon (2016) and Kress (2009) are applied in the framework
to further facilitate experiential learning. The FLIP learning model is integrated in
the framework since it has strong similarities to the existing tradition in design
education, and offers rich learning experiences where students are actively involved
in knowledge creation. The integration of FLIP contributes to actively position
learning activities so that students are doing the lower levels of cognitive work
(gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of class, and focusing on the
higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation)
in class, where they have the support of their peers and tutors (Brame, 2013).

The material related design models, methods and tools constituting the core of
the Material Framework for Product Design model (Fig.23) intend to offer a rich
understanding of tangible, intangible, and sensorial aspects of materials. The
methods introduces students to different ways of framing and contextualizing
materials in design processes. The material exploration approach (Pedgley et al.,
2015; van Bezooyen, 2014) introduces materials in the front end of the design
process, and contributes to integrate material practices early on in the design
education. Tinkering combined with theoretical perspectives contributes to reinforce
reflective material practices. Material explorations are supported by tools like the
Expressive-Sensorial Atlas (Rognoli, 2010), tinkering in an academic context,
Meaning of Materials tool and model (Karana, Hekkert, & Kandachar, 2010), and
the Material Driven Design method (Karana et al., 2015). The MDD method offers
learning activities supporting learning outcomes on all six levels of Bloom’s
Taxonomy (i.e. knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and
evaluation). The Form, Function and Fabrication model (Hodgson & Harper, 2004)

65
bridges the tangible, intangible and sensorial aspects of materials in the framework
and situates the material in a commercial fabrication context. Traditional material
selection processes (Ashby & Johnson, 2013; Deng & Edwards, 2007a), based on
technical properties focuses on the embodiment stage in design processes, and are
introduced in relation to manufacturing processes (Thompson, 2007), and material
selection software. The Material Framework for Product Design support tutors to
guide design students in developing reflective material practices.

The combination of methods in the Material Framework for Product Design are
thoroughly tested and iterated upon so that learning activities support each other,
and accommodate a pedagogical constructed progression in the material related
courses. However, the application of the methods, models and tools, needs to be
adapted to the specific context of a design education and learning goals defined in
the curriculum. Indications of a positive side effect, of applying the Material
Framework for Product Design in material related courses was recently discovered
(and needs further validation). The framework appears to have influenced the
structuring of learning activities and progression across the design education as a
hole.

4.2. Discussion of methods

The initial literature study was conducted using backwards and forwards
snowballing (Jalali & Wohlin, 2012; Wohlin, 2014) as systematically search
strategy (Fig.24). Snowballing was applied as it dramatically reduces the amount of
noise in database searches, especially when the keywords for searching include
general terms (e.g. design and material).

66
Figure 24. Snowballing procedure (Wohlin, 2014).

In the first study (Challenges for material education), a mixed method approach
was applied, as no suitable method was found in literature, which could capture the
relations between retention, learning goals and pedagogic approach. It was
considered important to bring out both quantitative and qualitative data to create as
rich a material as possible. The method for systematic evaluation of changes made
in pedagogic approaches was a result of an organic process of mapping what
available data existed and how it could be accessed and processed, in order to be
analysed. The method for systematic evaluation of changes made in pedagogic
approaches was found sufficient for the purpose of the first study, to explore what
obstacles and challenges there are in the traditional way of teaching materials to
design students and what learning goals are the most challenging for design
students. However, it needs to be further developed to become a viable and easy-to-
use method for measuring the effectiveness of different pedagogic approaches in
relation to specific learning goals. It is common practice in design educations to
change the curriculum in order to adapt to requirements of industry, science and
politics, and therefore, systematic evaluation procedures are needed to deliver
empirical data revealing the success or failure of different pedagogic approaches.
In the second study (A new pedagogical framework), the pedagogical framework
evolved, from systematical iterations of pedagogical approaches in a fixed
curriculum, during a period of three years. The findings in the literature study and
the first study became the starting point for creating the framework. The results of
the iterations were evaluated continuously by study one, to get indications if the

67
pedagogical strategies contributed to success or failure. Ethical considerations were
made in the project, i.e. the dual role as researcher and tutor could contribute to
unequal power relationships (Clark & McCann, 2005). To overcome these concerns,
it was decided to ensure a transparent process were the students continuously were
informed about how their participation influenced the project. During the course
introduction, the students were informed of the iterations made since the last time
the course was given, and in the end of the course, these iterations were evaluated
in the course evaluation form as an addition to the standard questions. The data from
the online questionnaires was automatically anonymized and treated as confidential
material. Different tutors conducted the oral evaluations in class, during the period
of 2008-2018, and always with another tutor present. The protocol was made
available to the class, and student representatives signed the written protocol after
each evaluation, to secure consensus between students and tutors. As a researcher
and tutor, it was important to maintain a neutral stance, and therefore never
responsible for the oral evaluation, nor took part in writing the evaluation protocols
during the project.

4.3. Discussion of findings

The first study attempted to answer the following research questions: (1) what are
the obstacles and challenges in the traditional ways of teaching materials to design
students, and (2) what are the most challenging learning goals for design students in
material related courses. The following section will discuss the different obstacles
and challenges found and how they were addressed in the project.

Evaluation of design education

Design educations in general undergo constant development or evolution,
responding to changing educational regulations, external stakeholders’ demands and
expectations. During the initial stage of the project, it became clear that there is a
lack of systematic evaluation studies of design education delivering quantitative
data, indicating success or failure of different pedagogical approaches (Spitas,
Badke-Schaub, Spitas, Rajabalinejad, & Karana, 2012). The initial literature study
also indicated a lack of pedagogic literature relating specifically to the design
domain in higher education. By broadening the scope to general pedagogic
literature, relevant theories were found and integrated in the framework. The first
study started during in a period which coincided with the national quality
assessment, initiated by the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ), which has
a shared responsibility with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), for national

68
quality assurance in higher education1. The national assessment model was critiqued
by the design oriented HEI’s for not covering the qualitative dimensions of a design
education, as the same assessment model was applied to all higher educations in
Sweden. In the project a new method was developed for systematic evaluation of
changes made in a fixed curriculum. The intention with the new method is to ensure
that both qualitative and statistical data can be connected to the learning goals in a
curriculum. The method is an attempt in proposing criteria and appropriate
measurement of the effectiveness of design education in general, and material
related courses in particular.

A multidisciplinary teaching environment

At the technical faculty, teachers at the time represented at least three design
traditions: applied arts, engineering design and human-centred design, each with its
own research culture. The engineering teachers represented the research traditions
of mechanical engineering, material science and applied mathematics. When
meeting teachers from different traditions, students were often confronted with
differing, sometimes sweeping, opinions about research, choice of methods and
methods usage throughout their education. As such, it was hard for students to
integrate and combine the underlying lessons, leading to suboptimal knowledge
transfer. Students where often left to their own contrivance, to integrate the different
pointers they got during their education. The DOT framework (Van Turnhout et al.,
2016) inspired a structure for preforming a detailed analysis of how learning
activities link across courses through the education and how it could be improved.
A detailed analysis of the linkage between learning activities made it possible for
tutors to work strategically together, developing a clear progression in learning
activities and learning goals. In the end, it resulted in a better synergy between the
courses, and the students could identify a red thread of progression within the
different subjects taught in the design education. The DOT framework contributed
to the process of implementing a common language and terminology. In the team of
tutors, the course literature was reevaluated and one of the books was appointed as
the main reference in defining a common vocabulary. It was surprisingly effective
and relatively easy to implement, once the decision was made.

1 The program evaluations emphasise the actual conditions and results, i.e., how the program meets
the requirements of applicable laws and ordinances. The program evaluations focus on how the
program ensures that students are given good opportunities to achieve the objectives of the
System of Qualifications, and how the HEIs ensures that, the students have achieved the
qualitative targets upon graduation. The assessment criteria can be adapted to some extent to
different degrees to allow the fairest review possible. The HEIs are also to describe and evaluate
how well their follow-up, measures, and feedback routines contribute to systematically ensuring
and developing the reviewed programs (UKÄ, Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2016).

69
Critical thinking
The ever-increasing availability of information has become a problem in society in
general, and for higher education specifically. Students in general tend to ‘google’
their way through the first semester in higher education. Widening participation has
contributed to the increased necessity of ‘academizing’ the first year students and
introduce academic skills, which includes critical thinking. As students’ capacity of
critical thinking increases, the quality of information gathered and used in projects
tends to increase. Therefore, critical thinking has become an increasingly important
skill to master when working with explorative processes. Tutors need to offer
strategies for how to filter information, to explore potentially relevant information,
and how to improve the information quality systematically within one’s field
(Burkhard & Meier, 2005).

4.4. A new pedagogical framework

The objective of the second study was to answer following research questions: (1)
how can materials and design be taught in a manner that bridges theory and practice,
within design education, and specifically in material related courses, (2) how can
multiple perspectives on materials be introduced into an existing curriculum
currently focusing on technical properties.
Findings in the first study indicated that combining theory, practice and applied
projects parallel in design education contributes to the development of a reflective
material practice (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017a; Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017c).
It was also concluded that the perceived relevance of a subject, the teaching quality,
and the perceived workload greatly influenced the learning outcomes in a course.
The findings from the literature study and the first study were taken into account
when creating the new pedagogic framework.

The need for support in explorative processes

During the four years of evaluations and iterations of the content and pedagogic
approaches in the materials courses, a pattern can be observed; in explorative
processes more tutoring is needed, especially in the beginning of the education.
When teaching materials in a contextualised setting, less experienced students at
bachelor level need clear guidance. The guidance could be a mixture of regular
seminars, logbooks and guides designed to support different stages of the
explorative process. Tutors generally face the challenges of fixed course budgets
and reduced hours for teaching in relation to the amount of ECTS. Therefore, the
Ma2E4 Toolkit (Camere & Karana, 2018) is a welcome contribution to future MDD

70
courses. The Ma2E4 toolkit is composed of: (1) a manual of instructions, (2)
facilitator’s questions, (3) the experiential characterization map, to record
participant’s answers, (4) the affective and interpretive vocabulary, and (5) a set of
interpretive pictures.
The results of the iterations indicate that the students have gained better
understanding of the complex context of material related activities in a design
process. There is a tendency of greater variation of relevant material candidates in
the design projects. Sustainability has become a naturally integrated part of the
materials courses and is no longer treated as a separate attribute but have instead
become embedded in the design process. The students have developed their material
vocabulary during the courses, contributing to a higher quality and precision in the
discussions.

4.5. Materials and professional practices

The goal of the third study was to answer the following research questions: (1) what
are the existing material practices of professional industrial designers, and (2) what
commonalities and individual differences can be found in material practices of
professional industrial designers. The findings in the third study confirm the need
for teaching design students how to translate experiential material qualities into
technical properties. In a design project, material selection is generally a team-based
activity, with contribution from, amongst others, industrial designers, mechanical
engineers, and marketers. The industrial designers' skills in translating sensorial
characteristics into technical properties are important in team-based activities, and
can have great influence, especially in the later stages of the material selection
process. Risk management is another important factor that influences the material
selection activities throughout the design process, and therefore, lead designers need
a basic understanding of the mechanisms of risk management. This would assist
lead designers to develop more powerful argumentation when negotiating project
boundaries in the pre-design phase. The designers' communication skills also play
a central role in the early stages of the design process when creating representations
of ideas together with the client. Creating these representations are important early
steps of the material criteria activities. The findings indicate a need for increased
awareness amongst industrial designers: (a) of when material criteria activities
actually are performed during the design process; (b) that material criteria activities
are negotiated and outlined already in the pre-phase of the design process; and (c)
about how risk management influences both material criteria activities and material
selection activities. Design students would benefit from being taught how to
undertake such activities in the pre-design phase.

71
 4.6. Final discussion
When developing personal material practices, the personal craft skills and
experience from different manufacturing processes automatically becomes a part of
the material practice. When designers work with materials, they transfer meanings
into the materials they select (or develop) for products based on intentions and
expected use. Learning-by-doing is important for developing craft-based skills,
however when it comes to big-scale manufacturing, we have moved away from one
person, one skillset or one knowledge set, controlling the entire manufacturing
process of an object. Each stage or problem becomes isolated as the manufacturing
process becomes fragmented; each stage represents a multitude of possible solutions
and therefore a multitude of interchangeable material responses (Kula & Ternaux,
2013). The designer’s role as a coordinator of design and material intentions, in a
project team has become increasingly complex. Designers often believe that, in a
limited time span, they cannot spend time for selecting new materials; as a
consequence, they prefer to select traditional materials, which can be an obstacle in
achieving innovative design (Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2017b; Karana, 2009).
Material experiments and explorations as part of a material practice can promote the
transition of our linear industrial society towards circular and hopefully more
sustainable processes. The existing manufacturing processes and material
classification systems are being challenged by, for example, distributed
manufacturing and new materials that fall outside present classification systems.
Today we grow materials, we engineer smart materials and designers create their
own materials in DIY-processes (Ayala-Garcia & Rognoli, 2017; Camere et al.,
2016; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Hekkert & Karana, 2014; Karana et al.,
2010; Elvin Karana, Rognoli, & Giaccardi, 2016). The maker community offers new
versions of distributed manufacturing and circular businesses refurbish products
(Kohtala & Hyysalo, 2015). The linear industrial processes of ‘take, make, dispose’
that have driven economic growth and shaped lifestyles over the last two centuries
are being questioned and rethought (Asbjørn Sörensen, in press). Material Driven
Design and DIY-materials in combination with theoretical framework from circular
design and sustainable development can provide entry points to address parts of the
complexity and envision new alternative solutions.

72
5.Limitations and future research

This licentiate thesis established a foundation for future research in: (1) design
education and pedagogics in higher education, (2) development of reflective
material practices in design education, and (3) current material practices in industrial
design. The research work so far has some limitations that need to be addressed.
The first study can be considered limited as it is only conducted in one design
education. On the other hand, it has a duration of five years and results are based on
statistical and qualitative data from a period of ten years. The result of the second
study need to be further tested and validated, however three new curricula for
material related courses are implemented during 2017-2019. The new courses will
be continuously evaluated, using the method from the first study. To further validate
the findings in the third study, a complementary survey is planned and further
interviews will be conducted. In the case studies, the selection of interviewees was
limited to design consultants and did not include in-house designers. Further studies
are planned to identify possible differences in material criteria activities and
material selection activities between design consultants and in-house designers.
The project has tried to address teaching and learning from both a tutor and student
perspective. Being a part-time tutor during the research project has been
challenging, both in relation to the time perspective, and in keeping a neutral stance
as a researcher towards the students. There has also been time for reflection, as I
have given birth to my youngest daughter during the time of the project.

73
74
6.Conclusion

The Material Framework for Product Design is in its early stages and there are
refinements, definitions and developments still to be made. The framework is
conceptualized on two levels; a theoretical level and an applied level. The
framework as proposed in this thesis allows for multiple interpretations and
adaptations to other subjects taught in design education.
This project has offered the opportunity to explore material practices in both
professional settings and in design education. By transforming learning and teaching
in a way that is meaningful, engaging and reflective, the hope is to contribute to
future students’ and design professionals’ capability to re-imagine the boundaries
of materials and manufacturing processes, and thereby contribute to the emergence
of a circular society.

75
76
7.References

Asbjørn Sörensen, C. (in press). Reflecting on the material side of design. Paper presented
at the Intuition and Evidence, Nordcode2018, Lund.

Asbjørn Sörensen, C., Jagtap, S., & Warell, A. (2016). Material selection in industrial
design education: A literature review. Paper presented at the 18th International
Conference on Engineering & Product Design Education, 111-111.

Asbjørn Sörensen, C., Jagtap, S., & Warell, A. (2017c). A shift from technical properties
towards sensorial characteristics in product design education. Presented at the 19th
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, E & PDE
2017 (pp. 388-393). Institution of Engineering Designers, Aalborg University. The
Design Society.

Asbjørn Sörensen, C., Jagtap, S., & Warell, A. (2017a). A new approach to materials in
product design education - A shift from technical properties towards sensorial
characteristics. Paper presented at the EKSIG2017: Alive. Active. Adaptive. TU
Delft Open.

Asbjørn Sörensen, C., Warell, A., & Jagtap, S. (2017b). Material selection - A qualitative
case study of five design consultancies. Paper presented at the DS 87-1 Proceedings
of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 1:
Resource Sensitive Design, Design Research Applications and Case Studies,
Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017,

Ashby, M. F., & Johnson, K. (2013). Materials and design: The art and science of material
selection in product design Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ashby, M. F., Bréchet, Y. J. M., Cebon, D., & Salvo, L. (2004). Selection strategies for
materials and processes. Materials & Design, 25(1), 51-67.

Ayala Garcia, C. (2015). The basis of processes - experimenting with food to re-shape the
industry language. Paper presented at the Cumulus Milan-the Virtuous Circle
Proceedings, 84.

77
Ayala-Garcia, C., & Rognoli, V. (2017). The new aesthetic of DIY-materials. The Design
Journal, 20(sup1), S375-S389.

Bereiter, C. (2005). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Routledge.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New

York: McKay, 20-24.

Brame, C. (2013). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching.

Brost, C. (2014). Students as agents of change. Paper presented at the DesignEd Asia
Conference. Hong Kong.

Bucciarelli, L. L. (2003). Designing and learning: A disjunction in contexts. Design

Studies, 24(3), 295-311. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00057-1

Bucciarelli, L. L. (2001). Chapter 13 - design knowing & learning: A socially mediated

activity. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design
knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 297-314). Oxford: Elsevier
Science.

Burkhard, R. A., & Meier, M. (2005). Tube map visualization: Evaluation of a novel
knowledge visualization application for the transfer of knowledge in long-term
projects. J.Ucs, 11(4), 473-494.

Camere, S., & Karana, E. (2018). Experiential characterization of materials: Toward a

toolkit. Paper presented at the Design Research Society 2018 Catalyst, Limmerick.

Camere, S., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Bordegoni, M. (2016). (2016). Materializing

experiential visions into sensory properties: The use of the experience map. Paper
presented at the Celebration & Contemplation, 10th International Conference on
Design & Emotion, 201.

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind's eye in chess. Visual information
processing (pp. 215-281), Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. (2014). Is FLIP enough? or should we use the FLIPPED
model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16-27.

Chiner, M. (1988). Planning of expert systems for materials selection. Materials & Design,
9(4), 195-203.

78
Christiaans, H. (1992). Creativity in design: The role of domain knowledge in designing.

Clark, E., & McCann, T. (2005). Researching students: An ethical dilemma. Nurse
Researcher, 12(3), 42-51.

Collet, C. (2018). Biotextiles: Evolving textile design practices for the bioeconomy and the
emerging organism industry. In: Soft Landing. Aalto University School of Arts,
Design and Architecture, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 87-99.

Crutzen, P. J. (2010). Anthropocene man. Nature, 467(7317), S10-S10.

Daalhuizen, J. J. (2014). Method Usage in Design: How methods function as mental tools
for designers (Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology).

Daalhuizen, J., Person, O., & Gattol, V. (2014). A personal matter? An investigation of
students' design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method.
Design Studies, 35(2), 133-159.

Deng, Y. & Edwards, K. L. (2007). The role of materials identification and selection in
engineering design. Materials & Design, 28(1), 131-139.

Dewey, J. (1907). The school and society: Being three lectures by John Dewey
supplemented by a statement of the university elementary school Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education for the 60th anniversary edition: KAPPA
DELTA PI.

Edwards, K., & Deng, Y. (2007). Supporting design decision-making when applying
materials in combination. Materials & Design, 28(4), 1288-1297.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). Urban-biocycles. US: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

European Commission, S. (2018). A european strategy for plastics in a circular economy.

(Working document staff No. 52018DC0028). Brussels: European Commission,
Secretariat-General. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2018:28:FIN Retrived: 2018-06-16

European Commission, S. (2018). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the

79
 environment. (Working document staff No. 2018/0172). Brussels: European
Commission, Secretariat-General. Retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/single-
use_plastics_proposal.pdf Retrived: 2018-06-16

Farag, M. M. (2006). Quantitative methods of materials selection. Mechanical Engineers'

Handbook,

Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical,
methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5-17.

Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of FLIP™. Retrieved from:
http://www.Flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/46/FLIP
_handout_FNL_Web.Pdf Retrieved: 2016-02-11

Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art, London.

Giaccardi, E., & Karana, E. (2015). Foundations of materials experience: An approach for
HCI. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2447-2456.

Gibbs, G. R. (2008). Analysing qualitative data. Sage Publishing.

Goel, V. (2001). Chapter 10 - dissociation of design knowledge. In C. M. Eastman, , W.

M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition
in design education (pp. 221-240). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Haase, L. M. (2017). (2017). The characteristics of a successful framing process. Paper

presented at the Oslo. , 19th International Conference on Engineering & Product
Design Education 2017, pp.80.

Halkier, B. (2011). Methodological practicalities in analytical generalization. Qualitative

Inquiry, 17(9), 787-797.
Hasling, K. M. (2015). Learning through materials - developing materials teaching in
design education. (Doctoral dissertation, from Kolding School of Design, Denmark).

Hasling, K. M., & Lenau, T. (2014). Development of the material selection practice in the
design Education–A study exploring articulation of material requirements. Paper
presented at the DS 78: Proceedings of the E&PDE 2014 16th International
Conference on Engineering and Product Design, University of Twente, the
Netherlands,

80
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb's experiential learning theory and its application in
geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185-195.

Hekkert, P., & Karana, E. (2014). Chapter 1 - designing material experience. In E. Karana,
O. Pedgley & V. Rognoli (Eds.), Materials experience (pp. 3-13). Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hodgson, S., & Harper, J. (2004). Effective use of materials in the design process: More
than a selection problem. Paper presented at the DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE
2004, the 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design
Education, Delft, the Netherlands, 02.-03.09. 2004,

Humier, L., & Tardieu, A. (2012). Cooking material. could molecular gastronomy help
discover new matter? (Kindle ed.) Triennale Design Museum.

Hunter, A., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of
undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal, and professional
development. Science Education, 91(1), 36-74.

Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, (2), 152.

Ingold, T. (2001). From the transmission of representations to the education of attention.

The debated mind: Evolutionary psychology versus ethnography. (pp. 113-153)

Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012, September). Systematic literature studies: database searches
vs. backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international
symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 29-38). ACM.

Jalk, G. (1963). Bow chair, line drawing Retrieved from

http://www.langeproduction.com/download/gj-bow-chair

Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to
disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515.

Karana, E., Barati, B., Rognoli, V., & Zeeuw van der Laan, A. (2015). Material driven
design (MDD): A method to design for material experiences. International Journal of
Design, 9(2), 35-54.

Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2010). A tool for meaning driven materials
selection. Materials & Design, 31(6), 2932-2941.

81
Karana, E., Rognoli, V., & Giaccardi, E. (2016). Materially yours. In J. Chapman (Ed.),
Handbook on sustainable product design (1st ed., pp. 206). UK: Routledge.

Karana, E. (2009). Meanings of materials. (Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft

University of Technology).

Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2009). Meanings of materials through sensorial
properties and manufacturing processes. Materials & Design, 30(7), 2778-2784.

Karana, E., Pedgley, O., & Rognoli, V. (2015). On materials experience. Design Issues,
31(3), 16-27.

Kohtala, C., & Hyysalo, S. (2015). Anticipated environmental sustainability of personal

fabrication. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, 333-344.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 193-212.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. experience as the source of learning and

development Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall cop. 1984.

Kress, G. (2009). Assessment in the perspective of a social semiotic theory of multimodal

teaching and learning. Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 19-41)
Springer.

Krippendorff, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. N.Y.: Taylor &
Francis.

Kula, D., & Ternaux, E. (2013). Materiology: The creative industry's guide to materials
and technologies. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG.

Leijon, M. (2016). Space as designs for and in learning: Investigating the interplay
between space, interaction and learning sequences in higher education. Visual
Communication, 15(1), 93-124.

Lenau, T. (2002). Material and process selection using product examples. Advanced
Engineering Materials, 4(6), 351.

Ljungberg, L. Y., & Edwards, K. L. (2003). Design, materials selection and marketing of
successful products. Materials & Design, 24(7), 519-529.

82
Mader, A., & Dertien, E. (2016). Tinkering as method in academic teaching. Paper
presented at the DS 83: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on
Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE16), Design Education:
Collaboration and Cross-Disciplinarity, Aalborg, Denmark, 8th-9th September 2016,
240-245.

Narayana, M. (2005). A framework approach to measure innovation maturity. Paper

presented at the Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Engineering Management
Conference, 2005. , 2 765-769.

Nimkulrat, N. (2012). Hands-on intellect: Integrating craft practice into design research.
International Journal of Design, 6(3)

Ng, F. M. C. 1., & Wang, P. W. 1. (2016). Natural self-grown fashion from bacterial
cellulose: A paradigm shift design approach in fashion creation

Parisi, S., Rognoli, V., & Sonneveld, M. (2017). Material tinkering. an inspirational
approach for experiential learning and envisioning in product design education. The
Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1167-S1184.

Pedgley, O., Rognoli, V., & Karana, E. (2015). Materials experience as a foundation for
materials and design education. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9327-y

Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices a development in culturalist

theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263.

Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. Design, make, Play:
Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, 163-181.

Rognoli, V. (2010). A broad survey on expressive-sensorial characterization of materials

for design education. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 27(2), 287-300.

Rognoli, V., Bianchini, M., Maffei, S., & Karana, E. (2015). DIY materials. Materials &
Design, 86, 692-702.

Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students' learning. Educational Leadership,
70(6), 16-20.

83
Schifferstein, H. N., & Desmet, P. M. (2008). Tools facilitating multi-sensory product
design. The Design Journal, 11(2), 137-158.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. UK:
Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design

situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3-14.

Selander, S., & Kress, G. R., (2017). Design för lärande : Ett multimodalt perspektiv.
Lund: Studentlitteratur, Andra upplagan.

Sennett, R. (2009). The Craftsman. Penguin UK.

Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an “explanation” of behavior? Psychological Science, 3(3),

150-161.

Spitas, C., Badke-Schaub, P., Spitas, V., Rajabalinejad, M., & Karana, E. (2012). Creating
a research environment for the evaluation of design education in embodiment design.
Paper presented at the DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International
Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2075-2084.

Suwa, M., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, T. (1998). The roles of sketches in early conceptual
design processes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Twentieth Annual Meeting
of the Cognitive Science Society, 1043-1048.

Thompson, R. (2007). Manufacturing processes for design professionals. New York:

Thames & Hudson.

The European Higher Education Area, EHEA. (2018). European higher education area and
bologna process. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/ Retrieved 2018-05-16

UKÄ, Swedish Higher Education Authority. (2016). In Thafvelin U. (Ed.), Guidelines for
programme evaluations at the first- and second-cycle levels (2nd ed.). Stockholm:
Swedish Higher Education Authority.

Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design
Studies, 19(3), 249-271.

84
Vallgårda, A., & Fernaeus, Y. (2015). Interaction design as a bricolage practice. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 173-180.

Van Bezooyen, A. (2014). Chapter 19 - materials driven design. In E. Karana, O. Pedgley

& V. Rognoli (Eds.), Materials experience (pp. 277-286). Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann.

Van Kesteren, I., Kandachar, P., & Stappers, P. (2006). Activities in selecting materials by
product designers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference
on Advanced Design and Manufacture. Harbin, China,

Van Kesteren, I., Stappers, P. J., & de Bruijn, J. C. M. (2007). Materials in products
selection: Tools for including user-interaction in materials selection. International
Journal of Design, 1(3), 41-55.

Veelaert, L., Ragaert, K., Hubo, S., Van Kets, K., & Du Bois, E. (2016). Bridging design
and engineering in terms of materials selection. Paper presented at the International
Polymers & Moulds Innovations Conference 2016.

Wick, R. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching at the Bauhaus. Osfildern-Ruit, Germany: Hatje Cantz
Verlag.

Zhou, Z., Rognoli, V., & Ayala-Garcia, C. (2018). Educating designers through materials
club. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Higher Education
Advances (HEAd’18), Universitat Politecnica de Valéncia, Valéncia. 1367-1375.

85
Paper I
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION
8 & 9 SEPTEMBER 2016, AALBORG UNIVERSITY, DENMARK

MATERIAL SELECTION IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

EDUCATION – A LITERATURE REVIEW
Charlotte ASBJØRN SÖRENSEN1,2, Santosh JAGTAP1 and Anders WARELL1
1
Lund University
2
Malmö University

ABSTRACT
This study reviews literature on the aspects of material selection within the field of industrial design
education, specifically focusing on existing material selection tools and guidelines used in industrial
design education. The growing number of materials available today has created a large variety of
options for industrial designers, which they are ill-equipped to handle. A key reason behind this is that
industrial designers lack appropriate education in material selection. There is a large body of research
in the field of mechanical engineering, examining the material selection process of mechanical
engineers. There are differences in material selection activities of mechanical engineers and industrial
designers, based on their information requirements during different stages of the design process.
Recent research highlights a need to merge the perspectives of engineering and industrial design for
teaching the subject of material selection in industrial design education at tertiary level [1]-[3].
Industrial designers have unique skills to combine technical properties and intangible characteristics of
materials in the product development process. Design students need to learn how to act as
ambassadors of the intangible material characteristics in material selection processes in
interdisciplinary teams. This paper suggests an approach that prepares the students to work both on
inspirational and analytical levels in material selection processes.

Keywords: Design education, material selection, material experiences, product design.

1 INTRODUCTION
The communication between the design and engineering disciplines is important in design education,
especially when related to materials and technological processes. Design education has over time
made use of and adapted some resources developed from the field of engineering, but also created its
own [4]. Design education placed at technical faculties is often characterized by a curriculum for
materials education with a predominant focus on technical properties. Due to long scientific and
technological tradition, the engineering disciplines are supported with numerous textbooks and
software tools. Materials teaching in Industrial Design education is often pervaded by the tension
between a natural scientific and engineering oriented topic taught in a design education rooted in a
practice based and constructive tradition [1]. There is a tendency of ‘watering down’ the material
education for design students, instead of using adequate, up to date scientific methods from the field of
design to cover both the technical properties and sensorial characteristics. Based on the authors’ own
didactic experience over a decade, of tutoring industrial design students at bachelor level on the
subject of material and manufacturing selection processes, we believe that it demands a long term
strategy to overcome the related barriers in materials education. In design education, there are a few
courses dedicated specially to the sensorial dimensions of materials. Several studies have developed
tools to support students and professionals in material selection, taking into consideration the sensorial
dimension of materials [4]-[7]. The field of engineering, especially related to materials, could benefit
from adapting these methods into their material education. It could contribute to a more efficient
understanding of the sensorial characteristics that are linked to the technical properties. It could also
contribute to less miscommunication between engineers, designers and non-technical professions in
the product development process, often characterized by a multi-disciplinary work. Industrial
designers generally gather knowledge through tailor made combinations of a number of information
sources and methods, e.g. inspirational material samples, product samples, material selection software,
communication with colleagues, and visiting trade fairs. The quality of the result depends on how

EPDE2016/1180
skilled the industrial designer is in identifying and implementing intangible characteristics of materials
in the product development process. How do we teach industrial design students to make well
informed decisions on materials in the product development process? We need to acknowledge that
industrial designers and mechanical engineers can’t be regarded in the same way, in doing so we can
appreciate and take advantage of the differences as we acknowledge common ground. Common
properties in material selection for mechanical engineers and industrial designers are: technical
properties, manufacturing processes and environmental issues. Intangible characteristics are often
considered difficult to handle in a technical context of mechanical engineering [8][9]. Studies show
that industrial designers gain best understanding of materials by handling physical material samples in
combination with material selection software offering both technical properties and intangible
characteristics [1][2][4][10]. The terms ‘properties’ and ‘characteristics’ used in this paper are adopted
from the study of Hassling [1]. Properties that relate to the physical world of materials (mechanical,
chemical, thermal etc.) are based on quantitative measures. Characteristics that relate to the social
world of materials (e.g. meaning and emotions) are based on qualitative experiences. Material
characteristics that are particularly important to industrial designers are intangible and sensorial
characteristics. The material selection guidelines used by industrial designer in different stages of the
product development process differ in depth and focus depending on if they are originally intended for
mechanical engineering or industrial design. The variety of guidelines and tools reviewed span from
theoretical to practical.

2 MATERIAL SELECTION TOOLS AND GUIDELINES

Product development involves interdisciplinary activities. Mechanical engineering and industrial
design activities are both concerned with material and manufacturing process selection, but the level
of detail and the focus within the design work differs [6][11][12]. The majority of material selectors
are so called property based search tools, dominated by numerical material data that is mainly of use in
the embodiment or detailed design phases. Industrial designers are often involved with more
comprehensive redesign of products or completely new design of products than mechanical engineers,
and therefore are in general more willing to consider new materials and manufacturing processes [6].
How can then the solution space be widened in the material selection process for industrial design
students? In the research project “Manufacturing processes”, Lenau and Nissen [6] attempted to
expand the solution space by stimulating designers and students to invest time in exploring new
materials and manufacturing options. One result of the project was an on-line selection tool Design
inSite, which was the first attempt to integrate intangible material characteristics and visual
communication in the form of a material selection tool. Lenau [6] emphasizes the importance of an
adapted interface to meet the demand of designers’ need for visual communication to support the
traditional way of communicating material properties and manufacturing processes via charts and
tables. Visualizations have the advantage of conveying large amount of information in an effective
way. By presenting pictures of product examples, the tool combines materials with manufacturing
processes to stimulate the designer to find new possible material candidates and manufacturing
methods, not known to the designer before using the tool.
Ashby and Johnson [11] describe the material selection process as stages from need identification,
clarification of the task through concept development and detailed design to final product
specifications. Technical constraints and design constraints narrow the choice until a final material can
be selected [11]. Ashby and Johnson define four complementary methods for selecting materials, by
deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, through similarity and by inspiration. The methods are often
combined during the selection process. The Cambridge Engineering Selector, CES EduPack,
developed by Granta for design engineering is based on the work of Ashby and Cebon [12]. Ashby
and Cebon [13] sum up the materials selection activity in four main steps (1) translate the design
requirements as constraints and objectives, (2) screen the material world to identify materials that
cannot do the job, (3) rank the materials that can do the job best and (4) explore the top rated
materials. The CES-EduPack offers material selection based on technical properties, manufacturing
processes, environmental and sustainability aspects. The program offers visualizations and material
charts of the relations between technical properties. The material charts can preferentially be used in
combination with other tools in the design education to explain the complex relations between
technical properties and intangible characteristics. The 2016 version of CES-Edupack offers a new
beta-version database for engineers and industrial design students called the Products, Materials and

EPDE2016/1180
Processes database. The database is product-centered and contains descriptions and data of materials
and processes used to make products. The new database includes profiles of designers and
manufacturers [13]. The product examples are intended to act as de-codifiers between intangible
characteristics and technical properties.
The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas by Rognoli [4] is a tool focused on characterizing the sensory
dimension of materials for consideration in a new product design. At the didactic level, the atlas is an
interactive tool used to teach design students the sensory dimensions of materials, consisting of tactile
and photometric sensations and how they correlate with technical properties [4]. The Expressive-
Sensorial Atlas uses four parameters, namely, texture, touch, brilliancy and transparency. The charts
provide illustration of sensorial qualities using a sample of materials combined with a simple, concise
textual definition. Design students rank material samples, based on personal sensation that result in a
subjective and qualitative sensorial scale (Fig.1) from one sensorial extremity to another e.g. light-
heavy. The subjective sensorial maps trigger relevant discussions between the students when they
realize that they do not always correspond to the scale derived from objective material measurements.

Figure 1. Property explanations and physical samples combined into the Expressive-
Sensorial Atlas and developed into a scale of light/ heavy [4]
Material libraries are in some contexts seen as a way to bridge the communication gap between
material science and industrial design [10][14]. Material libraries provide designers with a hands-on
resource to understand materials and related properties beyond what is possible through datasheets,
catalogues and online resources [14]. Material samples can be difficult to access both for design
students but also non-commercial material libraries, due to obstacles caused by corporate secrecy and
copyright issues, resulting from the desire to control materials. Material libraries can be seen as a part
of a larger project encouraging interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge about materials [10].

Figure 2. Examples of how the picture tool was used. 1. Grouping pictures. 2. Selecting
cards. 3. The sample tool motivated participants to touch and explore the desired physical
properties [7]
The Materials in Product Selection tools, MiPS (Fig.2), consist of a picture tool, a question tool and a
sample tool that incorporates aspects of user interaction into materials selection processes [7]. The
MiPS tools aim to understand and define a material profile for a new product in terms of sensorial
properties in dialogue with the client at an early stage in a project. Van Kesteren also developed a
supporting MiPS technique. The MiPS tool and technique teach the design student to reflect before,
during and after meeting with a client or user in the beginning of a material selection process.

EPDE2016/1180
Reflection is crucial in a material selection process since there is no specific answer; only contextually
related material candidates that offer different solutions are available.
Meaning driven materials selection, MDMS, (Fig.3) aims to assist designers in manipulating meaning
creation in materials selection. Meanings of materials are what we think about materials and what kind
of values we attribute after the initial sensorial input in a particular context [15]. The MDMS is
conducted in three steps with a group of people were they are individually asked to: (1) select a
material embodied in a product (or part thereof) that they think expresses a specified meaning, (2)
provide pictures of the material embodied in example products, and (3) explain their choice and
evaluate the material on provided sensorial scales. From this point, designers analyze their results, and
based on their findings they select material(s) for their product design [2]. The model offers a
multifaceted framework that embraces both intangible (and sensorial) characteristics as well as
technical properties that are embedded in a material. In an educational setting, the guidelines help
students to understand how the complex combination of manufacturing methods, shape and function
relates to the user experience defined by, for example, expertise, gender, age, and cultural background.

Figure 3. Meanings of Materials Model [15]

The strength of Hodgson and Harpers [16] guidelines (Fig.4) is the holistic approach to the integration
of the design and material selection process. The guidelines handle how the attributes relate both to
each other and to the surrounding context. The guidelines support the design student in exploring the
potential and consequences of each attribute in relation to the surrounding attributes as well as the
need and context. The guidelines are developed as a reaction to how material selection is traditionally
taught in design education. By integrating cost and value, it reflects a realistic scenario that could
support professional designers as well.

Figure 4. Relationship between materials and the elements of design [16]

EPDE2016/1180
3 DISCUSSION
In a design project, material selection is generally a team-based activity, with contribution from,
among others, industrial designers, mechanical engineers and marketers. Few material selection
guidelines and tools handle a holistic approach; in the review, only few attempts were found
[2][5][16][17]. It could indicate the difficulties of developing a holistic material selection approach,
offering details while avoiding oversimplification. Material characteristics are closely related to
manufacturing processes and these becomes intertwined in the creation of a products function and
expression [6][19]. The reviewed literature emphasizes the importance of integrating the two selection
processes early in the design process to achieve a good result [6][16][20]. Industrial designers have
unique skills to combine technical properties and intangible characteristics of materials in a product
development process and need to act as an ambassador for the intangible material characteristics.
Manufacturing and material selection should be seen as a co-evolution with ongoing rapid
explorations of different combinations of the two in relation to the solution space. Regarding industrial
design education, De Nardo and Levi [17] highlight the importance of understanding and managing
the relationship between the materials, a structure (product) and the quality of use of a product, by
combining the two mindsets of engineering and design. Students need theoretical foundation through
lectures in combination with creative practice based workshops to train and refine their skills in
making informed decisions. Hasling [1] points out that in many technically oriented design courses
materials are taught in decontextualized and multidisciplinary courses, without special emphasis on
how materials can be applied in a design process. Design students are mostly interested in applied
materials and are often discouraged by the technical approach in the introductory courses. By linking
the lectures to hands-on exercises in a workshop and stimulating reflection in a seminar, one can offer
the students an opportunity to understand the connection between theory and practice. It is important
that design students learn to reflect on their material selection activities when they attempt to convey
some specific meanings through selected materials. In order to develop skills and knowledge in
articulating and communicating material characteristics, design students need a vocabulary of such
material characteristics. The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas and MDMS method, found in the reviewed
literature, offer a vocabulary of material characteristics.

4 CONCLUSION
Industrial design needs to reclaim material education when taught in technical faculties and develop its
own curriculum. An open-minded dialogue with the engineering colleagues is a prerequisite in
developing a curriculum for material courses in design education at a technical faculty. Together
designers and engineers need to define a mutual understanding of concepts and contexts to
successfully develop a new curriculum. Pedgley, Rognoli and Karana [2] suggest a new framework
based on the Bauhaus hands-on tradition and resent research [3][21] on ‘experiential’ aspect of
materials. By applying frameworks of product experience to the specific domain of product
materials, it is possible to create a solid foundation for teaching and learning materials experience [2].
Design education at a tertiary level need to offer material courses that prepares the students to work
both on inspirational and analytical levels in material selection processes. Early in the design
education, students often have a preconception of materials, and they need to be introduced to an
open-minded inspirational material selection process, based on scientific design methods. The authors’
own experience suggests that students gain a deeper understanding of materials if the theoretical
lectures on materials are closely linked to hands-on material experiments. By then linking the theory
and experiments in a project, preferably in the same course, students have the opportunity to apply
their learning outcomes in a product development project, and this is “…effective in bridging the
divide between ‘knowledge about’ and ‘experience in’ materials”, as suggested by Pedgley, Rognoli
and Karana [2].

EPDE2016/1180
REFERENCES
[1] Hasling, K.M. 2015, Learning through materials - developing materials teaching in design
education (PhD dissertation), Kolding School of Design.
[2] Pedgley, O, Rognoli, V. & Karana, E. 2015, "Materials experience as a foundation for materials
and design education", International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 26, pp.1-
18
[3] Wilkes, S., Wongsriruksa, S., Howes, P., Gamester, R., Witchel, H., Conreen, M., Laughlin, Z. &
Miodownik, M. 2016, "Design tools for interdisciplinary translation of material experiences",
Materials & Design, vol. 90, pp. 1228-1237.
[4] Rognoli, V. 2010, "A broad survey on expressive-sensorial characterization of materials for
design education", METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 287-300.
[5] Karana, E. 2009, Meanings of Materials (PhD dissertation), Delft University of Technology.
[6] Lenau, T. 2002, "Material and process selection using product examples", Advanced Engineering
Materials, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 351.
[7] Van Kesteren, I.E.H., Stappers, P.J. & de Bruijn, J.C.M. 2007, "Materials in Products Selection:
Tools for Including User-Interaction in Materials Selection", International Journal of Design, vol.
1, no. 3, pp. 41-55.
[8] Ramalhete, P. S., Senos, A. M. R., & Aguiar, C. (2010). Digital tools for material selection in
product design. Materials & Design, 31(5), 2275-2287.
[9] Ferrante, M., Santos, S., & De Castro, J. (2000). Materials selection as an interdisciplinary
technical activity: Basic methodology and case studies. Materials Research, 3(2), 1-9.
[10] Wilkes, S. (2011). Materials libraries as vehicles for knowledge transfer. Anthropology Matters,
13(1)
[11] Ashby, M.F. & Johnson, K. 2013, Materials and design: the art and science of material selection
in product design, Butterworth-Heinemann.
[12] Granta Design. History. Available: http://www.grantadesign.com/company/history.htm
[Accessed on 2016, 01 March] (2016).
[13] Granta Design. Product Material and Processes. Available:
http://teachingresources.grantadesign.com/databases-development-ongoing/products-materials-
processes [Accessed on 2016, 01 March] (2016).
[14] Akın, F. & Pedgley, O. 2015, "Sample libraries to expedite materials experience for design: A
survey of global provision", Materials & Design,
[15] Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Kandachar, P. 2010, "A tool for meaning driven materials selection",
Materials & Design, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 2932-2941.
[16] Hodgson, S. & Harper, J. 2004, "Effective use of Materials in the Design Process: more than a
selection problem", DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th International Conference on
Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, the Netherlands, 02.-03.09. 2004.
[17] De Nardo, L. & Levi, M. 2013, "From Stiffness of IroneCarbon Diagrams to Weakness of
Sensoriality: The Manifold Designerly Ways of Developing Engineering Competencies in
Materials", Materials Experience: fundamentals of materials and design, pp. 315.
[18] Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Kandachar, P. 2008, "Material considerations in product design: A
survey on crucial material aspects used by product designers", Materials & Design, vol. 29, no. 6,
pp. 1081-1089.
[19] Karana, E., Pedgley, O. & Rognoli, V. 2013, Materials Experience: fundamentals of materials
and design, pp. XXV, Elsevier Science, Jordan Hill.
[20] Thompson, R. 2007, Manufacturing processes for design professionals, Thames & Hudson, N.Y.
[21] Schifferstein, H. & Wastiels, L. 2014, "Sensing materials: Exploring the building blocks for
experiential design", Materials experience: Fundamentals of materials and design, Butterworth-
Heinemann, pp. 15-26.

EPDE2016/1180
Paper II
 





















 #

!
!-%#)
%!)!-
/'.3
*"
)#%)!!,%)#

/)
)%0!,-%.3
$**'
*"
,.-
)
*((/)%.%*)


'(5

)%0!,-%.3
1! !)







Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Lund
University, Sweden



Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Lund

University, Sweden

 

$%-
-./ 3
!0'/.!-

)!1
+! #*#%
++,*$
%(+'!(!).!
%)
(.!,%'
*/,-!-
"*,
+,* /.
!-%#)

-./ !).-
.
$!'*,
'!0!'
! /.%*)
.!,%'
! /.%*)
1%.$%)
.$!
"%!'
*"
!-%#)
! /.%*)
.
.!$)%'

"/'.%!-
$-
%)
#!)!,'

-.,*)#
.!$)%'
"*/-
!#
-!'!.%)#
(.!,%'-
1%.$
+,! *(%)).
"*/-
*)

!)#%)!!,%)#
+,*+!,.%!-
*"
(.!,%'-
,* /.
!-%#)
! /.%*)
.

$!'*,
'!0!'
)!!
.*
*""!,
(.!,%'

*/,-!-
.$.
+,!+,!-
.$!
!-%#)
-./ !).-
.*
1*,&
*.$
*)
%)-+%,.%*)'
)
)'3.%'
'!0!'-
%)
(.!,%'

-!'!.%*)
+,*!--!-
,'3
%)
.$!
!-%#)
! /.%*)
-./ !).-
*".!)
$0!

+,!*)!+.%*)
*"
(.!,%'-

)
.$!3
)!!
.*
!
%).,* /!
.*
)
*+!)(%) !
%)-+%,.%*)'
(.!,%'
-!'!.%*)
+,*!--
-!
*)

-%!).%"%
!-%#)
(!.$* -
$!)
!0!'*+%)#

)!1
/,,%/'/(
"*,
.$!
(.!,%'
*/,-!-
%.
%-
%(+*,.).
.*

.!$
(.!,%'-
)
+,* /.%*)
(!.$* -
%)

*).!2./'%4!
-!..%)#
1%.$
!(+$-%-
*)
$*1
(.!,%'-
)

!
++,*$!
%)

!-%#)
+,*!--
!.$* -
)
!
-!!)
-
(!).'
.**'-
.$.
% -
.$!
!-%#)
-./ !).-

%)
)0%#.%)#
*(+'!2%.3
)
*""!,-
.$!(

-.,/./,!
.*
!'
1%.$
/)"(%'%,
.!,,%.*,%!-
".!,
)

!0'/.%*)
1!
-!'!.!
-*(!
(!.$* -
#/% !'%)!-
)
.**'-
.*
%).!#,.!
%)
.$!
() .*,3
(.!,%'

*/,-!-
"*,
.$!
+,* /.
!-%#)
-./ !).-
!#
.$!
2+,!--%0!!)-*,%'
.'-
!)%)#
,%0!)
.!,%'-

!'!.%*)
)
.$!
.!,%'
,%0!)
!-%#)
(!.$* 
$!
%(+'!(!)..%*)
1!,!
( !
%)
.1*
-.!+-
%)
*, !,

.*
.!-.
!0'/.!
)
"/,.$!,
!0!'*+

",(!1*,&
"*,
.!$%)#
(.!,%'-
*/,-!-
.*
+,* /.
!-%#)

-./ !).-
$%-
-./ 3
*)'3
,!+*,.-
.$!
"%,-.
-.!+
*"
%(+'!(!)..%*)
-%)!
.$!
-!*)
-.!+
%-
/) !,

!0!'*+(!).
)
1%''
!
%(+'!(!).!
/,%)#
/./()






 
.!,%'
,%0!)
!-%#)
.!,%'
! /.%*)
,* /.
!-%#)
.!,%'
-!'!.%*)
!$%)#
+,.%!



$%-
-./ 3
!0'/.!-

)!1
+! #*#%
++,*$
%(+'!(!).!
%)
(.!,%'
*/,-!-
"*,
+,* /.
!-%#)

-./ !).-
.
$!'*,
'!0!'
".!,

-!0!,'3!,
'*)#
+,*!--
*"
#.$!,%)#
&)*1'! #!
#%)%)#
!2+!,%!)!

)
"%)'%4%)#
)!#*.%.%*)-
1%.$
%)0*'0!
-.&!$*' !,-
1!
%(+'!(!).!

)!1
/,,%/'/(
%)
.$!

"/) (!).'
(.!,%'-
*/,-!-
.$.
,!
() .*,3
"*,
''
,* /.
!-%#)
-./ !).-
$!
, %'
-$%".
%)

$*1
+,* /.
!-%#)
-./ !).-
,!
./#$.
(.!,%'-
)
()/"./,%)#
(!.$* -
1-
+*--%'!
".!,

.,)-"!,,%)#
,* /.
!-%#)
! /.%*)
",*(
.$!
.!$)%'
"/'.3
.*
.$!
!-%#)
"/'.3



'%0!
.%0!
 +.%0!

182
6
6*'
$')+00+0)
1(
6*'
'&7%#6+10
&'5+)0
567&'065
1(6'0
*#8'
.+/+6'&
-019.'&)'
1(
/#6'4+#.5
#0&
6*+5

-019.'&)'
+5
1(6'0
$#5'&
10
2'4510#.
':2'4+'0%'5
#5.+0)

'0#7

 
*'
567&;
+0&+%#6'5
6*#6

#%6+8+6;$#5'&
14
C*#0&510D
.'#40+0)
%1/$+0'&
9+6*
5%+'06+(+%
70&'456#0&+0)
1(
/#6'4+#.5
+/2418'
6*'

567&'065D
#$+.+6+'5
61
#46+%7.#6'
#0&
/#-'
+0(14/'&
&'%+5+105
+0
#
&'5+)0
241%'55
41('55+10#.
'5+)0'45

#4'
6;2+%#..;
4'564+%6'&
$;
#
9'..&'(+0'&
2#.'66'
1(
9'..
70&'45611&
/#6'4+#.5
6*#6
#4'
4'#&+.;
#8#+.#$.'

#((14&#$.'
#0&
#%%'55+$.'
"+6*
-019.'&)'
#0&
#
&''2
70&'456#0&+0)
1(
/#6'4+#.5
+6
+5
2155+$.'
61

%*#..'0)'
6*'
/'%*#0+%5
#0&
/#07(#%674+0)
9+6*
+06'..+)'06
51.76+105
6*#6
16*'49+5'
/#;
016
$'
':2.14'&

 *1/2510

 

0+6+#.
5'%6+105
1(
6*+5
#46+%.'
24'5'06
6*'
&+.'//#
1(
6*'
241&7%6
&'5+)0
'&7%#6+10
#6
6*'
6'%*0+%#.
(#%7.6;

"'
6*'0
&+5%755
6*'
75'
1(
/'6*1&5
+0
&'5+)0
'&7%#6+10
#0&
24'5'06
#
5'6
1(
/'6*1&5
(170&
+0
6*'

4'8+'9'&
.+6'4#674'
10
/#6'4+#.5
':2'4+'0%'
/#6'4+#.
.'#40+0)
/#6'4+#.
5'.'%6+10
#0&
6+0-'4+0)
9+6*

/#6'4+#.5
"'
6*'0
176.+0'
6*'
0'9
2'&#)1)+%
#2241#%*
#0&
+65
+/2.'/'06#6+10
+0
691
56'25
+0
6*'

241&7%6
&'5+)0
'&7%#6+10
#6
$#%*'.14
.'8'.
"'
6*'0
&+5%755
6*'
4#&+%#.
2'&#)1)+%
5*+(6
6*#6
1%%744'&

9*'0
+/2.'/'06+0)
6*'
0'9
%744+%7.7/
+0#..;
9'
4'(.'%6
10
6*'
$'0'(+65
#0&
&4#9$#%-5
1(
174

#2241#%*
#0&
57))'56
216'06+#.
+/2418'/'065








'5+)0
'&7%#6+10
#6
6'%*0+%#.
(#%7.6+'5
+5
1(6'0
%*#4#%6'4+<'&
$;
#
%744+%7.7/
(14
/#6'4+#.5
'&7%#6+10
9+6*

#
24'&1/+0#06
(1%75
10
6'%*0+%#.
2412'46+'5
7'
61
.10)
5%+'06+(+%
#0&
6'%*01.1)+%#.
64#&+6+10
6*'

'0)+0''4+0)
&+5%+2.+0'
*#5
#
9'..
&'8'.12'&
%744+%7.#
(14
/#6'4+#.
'&7%#6+10
5722146'&
$;
6':6$11-5

&+)+6#.
611.5
'6%
(('%6+8'
%1//70+%#6+10
1(
/#6'4+#.
-019.'&)'
#0&
&'5+)0
-019.'&)'
$'69''0
6*'
691

&+5%+2.+0'5

/#6'4+#.
5%+'0%'
#0&
&'5+)0

*#5
2418'0
61
$'
%*#..'0)+0)
&7'
61
6*'+4
&+(('4'06

2'452'%6+8'5
10
/#6'4+#.5
0)+0''4+0)
567&'065
#6
$#%*'.14
.'8'.
567&;
9'..'56#$.+5*'&
6':6$11-5
9+6*

5%+'06+(+%
-019.'&)'
6*#6
+5
C7037'56+10#$.'D
#0&
&'8'.12'&
&74+0)
6*'
2#56
691
%'0674+'5
7%%+#4'..+


*+5
-+0&
1(
C%106'06
-019.'&)'D
%#0
$'
5''0
#5
56#6+%
#0&
&+((+%7.6
61
#22.;
+0
#0
12'0
'0&'&

.'#40+0)
':'4%+5'
6;2+%#.
(14
&'5+)0
567&'065
#6'4+#.5
6'#%*+0)
+5
1(6'0
2'48#&'&
$;
#
6'05+10
$'69''0

10
10'
*#0&
#
0#674#.
5%+'06+(+%
#0&
'0)+0''4+0)
14+'06'&
612+%
#0&
10
6*'
16*'4
*#0&
#
&'5+)0

'&7%#6+10
4116'&
+0
6*'
24#%6+%'
$#5'&
#0&
%105647%6+8'
64#&+6+10
#5.+0)

 
*'4'
+5
#
6'0&'0%;
1(

C9#6'4+0)
&190D
6*'
/#6'4+#.
'&7%#6+10
(14
&'5+)0
567&'065
+056'#&
1(
75+0)
#&'37#6'
72
61
&#6'

5%+'06+(+%
/'6*1&5
(41/
6*'
(+'.&
1(
&'5+)0
61
%18'4
$16*
6*'
6'%*0+%#.
2412'46+'5
#0&
5'0514+#.

%*#4#%6'4+56+%5
5$,?40
=4'05'0
"#4'..

#)6#2

 

'5+)0
'&7%#6+10
#6
#
6'46+#4;
.'8'.
0''&5
61
1(('4
/#6'4+#.
%1745'5
6*#6
24'2#4'
567&'065
61
914-
$16*
10

+052+4#6+10#.
#0&
#0#.;6+%#.
.'8'.5
+0
/#6'4+#.
5'.'%6+10
241%'55'5
#4.;
+0
6*'
&'5+)0
'&7%#6+10
567&'065

1(6'0
*#8'
#
24'%10%'26+10
1(
/#6'4+#.5
#0&
6*';
0''&
61
$'
+0641&7%'&
61
#0
12'0/+0&'&
+052+4#6+10#.

/#6'4+#.
5'.'%6+10
241%'55
$#5'&
10
5%+'06+(+%
&'5+)0
/'6*1&5
*'
#76*145D
190
':2'4+'0%'
57))'565

6*#6
567&'065
)#+0
#
&''2'4
70&'456#0&+0)
1(
/#6'4+#.5
+(
6*'
6*'14'6+%#.
.'%674'5
10
/#6'4+#.5
#4'
%.15'.;

.+0-'&
61
*#0&510
/#6'4+#.
':2'4+/'065
5$,?40
=4'05'0
'6
#.

 
;
.+0-+0)
6*'
6*'14;
#0&

':2'4+/'065
+0
#
241,'%6
24'('4#$.;
+0
6*'
5#/'
%1745'
567&'065
*#8'
6*'
12214670+6;
61
#22.;
6*'+4

.'#40+0)
176%1/'5
+0
#
241&7%6
&'8'.12/'06
241,'%6
#0&
6*+5
+5
A@'(('%6+8'
+0
$4+&)+0)
6*'
&+8+&'

$'69''0
C-019.'&)'
#$176D
#0&
C':2'4+'0%'
+0D
/#6'4+#.5B
#5
57))'56'&
$;
'&).';
1)01.+
#0&

#4#0#
'&).';
1)01.+

#4#0#

 



 



'6*1&5
%#0
$'
5''0
#5
/'06#.
611.5
6*#6
#+&
6*'
&'5+)0
567&'065
+0
0#8+)#6+0)
%1/2.':+6;
#0&
1(('45

6*'/
#
5647%674'
61
&'#.
9+6*
70(#/+.+#4
6'44+614+'5
'6*1&5
#55+56
&'5+)0
567&'065
+0
5-+..
&'8'.12/'06

#0&
61
4'+0(14%'
24#%6+%'
6*#6
+5
0'%'55#4;
(14
&'8'.12+0)
+067+6+8'
':2'46+5'
18'4
6+/'
#*0'/#0


.'+0


'(.'%6+10+0#%6+10
%1064+$76'5
61
#
4'+0(14%'&
24#%6+%'
$;
2#;+0)
#66'06+10
61
#0&
.'#40+0)

(41/
&'%+5+105
#0&
#%6+105
6*#6
.'#&
61
/+56#-'5
14
70':2'%6'&
176%1/'5
1(
/'6*1&
75#)'
%*=0


'6*1&5
5*17.&
016
$'
5''0
#5
/'4'
+05647%6+105
61
(1..19
$76
4#6*'4
#5
/'06#.
611.5
14
/+0&5'6

'.(6
!0+8'45+6;
1(
'%*01.1);
*'
'6*'4.#0&5

183
2-
3,"#012,"
',!0#1',%
!-+.*#6'27
,"
2-
#
 *#
2-
!-,20' 32#
5'2&
/3*'$'#"
1-*32'-,1
1*',%

 


.0-(#!2
.-02$-*'-
!,
#

4*3 *#
2--*
5&#,
31#"
',

0#$*#!2'4#
"'1!311'-,
5'2&
2&#
123"#,21
 -32

2&#'0
.#01-,*
#6.#0'#,!#
-$
+#2&-"
31%#
',

"#1'%,
.0-!#11
,"
!,
2&#0# 7
!-,20' 32#
5'2&
,

4*3 *#
*#0,',%
#6.#0'#,!#1

&#,
"#4#*-.',%

,#5
!300'!3*3+
$-0
2&#
+2#0'*
!-301#1
'2
51
!-,1'"#0#"
'+.-02,2
2-
2#!&

+2#0'*1
,"
.0-"3!2'-,
+#2&-"1
',

!-,2#623*'8#"
1#22',%
5'2&
#+.&1'1
-,
&-5
+2#0'*1
!,
#

..0-!&#"
',

"#1'%,
.0-!#11
6.#0'#,!#
$0-+
2&#
-*"
!300'!3*3+
&"
',"'!2#"
2&2
5&#,
"#1'%,

123"#,21
,"
#,%',##0',%
123"#,21
5#0#
23%&2
2&#
1+#
!-301#1
',
+2#0'*
,"
.0-"3!2'-,
+#2&-"1

2&#
!-301#1
2#,"#"
2-
#!-+#
2--
%#,#0*
,"
"#!-,2#623*'8#"
#1'%,
123"#,21
0#
%#,#0**7

',2#0#12#"
',
..*'#"
+2#0'*1
,"
5#0#
-$2#,
"'1!-30%#"
7
2&#
2#!&,'!*
..0-!&
',
2&#
',20-"3!2-07

!-301#1
2
#!+#
"'$$'!3*2
$-0
2&#
"#1'%,
123"#,21
2-
0#*2#
2&#
.30#*7
2#!&,'!*
1.#!21
-$
+2#0'*1
2-

2&#
..*'#"
+2#0'*
),-5*#"%#
%',#"
2&0-3%&
2&#
"#1'%,
.0-(#!21
0*7
',
2&#
"#4#*-.+#,2
-$
2&#
,#5

!300'!3*3+
'2
*1-
#!+#
!*#0
2&2
'2
51
'+.-02,2
2-
+)#

"'12',!2'-,
#25##,
+2#0'*
1#*#!2'-,

,"
+2#0'*
#6.*-02'-,
1
2&#7
0#
25-
"'$$#0#,2
571
-$
..0-!&',%
+2#0'*1
4,
#8--7#,

 

&#7
0#
-$
#/3*
'+.-02,!#
32
"#+,"1
"'$$#0#,2
+#2&-"1
,"
+',"1#21
2#0'*
1#*#!2'-,
0#$#01
2-

2&#
5#**"#$',#"
.0-!#11
..*'#"
',
2&#
*2#0
12%#1
-$

"#1'%,
.0-!#11
5&#0#
2&#
+2#0'*1
1#*#!2'-,

!0'2#0'
0#
"#$',#"
7
!-,2#62
-$
+,3$!230',%
,"
!-12
2-
0#*'8#
,
*0#"7
+230#
.0-"3!2
!-,!#.2

2#0'*1
!-,1'"#0#"
',
2&#
$3887
$0-,2
#,"
-$
2&#
"#1'%,
.0-!#11
0#
"#*2
5'2&
2

+-0#
 120!2
,"

&-*'12'!
*#4#*
#%
!0#2',%

+2#0'*
4'1'-,
',12#"
-$
"#$',',%
+2#0'*1
0#/3'0#+#,21
$-0
.0-"3!2

0#*'82'-,
&'1
!-3*"
!-,20' 32#
2-
120#,%2&#,
2&#
 '*'2'#1
-$
"#1'%,
123"#,21
2-
',2#%02#
2&#'0
+2#0'*

),-5*#"%#
,"
1)'**1
',
2&#
"#1'%,
.0-!#11
$0-+
2&#
$3887
$0-,2
#,"
2-
2&#
1203!230#"
!)
#,"
',


.0-$#11'-,*
1#22',%

 


 


*'2#0230#
0#4'#5
51
!00'#"
-32
5'2&
$-!31
-,
%3'"#*',#1
,"
2--*1
31#"
',
-0
"#4#*-.#"
$-0
+2#0'*1

#"3!2'-,
',
2&#
$'#*"
-$
"#1'%,
1 (;0,
90#,1#,
#2
*

 
&#
$-**-5',%
+#2&-"1
%3'"#*',#1
,"

2--*1
5#0#
',2#%02#"
',
2&#
#6'12',%
+2#0'*
!-301#1
$-0
2&#
.0-"3!2
"#1'%,
123"#,21

 

 



&#
6.0#11'4##,1-0'*
2*1
31#1
$-30
.0+#2#01
,+#*7
2#6230#
2-3!&
0'**',!7
,"
20,1.0#,!7

-%,-*'

 
&#
!&021
.0-4'"#
'**31202'-,
-$
1#,1-0'*
/3*'2'#1
31',%

1+.*#
-$
+2#0'*1

!-+ ',#"
5'2&

1'+.*#
!-,!'1#
2#623*
"#$','2'-,
#1'%,
123"#,21
0,)
+2#0'*
1+.*#1
1#"
-,

.#01-,*
1#,12'-,
2&2
0#13*2
',

13 (#!2'4#
,"
/3*'22'4#
1#,1-0'*
1!*#
$'% 
$0-+
-,#
1#,1-0'*

#620#+'27
2-
,-2&#0
#%
*'%&2&#47
&#
13 (#!2'4#
1#,1-0'*
+.1
20'%%#0
0#*#4,2
"'1!311'-,1
#25##,

2&#
123"#,21
5&#,
2&#7
0#*'8#
2&2
2&#
0#13*2
"-
,-2
*571
!-00#1.-,"
2-
2&#
1!*#
"#0'4#"
$0-+

- (#!2'4#
+2#0'*
+#130#+#,21
,
$'% 
2&#
.0-"3!2
"#1'%,
123"#,21
5#0#
1)#"
2-
0,)
2#,
+2#0'*

1+.*#1
$0-+
*'%&2
2-
&#47
$'012
13 (#!2'4#*7
,"
2&#,
!!-0"',%
2-
"#,1'27

'%

0-.#027
#6.*,2'-,1
,"
.&71'!*
1+.*#1
!-+ ',#"
',2-
2&#
6.0#11'4##,1-0'*
2*1
,"
"#4#*-.#"
',2-


1!*#
-$
*'%&2
&#47
-%,-*'

 

2#0'*
1+.*#1
0,)#"
$0-+
*'%&2
2-
&#47
7
.0-"3!2
"#1'%,
123"#,21
$'012

13 (#!2'4#*7
,"
2&#,
!!-0"',%
2-
"#,1'27
',
2&#
2-.
0-5



 
*'4#
!2'4#
".2'4#

184

  


 
  

$ $
( ,$
#*( ")
)"* %$

  
 #)
*%
)) )*
) $()
$
#$ &+"* $
#$ $

(* %$
$
#*( ")
)"* %$
($
!!(*

$(


#%"
%()

#+"* *

(#-%(!
**
#()
%*
)$)%( "
(*( )* )
)
-""
)
*$ "
&(%&(* )
**
(

#
$

#*( "

+ " $)
"&
)*+$*)
*%
+$()*$
%-
*
%#&".
%# $* %$
%

#$+*+( $
#*%)
)&
$
+$* %$
("*)
*%
*
+)(
.&( $
 $
/
%(
.#&"

.&(* )
$(

$
+"*+("
!(%+$

 


$ $)
%
*( ")
%"
($
*
"






 
 

%)%$
$
(&()
+ " $)
 

%()
$
%,(, -
%
%-

($
%







%$*( +*
*%
*
(" )* %$
%
%(#
+$* %$
$
( * %$
$

&(%+*
)

$
*+($
+"* #*"/
*(# $
%*
*
%)*
$
,"+
%
*
&(%+*
- 
#+)*
+"* #*"/
#*
*

$
%(
#(!*
%)%$

(&(


+ " $)
)+&&%(*
*
) $
)*+$*
$
.&"%( $

*
&%*$* "
$
%$)'+$)
%

**( +*
$
("* %$
*%
*
)+((%+$ $
**( +*)
)
-""
)

*
$
$
%$*.*
/
$*(* $
%)*
$
,"+
*
("*)

(" )* 
)$( %
**
%+"
)+&&%(*

&(%)) %$"
) $()
)
-""
"* %$
)
(+ "
$

#*( "
)"* %$
&(%))
) $
*(
)
$%

)&  
$)-(
%$"/
%$*.*+""/
("*
#*( "
$ *)
**
%(
 ($*
)%"+* %$)


+ " $)
(
,"%&
)

(* %$
*%
%-
#*( "
)"* %$
)
*( * %$""/
*+*
$
) $

+* %$

 +(



&(%))
""+)*(*
)#* ""/
$,%",)
&+** $
*
#*( ")
*
*
(*
%
*
) $
&(%))
)
*

$*(* $
"#$*
&(#* $
""
)&*)
%
*
) $
%)%$

(&(


"*
$ ,() */
%
$%"%/

*("$)

185
 



"-*
&2'7.),*
3,.3**7.3,
!*1*(947
!
):&(0
)*;*145*)
'>
7&39&
+47
)*8.,3
*3,.3**7.3,
.8

'&8*)
43
9-*
<470
4+
8-'>
&3)
*'43
7&39&
*8.,3

"-*
!):&(0
4++*78
2&9*7.&1

8*1*(9.43
'&8*)
43
9*(-3.(&1
5745*79.*8
2&3:+&(9:7.3,
574(*88*8
*3;.7432*39&1
&3)
8:89&.3&'.1.9>

&85*(98
"-*
574,7&2
4++*78
;.8:&1.?&9.438
&3)
2&9*7.&1
(-&798
4+
9*(-3.(&1
5745*79.*8
"-*
2&9*7.&1

(-&798
(&3
57*+*7*39.&11>
'*
:8*)
.3
(42'.3&9.43
<.9-
49-*7
94418
.3
9-*
)*8.,3
*):(&9.43
94
*=51&.3
9-*

(4251*=
7*1&9.438
'*9<**3
9*(-3.(&1
5745*79.*8
&3)
.39&3,.'1*
(-&7&(9*7.89.(8


"-*


;*78.43
4+
!):5&(0
4++*78
&
3*<
'*9&;*78.43
)&9&'&8*
+47
*3,.3**78
&3)
.3):897.&1

)*8.,3
89:)*398
(&11*)
9-*
74):(98
&9*7.&18
&3)
74(*88*8
)&9&'&8*
+., 
"-*
)&9&'&8*
.8
574):(9
(*39*7*)
&3)
(439&.38
)*8(7.59.438
&3)
)&9&
4+
2&9*7.&18
&3)
574(*88*8
:8*)
94
2&0*
574):(98
"-*

574):(9
*=&251*8
&7*
.39*3)*)
94
&(9
&8
)*(4).+.*78
'*9<**3
.39&3,.'1*
(-&7&(9*7.89.(8
&3)
9*(-3.(&1

5745*79.*8
7&39&
*8.,3



.,:7*

=&251*
4+
)&9&8-**98
+742
!):&(0


&9&'&8*
74):(98
&9*7.&18
&3)
74(*88*8
"-*
+.789

)&9&8-**9
)*8(7.'*8
9-*
574):(9
>1.3)&
1.3*
49
'>
73*
&(4'8*3
9-*
8*(43)
&3)
9-.7)
)*8(7.'*8
9-*
2&9*7.&1
89&.31*88

89**1
:8*)
.3
9-*
574):(9
7&39&
*8.,3






 

 
 

"-*
&9*7.&1
7.;*3
*8.,3

*9-4)
+&(.1.9&9*8
)*8.,3
574(*88*8
.3
<-.(-
9-*
2&9*7.&18
&7*
9-*

2&.3
)7.;*7
+.,

"-*
2*9-4)
*3(4:7&,*8
-&3)843
.39*7&(9.43
<.9-
9-*
2&9*7.&1
&9
-&3)
+742
9-*

+.789
*3(4:39*7
9-74:,-
94
*=5147.3,
&3)
:3)*789&3).3,
9-*
2&9*7.&1
.3
)*9&.1
<.9-
.98
:3.6:*
6:&1.9.*8
&3)

1.2.9&9.438
&7&3&
&7&9.
4,341.

%**:<
;&3
)*7
&&3



>
<470.3,
<.9-
&3
*=5147&9.;*

&5574&(-
9-*
)*8.,3*7
:3)*789&3)8
9-*
2&9*7.&1
.3
)*59-
*,
*=5*7.*39.&1
6:&1.9.*8
5->8.(&1
5745*79.*8

&3)
@ 
 



 

   
 
"-*
2*9-4)
,:.)*8
9-*
)*8.,3
89:)*39
.3
&

/4:73*>
+742
2&9*7.&1
5745*79.*8
&3)
*=5*7.*39.&1
6:&1.9.*8
94
2&9*7.&18
*=5*7.*3(*
;.8.43
9-*3
94

*=5*7.*39.&1
6:&1.9.*8
2&9*7.&1
5745*79.*8
&3)
+.3&11>
94
574):(98
(9.;.9.*8
94
8:55479
9-.8
/4:73*>
&7*

47,&3.?*)
:3)*7
+4:7
2&.3
89*58
&8


#3)*789&3).3,
9-*
&9*7.&1
"*(-3.(&1
&3)
=5*7.*39.&1

-&7&(9*7.?&9.43

7*&9.3,
&9*7.&18
=5*7.*3(*
$.8.43

&3.+*89.3,
&9*7.&18
=5*7.*3(*
&99*738

 
*8.,3.3,
&9*7.&174):(9
43(*598

!


1.;*
(9.;*
)&59.;*

186


&$

 0&+*
/0",/
&*
0%"
)"0%+!
.*
"0
(


*
+.!".
0+
."0"

)"*&*$#1(
,,(& 0&+*
!"/&$*"./
*""!
0+
)+2"
#.+)
)0".&(
%. 0".&60&+*
0+


%+(&/0&
2&/&+*
0",

+#

%"5
(/+
*""!
0+
"*("
*+2"(
"4,".&"* "/
5
.#0&*$
0%"
2&/&+*
&*0+


)"*&*$#1(
,,(& 0&+*
0",/


*!

+#


%"
)"0%+!
*
"
1/"!
&*
!&##"."*0
/ "*.&+/
*!
.*
"0
(
/1$$"/0
0%"
#+((+3&*$
/ "*.&+/


"/&$*&*$
3&0%

."(0&2"(5
3"(('*+3*
)0".&(
(0%+1$%
0%"
)0".&(
&/
(&'"(5
0+
%2"
/+)"

/"00("!
)"*&*$/
&*
".0&*
+*0"40/
0%"
!"/&$*".
/""'/
*"3
,,(& 0&+*
."/
0+
"2+'"
*"3

)"*&*$/
*!
0+
"(& &0
1*&-1"
1/".
"4,".&"* "/


"/&$*&*$
3&0%

."(0&2"(5
1*'*+3*
)0".&(
3%& %
3&((
"
 +),*&"!
5

#1((5

!"2"(+,"!
/),("
"$
(&-1&!
3++!


0%".)+ %.+)&
)0".&(/
"0 
%"
)0".&(
&/

1*(&'"(5
0+
"
(&*'"!
0+
"/0(&/%"!
)"*&*$/
$&2&*$
0%"
!"/&$*".
*
+,,+.01*&05
0+
!"#&*"

,,(& 0&+*
."/
0%.+1$%
3%& %
1*&-1"
1/".
"4,".&"* "/
&!"*0&0&"/
#+.
)0".&(/
*!
*"3

)"*&*$/
)5
"
&*0.+!1 "!



"/&$*&*$
3&0%

)0".&(
,.+,+/(
3&0%
/")&!"2"(+,"!
+.
"4,(+.0+.5
/),("/
"$
#++!

3/0"
+),+/&0"/
(&2&*$
)0".&(/
)!"
+#
 0".&(
"((/


,.&*0"!
0"40&("/
#("4&("

/
"0 
&* "
0%"
)0".&(
&/
/")&!"2"(+,"!
&"
,.+,+/(
&0/
,.+,".0&"/
."
0+
"

#1.0%".
!"#&*"!
0%.+1$%
0%"
!"/&$*
,.+ "//
&*
."(0&+*
0+

/"(" 0"!
,,(& 0&+*
."
(/+
0+

$"*".0"
#""! '
#+.
#1.0%".
)0".&(/
!"2"(+,)"*0
"$
"(/0& &05
+#

#++!3/0"

+),+/&0"
!1.&(&05
+#



,.&*0"!
0"40&("
"0 
1.0%".)+."
/&* "
0%"
)0".&(
&/
*+2"(
&0

&/
!&##& 1(0
0+
." +$*&6"
*!
&/
&*
*""!
+#
0%"
!"/&$*".
0+
,.+,+/"
)"*&*$#1(
,,(& 0&+*/

0%.+1$%
3%& %
1*&-1"
1/".
"4,".&"* "/
*!
)"*&*$/
3&((
"
"(& &0"!


 

 
 


/"2".(5".
(+*$
,.+ "//
+#
$0%".&*$
'*+3("!$"
$&*&*$
"4,".&"* "
*!
#&*(&6&*$
*"$+0&0&+*/
3&0%

&*2+(2"!
/0'"%+(!"./
)!"
&0
,+//&("
0+
&),(")"*0

*"3
1..& 1(1)
&*
0%"
#1*!)"*0(
)0".&(/

+1./"/
0%0
."
)*!0+.5
#+.
.+!1 0
"/&$*
/01!"*0/
+3
!+"/
+*"
0%"*
&),(")"*0
0%"
)"0%+!/

#+1*!
/1&0("
#+.
0%"
)0".&(/
+1./"/
&*
0%"
.+!1 0
"/&$*
 %"(+.
,.+$.))"
%"
#&./0
/0",
+#

&),(")"*00&+*
3/
)!"
&*
0%"
"4&/0&*$
)0".&(/
+1./"/
3&0%+10
%*$&*$
0%"
(".*&*$
+10 +)"/
&*
0%"

"(#0
*&2"./&05
+#
" %*+(+$5
%"
"0%".(*!/

187
!-301#
17** 31
',12#"
*'2#0230#
+#2&-"1
2--*1
,"
2&#
.#"%-%'!
..0-!&
51
3."2#"
7
"-',%
'2

',
25-
12#.1
'2
51
+"#
.-11' *#
2-
2#12
#4*32#
,"
$302&#0
"#4#*-.

$0+#5-0)
$-0
2#!&',%
+2#0'*1

!-301#1
2-
2&#
.0-"3!2
"#1'%,
123"#,21
&#
1#!-,"
12#.
-$
'+.*#+#,22'-,
&1
##,
2-
0#1203!230#
2&#

0-"3!2
#1'%,
!&#*-0
.0-%0++#
,"
50'2#
,#5
!-301#
17** 31#1
&'1
123"7
-,*7
0#.-021
-,
2&#
$'012

12#.
-$
'+.*#+#,22'-,
1',!#
2&#
1#!-,"
12#.
'1
3,"#0
"#4#*-.+#,2
,"
5'**
#
'+.*#+#,2#"
"30',%

323+,

 






 


 




&#
!-301#
 
 

 








*12
!-301#
',
2&#
12

7#0
&1
##,
%'4#,
5'2&
2&#
1+#
!-301#
17** 31
1',!#
1.0',%
2#0+



$'% 
0-"3!2
#1'%,

&1
##,
0#1.-,1' *#
$-0
2&#
.*,,',%
,"
#6#!32'-,
-$
2&#
!-301#
,"
2#0'*
!'#,!#
&4#

-$$#0#"
2&#
1+#
1#0'#1
-$
*#!230#1
$-0
123"#,21
$0-+
.0-"3!2
"#1'%,
,"
+#!&,'!*
#,%',##0',%

1',!#
















&

'

(

)

*

+

,

-

.
&%
&&
&'
&(
&)
&*
&+
&,
&-
&.
'%









 



 















 

   

 











 

(















 

!






















&
"
'






 






"


















'%30#

9 
 

 







:



 

&#
*#!230#1
5#0#
!0'2'!'8#"
7
2&#
#,%',##0',%
123"#,21
$-0
#',%
2--
%#,#0*
,-2
2&#-0#2'!*

0#*#4,2
#,-3%&
,"
9+-4',%
$-050"
2--
1*-5:
&#
"#1'%,
123"#,21
$-3,"
-,
2&#
-2&#0
&,"
2&#

*#!230#1
92--
2&#-0#2'!*:
,-2
 *#
2-
*',)
2&#
*#!230#1
2-
-2&#0
*#0,',%
!2'4'2'#1
',
2&#
!-301#1
,"

9+-4',%
$-050"
2--
$12:
&#
0#1-,1
$-0
%'4',%
2&#
1+#
1#0'#1
-$
*#!230#1
5#0#

5#**#12 *'1&#"

.0!2'!#
',
2&#
2#!&,'!*
$!3*27
,"
2&#
$',,!'*
#,#$'2
-$
(-',2
123"'#1
&#
2&#-0#2'!*
.021
-$
2&#

+2#0'*
!-301#1
#6+',#"
',
50'22#,
2#121
5#0#
-$2#,
!0'2'!'8#"
$-0
,-2
#4*32',%
2&#
123"#,21:

 '*'27
2-
*',)
2&#-07
2-
..*'#"
"#1'%,
.0- *#+1
,-5*#"%#
',
2&'1
$-0+
!,
#
!-,1'"#0#"
122'!

',!*3"#"
',

2#62 --)
,"
12-0#"
',
+#+-07
2-
#
0#!**#"
2
2&#
2'+#
-$
2&#
#6+
,-2
**-5#"
2-

#
!-,1'"#0#"
1
,
!2'4#
!0#2'4#
),-5*#"%#
.0-"3!2'-,
-$
2&#
+-+#,2
3!!'0#**'




&#,
0#1203!230',%
2&#
!-301#
2&#
+',
%-*
51
2-
$!'*'22#
),-5*#"%#
!0#2'-,
',
2&#
',2#01#!2'-,

-$
2&#-07
,"
&,"1-,
+2#0'*
#6.#0'#,!#
&#
"'$$'!3*27
',

+3*2'"'1!'.*',07
2#!&',%

#,4'0-,+#,2
51
2&2
"'$$#0#,2
+#+ #01
-$
2#!&',%
12$$
&4#
##,
20',#"
',
"'$$#0#,2
0#1#0!&

.0"'%+1
2
51

.0#0#/3'1'2#
2-
13!!##"
2&2
**
',4-*4#"
2#!&#01
',
2&#
!-301#
&"

!-++-,

4-! 3*07
,"
,
3,"#012,"',%
-$
2&#
+#2&-"1
,"
%3'"#*',#1
',20-"3!#"
,-2
-,*7
2&#
-,#1
2&#7

23%&2
2&#+1#*4#1
2#0'*
!'#,!#
!&-1#
,-2
2-
-$$#0
,#5
*#!230#1
$-0
2&#
"#1'%,
123"#,21
32

11'12#"
',12#"
2&#
"#1'%,
2#!&#01
',
"#4#*-.',%

,#5
*#!230#
1#0'#1
&#
*#!230#1
5#0#

"#4#*-.#"
',
2&#
1.'0'2
-$
!2'4#
*#0,',%
#*"#0

0#,2


5'2&
0'#$
',2#0*3"#1
-$
.0!2'!#
,"

$##" !)
2-
-$$#0
2&#
123"#,21
,
3,"#012,"',%
-$
2&#
+-0#
!-+.*#6
!-,2#62
-$
$-0
#6+.*#
2&#

0#*2'-,
#25##,
2#!&,'!*
.0-.#02'#1
,"
1#,1-0'*
!&0!2#0'12'!1
&#
6.0#11'4##,1-0'*
2*1

-%,-*'

 
51
',20-"3!#"
,"
31#"
"30',%
2&#
*#!230#1
1

57
$-0
2&#
123"#,21
2-
#6.*-0#

2&#
0#*2'-,1&'.
#25##,
5&2
'1
.#0!#'4#"
13 (#!2'4#*7
,"
5&2
'1
+#130#"
- (#!2'4#*7
$'% 

&#
!-,2#,2
-$
2&#
*#!230#1
5#0#
*1-
".2#"
2-
"#1'%,
123"#,21:
.0#),-5*#"%#
-$
+2#0'*1
,"

"#4#*-.#"
2-
0#$*#!2
2&#
*2#12
0#1#0!&
',
2&#
"#1'%,
,"
+2#0'*1
"-+',
&#
,3+ #0
-$



 
*'4#
!2'4#
".2'4#

188
!-++#0!'*
+2#0'*1
4'* *#
'1
0.'"*7
',!0#1',%
,"
2&#
20"'2'-,**7
31#"
26-,-+7
-$
+2#0'*

$+'*'#1
'1
%0"3**7
"#!-+.-1#"
5'2&
&7 0'"
+2#0'*1
13!&
1
!-+.-1'2#1
&#0#$-0#
'2
'1

$3,"+#,2*
2-
.0-4'"#
123"#,21
5'2&
2--*1
2-
!0#2#
2&#'0
-5,
3,"#012,"',%1
-$
+2#0'*1
1*',%


#,3

 















)

*

+

,

-

.

/

0

1
)(
))
)*
)+
),
)-
).
)/
)0
)1
*(

















 








"




 










 


"
 

+!











%







 #










  







  #

 







 




$
















)
%
*





  

"

 







#








 









 





















%






'%30#

8 
  




 
 


  9

 

7
0#1203!230',%
2&#
!-301#
$'%
2&#
',2#0!2'-,
#25##,
2&#-07
,"
&,"1-,
*#0,',%
5#0#
.32
',
2&#

!#,20#
1
5#
#*'#4#
2&#
123"#,21
%',

"##.#0
3,"#012,"',%
-$
+2#0'*1
'$
2&#
2&#-0#2'!*
*#!230#1
-,

+2#0'*1
0#
!*-1#*7
*',)#"
2-
&,"1-,
+2#0'*
#6.#0'+#,21
,
.0!2'!#
2&2
!-3*"
#

*#!230#
-,
2&#

+2#0'*
$+'*7
-$
+#2*1
',
2&#
+-0,',%
$-**-5#"
7
5-0)',%
5'2&
23 #
#,"',%
,"
5#*"',%
',
2&#

5-0)1&-.
*2#0
',
2&#
"7
&#
123"#,21
5#0#
%'4#,

+2#0'*
,"
+,3$!230',%
11'%,+#,2
5#0#
2&#7

51
1)#"
2-
0#.*'!2#
2&#
1+#
- (#!2
',
$-30
"'$$#0#,2
+2#0'*1
+#2*1
5--"
!-+.-1'2#1
.-*7+#01

2#62'*#1
-0
!#0+'!1
&#
123"#,21
0#!#'4#"

2#!&,'!*
"05',%
-$
2&#
-0'%',*
- (#!2
5'2&
',1203!2'-,1
2-

!&--1#
2&#
+-12
13'2 *#
2#!&,'/3#
$-0
#!&
+2#0'*
&#,
$',*'1',%
2&#
$-30
- (#!21
2&#
123"#,21

1&-3*"
,*71#
#!&
- (#!2
31',%
2&#
#,',%1
-$
2#0'*1
-"#*
0,
#2
*

 
,"
!-+.0#

2&#
0#13*21
',

1#+',0
#5
2#!&,'!*
"05',%1
-$
#!&
- (#!2
51
.0-"3!#"
,"
2&#
123"#,21
5#0#

1)#"
2-
0#$*#!2
-,
2&#
!-+.*#6
!-+ ',2'-,
-$
+,3$!230',%
+#2&-"1
1&.#
,"
$3,!2'-,
,"
&-5
'2

0#*2#1
2-
2&#
31#0
#6.#0'#,!#
2-%#2&#0
5'2&
2&#
2#!&#01
&#
#!&,'!1
-$
2#0'*1
5#0#
"#4#*-.#"

7

2#!&#0
$0-+
2#0'*
!'#,!#
$0-+
#',%

!-+ ',2'-,
-$
*#!230#1
,"
2&#-0#2'!*
!*!3*2'-,1

',2-
*#!230#1
,"
,
..*'#"
25-"7
5-0)1&-.
5#0#
2&#
123"#,21
5#0#
1)#"
2-
3'*"
!-,1203!2'-,1
,"

.32
*-"
-,
3,2'*
2&#7
!-**.1#"
,"
2&#
#* -02#
-,
2&#
0#13*2
#!-,"
.02
-$
2&#
!-301#
2&#
123"#,21

5#0#
%'4#,

"#1'%,
.0-(#!2
5#0#
2&#7
..*'#"
2&#'0
,#5*7
!/3'1'2'-,#"
#6.#0'#,!#
',
,"
),-5*#"%#

 -32
+2#0'*1
',

"#1'%,
.0-!#11
'+.*#
!312'4#
-0
-,#2--,#
0#*2'-,1&'.1
#25##,
+2#0'*1

.0-"3!21
1#,1-0'*
#6.#0'#,!#1
+#,',%
220' 32'-,
,"
#+-2'-,*
0#1.-,1#1
"-
,-2
#6'12
$$#!2'4#

2#!&',%
,"
*#0,',%
',
2&'1
0#
+312
#6.-1#
123"#,21
2-
2&#
!-+.*#6'27
-$
!-,2#623*
'113#1
5&'*12

#+.&1'1',%
2&2
5'2&
!-+.*#6'27
!-+#1
0'!&,#11
',
"'4#01'27
,"
,-4#*27
#"%*#7
#2
*

 


  



 


&#
!-301#
  

 
 
 12
!-301#

,"
7#0
&"
2&#
1+#
&'12-0'!*
!)%0-3,"

1
2&#
.0#4'-31*7
"#1!0' #"
 
  




 
 


  
$2#0

#6.#0'#,!',%
+',*7
.-1'2'4#
#$$#!21
-$
2&#
,#5
.#"%-%'!*
..0-!&

0"'!*
!&,%#
51

'+.*#+#,2#"
7
',20-"3!',%
2#0'*
0'4#,
#1'%,
0,
#2
*

 
,"
*'..#"
#0,',%
#25-0)

#*$2
,'4#01'27
-$
#!&,-*-%7
&#
#2&#0*,"1

189

 
/
'"5
+),+*"*0/
&*
0%"
/" +*!
)*!0+.5
)0".&(/
+1./"
 


  
 

*
0%"
0.!&0&+*(
0" %". "*0."!
)+!"(
0%"
0" %".
&/
0%"
,.&).5
/+1. "
+#
&*#+.)0&+*
5
+*0./0
0%"

(&,,"!
".*&*$
)+!"(
!"(&".0"(5
/%&#0/
&*/0.1 0&+*
0+

(".*". "*0."!
,,.+ %
3%"."
&* (//
0&)"

&/
!"!& 0"!
0+
"4,(+.&*$
0+,& /
&*
$."0".
!",0%
*!
."0&*$
.& %
(".*&*$
+,,+.01*&0&"/
"03+.'

 

%"
(&,,"!
".*&*$
)+!"(
3/
%+/"*
/
&0
 0&2"(5
&*2+(2"/
0%"
/01!"*0/
&*
'*+3("!$"
+*/0.1 0&+*

/
0%"5
,.0& &,0"
&*
*!
"2(10"
0%"&.
(".*&*$
&*

)**".
0%0
&/
,"./+*((5
)"*&*$#1(
%"

,"!$+$&
,,.+ %
%.)+*&6"/
3"((
3&0%
0%"
"4,".&)"*0(
*!
"4,(+.0&2"
/,&.&0
+#
0%"
)"0%+!

%"
/01!"*0/
3"."
&*0.+!1 "!
0+
0%"
0%"+."0& (
#.)"3+.'
+#
0".&(
.&2"*
"/&$*
&*

/".&"/
+#

/")&*./
3%"."
0%"
(//
" )"

,.0
+#
/0.1 01.&*$
0%"
 0&2&0&"/
*!
0&)"(&*"/
&*
0%"
+1./"

#&$

0
&/
&),+.0*0
0+
"* +1.$"
/01!"*0/
0+
3+.'
"4,(+.0&2"
*!
(/+
(".*
#.+)
#&(1."/
&*
0%"

&0".0&2"
,.+ "//
+#
0&*'".&*$
3&0%
)0".&(/
*!
/

+*/"-1"* "
."0"

".0&*
!"$.""
+#
#("4&&(&05
&*

0%"
0&)"(&*"
%"
/01!"*0/
3"."
/'"!
0+
,,(5
0%"
)"0%+!
0+
)0".&(
,.+,+/(/
0%0
3"."
/")&
!"2"(+,"!"4,(+.0+.5
0"40&("
3/0"
*!
+##""
$.+1*!
+.
3&0%

."(0&2"(5
1*'*+3*
)5 "(&1)

".*&*$
0+
&*2"/0&$0"

)0".&(
&*
*
"4,(+.0&2"
5"0
/0.1 01."!
35
&* ."/"!
0%"
&*0"$.0&+*
+#

)0".&(
0%&*'&*$
&*
0%"
!"/&$*
,.+ "//
*!
)!"
0%"
!"/&$*
/01!"*0/
."#(" 0
+*
0%"
)0".&(/
0%"5
1/"















+

,

-

.

/

0

1

2

3
+*
++
+,
+-
+.
+/
+0
+1
+2
+3
,*



  

   

 


  
   
  
  "
 

   
 
   
  
   #

 "





  
 
%   
'
 


  



 
  

  
 

'
  
  
   
 
'
'
 
% 

  
 &
 

   

 



$ &

 




  



 

   

 !

 
'
 



&$1."

 


  
 

 

%"
)"0%+!
" )"
&*0"$.0"!
&*
0%"
+1./"
/0.1 01."
/+
0%0
0%"
!&##"."*0
(".*&*$
 0&2&0&"/

/1,,+.0"!
" %
+0%".
"$
0%"
,1((
0"/0
#&$
&*
0%"
,,(&"!
)" %*& /
+#
)0".&(/
)+!1("
3/

,".#+.)"!
+*
0%"
)0".&(
/),("/
#&$ 
0%"
/01!"*0/
,.+!1 "!
&*
0%"
+1./"
%"
"* %).'&*$
+#

)0".&(/
" )"
+**" 0"!
0+
0%"
)"0%+!/
1/"!
&*
0%"
,.+!1 0&+*
" +*+)5
)+!1("
*!
/+
#+.0%

&$1."

0".&(
/),("/
,.+!1 "!
5
+*"
$.+1,
+#
/01!"*0/
&*
0%"
+1./"
 


  
 

 

#+((+3"!
5

,1((
0"/0
+#
0%"
#&*(
/),("



 
(&2"
 0&2"
!,0&2"

190


!-*

,*!$
+%($+
.$'(
*'%
,0,!$
/+,
1
+,-&,+
',,'&
!*+
%!0
/!,

,(!'
+
('$1%*

'*#!&
/!,
, 
!*&,
+,(+
'
, 
%, '
!&

'-*+
+,*-,-*
!+
*/*!&
-,
 $$&!&

'*
',
, *+
&
+,-&,+
+
!,
%&+
''
'%%-&!,!'&
,/&
.*1'1
!&.'$.
'*
$+

+'%
'
, 
+1&*!+
!&
$*&!&
,!.!,!+
*
$'+,

/'-$
$!#
,'
+-+,
, ,
(*,+
'
, 

%,*!$
*
-*, *
.$'(

, 
(!,-*+
-+
'*
, 
0(*!&,!$
 *,*!2,!'&
*,!&

!&+,*-,!'&$
%,*!$
'*
, *+
+'
, ,
%'*
+!&
+,-&,+
'-$
&!,
*'%
, 
%, '




 

 
 


 !+
+,-1
+
'*
, 
'(('*,-&!,1
,'
*$,
'&
, 
!,!
((*'
,'
%,*!$+
, !&
!&
(*'-,

+!&
 
 $$&+
'
(($1!&

&/
('!$
((*'
,'
&
0!+,!&
'-*+
+1$$-+
*&*

%!&$1
('+!,!.
0(*!&+
,*
!%($%&,!&
, 
&/
('!
((*'
&
%, '+
,*!$

!&
+
+ '/&
!&,*+,
!&
.$'(!&
, !*
'/&
%,*!$
'-*++
'*
, 
% &!$
&
%,*!$

&!&*!&
+,-&,+
 
!$
'
&!&*!&
+(!$$1
*$,
,'
%,*!$+
'-$
&!,
*'%

(,!&
, +
%, '+
!&,'
, !*
%,*!$
-,!'&
,
'-$
'&,*!-,
,'

%'*
!!&,

-&*+,&!&
'
, 
+&+'*!$
 *,*!+,!+
, ,
*
$!&#
,'
, 
, &!$
(*'(*,!+
,
'-$
$+'

'&,*!-,
,'
$++
%!+'%%-&!,!'&
,/&
&!&*+
+!&*+
&
&'&, &!$
(*'++!'&+
!&
, 

(*'-,
.$'(%&,
(*'++
',&
 *,*!2
1

%-$,!!+!($!&*1
/'*#
,*!$+
'&+,!,-,
, 

( 1+!$
((*&
'

(*'-,
&
 ''+!&
, 
*! ,
%,*!$+
!+
-&%&,$
'*
'/

(*'-,
/!$$

-&,!'&
&
'/
!,
/!$$
((*
+
(*,
'
, 
(*'-,
+!&
-,!'&
+,-&,+
.
,'
.$'(


%,*!$
(*,!
, ,
!&'*('*,+
%,*!$
, !&#!&
!&
, !*
'.*$$
+!&
(*,!
&
, !+
!&$-+
'/

%,*!$+
*
.$-,
&
+$,
+$!&

&-

 


 
*+-$,+
+'
*
!&!,
, ,
, 
+,-&,+
.
!&
,,*
-&*+,&!&
'
, 
'%($0
'&,0,
'

%,*!$
*$,
,!.!,!+
!&

+!&
(*'++
 *
!+

,&&1
'
*,*
.*!,!'&
'
*$.&,

%,*!$
&!,+
!&
, 
+!&
(*'",+
!&+,
'
, 
3-+-$
+-+(,+4
-+,!&!$!,1
+
+-*(*!+!&$1

'%

&,-*$$1
!&,*,
(*,
'
, 
%,*!$+
'-*++
&
!+
&'
$'&*
,*,
+

+(*,

,,*!-,
-,
.
!&+,
'%
%
!&
, 
+!&
(*'++
 
+,-&,+
.$'(
, !*

%,*!$
.'-$*1
-*!&
, 
'-*++
'&,*!-,!&
,'

! *
)-$!,1
&
(*!+!'&
!&
, 
!+-++!'&+


'(
, ,
, !+
+,-1
&
!&+(!*
,'
!&,*'-
,*!$
*!.&
+!&
!&
%'*
+!&
-,!'&+

$,
&!.*+!,1
'
 &'$'1
 
, *$&+

191


<+3G;7
%D;.7<.7

(*;.55


*0=*9
%


*=.;2*5
<.5.,=287
27
7-><=;2*5
.<207
.->,*=287
H


52=.;*=>;.
;.?2.@
27*52&7.32&0
32+*5*2(*
32
2,.2**5.2,
&2)
53)8(7
*6.,2
)8(&7.32




*47*1'*5

&0'35,
"2.9*56.7<
*21&5/


>,,2*;.552


 
.<207270
*7-
5.*;7270

-2<3>7,=287
27
,87=.A=<
*6.,2
78).*6







.5-.;
$


;.7=
$
 
,=2?.
5.*;7270
7
27=;8->,=287
 
.,-*5
)8(&7.32
5.*+
 




;*7=*
.<207


5&27&
)*6.,2
$.=;2.?.-
*;,1




/;86

1==9@@@0;*7=*-.<207,86,869*7B12<=8;B1=6


*<5270




.*;7270
=1;8>01
6*=.;2*5<

-.?.589270
6*=.;2*5<
=.*,1270
27
-.<207
.->,*=287

85-270
%,1885
8/
.<207


*<5270



.7*>
&


.?.5896.7=
8/
=1.
6*=.;2*5
<.5.,=287
9;*,=2,.
27
=1.
-.<207

->,*=287H
<=>-B
.A958;270
*;=2,>5*=287
8/
6*=.;2*5
;.:>2;.6.7=<
#*9.;
9;.<.7=.-
*=
=1.



53(**).2,6
3+
7-*


7-
27*52&7.32&0
32+*5*2(*
32
2,.2**5.2,
&2)
53)8(7
*6.,2

"2.9*56.7<
3+
!:*27*
7-*
*7-*50&2)6


8-0<87
%

*;9.;

 
//.,=2?.
><.
8/
6*=.;2*5<
27
=1.
-.<207
9;8,.<<
8;.
=1*7
*
<.5.,=287

9;8+5.6
#*9.;
9;.<.7=.-
*=
=1.



53(**).2,6
3+


7-*
7-
27*52&7.32&0
32+*5*2(*

32
2,.2**5.2,
&2)
53)8(7
*6.,2
)8(&7.32
*0+7
7-*
*7-*50&2)6
 




*17.6*7


5.27

 
87-2=287<
/8;
27=>2=2?.
.A9.;=2<.

/*25>;.
=8
-2<*0;..
1*5.(&2

6<(-303,.67





*;*7*

*;*=2

$807852
'

)..>@
?*7
-.;
**7



*=.;2*5
-;2?.7
-.<207
 


6.=18-
=8
-.<207
/8;
6*=.;2*5
.A9.;2.7,.<
27*52&7.32&0
3852&0
3+
*6.,2

 


*;*7*

.44.;=
#

*7-*,1*;
#



=885
/8;
6.*7270
-;2?.7
6*=.;2*5<
<.5.,=287
&7*5.&06


*6.,2






!.=@8;4




&1.
/8>;
9255*;<
8/
#E
$.=;2.?.-
",=8+.;



/;86

774:::0.44*)0*&52.2,35,(160.' #
 *275.(.7<31&.2%-&2)387%%$*'
)+


#.-05.B
"
$807852
'

*;*7*



*=.;2*5<
.A9.;2.7,.
*<
*
/8>7-*=287
/8;
6*=.;2*5<
*7-

-.<207
.->,*=287
27*52&7.32&0
3852&0
3+
!*(-2303,<
&2)
*6.,2
)8(&7.32


$807852
'



+;8*-
<>;?.B
87
.A9;.<<2?.<.7<8;2*5
,1*;*,=.;2C*=287
8/
6*=.;2*5<
/8;
-.<207

.->,*=287
!"
3852&0
3+
7-*
&(807<
3+
5(-.7*(785*

 


%,1D7




!-*
5*+0*(7.9*
45&(7.7.32*5
3:
453+*66.32&06
7-.2/
.2
&(7.32
*<2,
+884<


&1869<87
$



53737<4.2,
&2)
03:93081*
453)8(7.32
!-*
1&28+&(785.2,
,8.)*6
87-87

&1*6.<

>-<87


?*7
.C88B.7



1*9=.;



6*=.;2*5<
-;2?.7
-.<207
7

*;*7*
"
#.-05.B

'
$807852

-<
&7*5.&06
*;4*5.*2(*
99

8<=87
>==.;@8;=1.27.6*77

%


52?.
,=2?.
-*9=2?.

192


 





' 0+.22$
(1

+$"230$0
(-
0.#3"2
$1(&-
2
"'..+
.%
021
-#
.,,3-(" 2(.-


 +,9

-(4$01(27
-#

#."2.0 +
123#$-2
(-
2'$
(4(1(.-
.%
-#3120( +
$1(&-
2
$1(&-
"($-"$1
 "3+27
.%

-&(-$$0(-&
3-#
-(4$01(27
5$#$-
' 0+.22$
'$+#
2'$
/.1(2.-
1
(0$"2.0
.%
23#($1
%.0
 2$0( +

"($-"$
0.#3"2
$1(&-
$"' -(" +
-&(-$$0(-&
(-
2'$
 "3+27
.%
$"'-.+.&7
-#
."($27
2

 +,9
-(4$01(27
!$%.0$
!$".,(-&

#."2.0 +
123#$-2
'$
'.+#1


(-
30-(230$
-#
-#3120( +

$1(&-
%0.,
'$
.7 +
 -(1'
" #$,7
.%
(-$
021
"'..+1
.%
0"'(2$"230$
$1(&-
-#

.-1$04 2(.-
' 0+.22$
' 4$
-
$#3" 2(.- +
! "*&0.3-#
1

" !(-$2, *$0
-#
1/$-2

7$ 01

5.0*(-&
(-
1(
-#
" -#(- 4(
1
(-#3120( +
#$1(&-$0
(-
2'$
%30-(230$
(-#31207
-#
+ 2$0
.-
(-
2'$

32.,.2(4$
(-#31207
!$%.0$
0$230-(-&
2.
" #$,( 
' 0+.22$<1
, (-
0$1$ 0"'
(-2$0$121
0$
(-
2'$
%($+#

.%
, 2$0( +1
-#
#$1(&-
300$-2
0$1$ 0"'
"2(4(2($1
(-4.+4$1
2'$.0$2(" +
-#
/0 "2(" +
123#($1
.%

, 2$0( +
"0(2$0(
"2(4(2($1
-#
, 2$0( +
1$+$"2(.-
/0."$11$1
(-
(-2$0#(1"(/+(- 07
$1(&-
.-13+2 -"($1

(-
" -#(- 4( 





 -2.1'
'.+#1

'
(-
;*-.5+$#&$
, - &$,$-2
(-
#$1(&-<
%0.,
2'$
,!0(#&$
-(4$01(27


-#
-
$1
(-
;/0.#3"2
#$1(&-<
%0.,
-#( -
-12(232$
.%
"($-"$
 -& +.0$
(1
0$1$ 0"'
%."31
(1

.-
3-#$012 -#(-&
-#
(,/0.4(-&
#$1(&-
/0."$11$1
(-

4 0($27
.%
".-2$621
".4$0(-&
0$ 1
13"'
1

/0.#3"2
$12'$2("1
/0.#3"2
1$04("$
1712$,1
#$1(&-
"0$ 2(4(27
-#
(--.4 2(.-
#$1(&-
%.0
-#
5(2'

0$1.30"$
+(,(2$#
1."($2($1
-#
*-.5+$#&$
, - &$,$-2
(-
#$1(&-
$
' 1
/3!+(1'$#
'(1
0$1$ 0"'
(-

).30- +1
13"'
1
$1(&-
23#($1
-2$0- 2(.- +
.30- +
.%
$1(&-
-2$0- 2(.- +
.30- +
.%
$1(&-

0$ 2(4(27
-#
--.4 2(.-
-2$0- 2(.- +
.30- +
.%
312 (- !+$
."($27
.30- +
.%
,$0(" -
."($27

%.0
-%.0, 2(.-
"($-"$
-#
$"'-.+.&7
.30- +
.%
312 (- !+$
$4$+./,$-2
-#
$1$ 0"'
(-

-&(-$$0(-&
$1(&-






'
-#$01
 0$++
(1
0.%$11.0
.%
-#3120( +
$1(&-
-#
(0$"2.0
.%
$1$ 0"'
2
2'$
$/ 02,$-2
.%

$1(&-
"($-"$1
3-#
-(4$01(27
5$#$-
-#$01
' 1

7$ 01
.%
$6/$0($-"$
.%
2$ "'(-&
-#

13/$04(1(-&
(-#3120( +
#$1(&-
(--.4 2(.-
-#
/0.#3"2
#$4$+./,$-2
".301$1
-#
123#$-2
/0.)$"21
(-

5$#$-
-#
(-2$0- 2(.- ++7
-#
' 1
5.0*$#
5(2'
(-#31207
1

".-13+2 -2
2.
$,/+.7
#$1(&-
1


2..+
%.0
".,/$2(2(4$
#4 -2 &$
-#
(-
".++ !.0 2(4$
0$1$ 0"'
/0.)$"21
-#
-$25.0*1
%.0
,$2'.#

#$4$+./,$-2
-#
*-.5+$#&$
20 -1%$0
$
' 1
0$"$(4$#
1$4$0 +
(-2$0- 2(.- +
5 0#1
%.0
13/$04(1$#

123#$-2
#$1(&-
/0.)$"21
-#
5 1
5 0#$#
5(2'
2'$
5$#(1'
-#3120( +
$1(&-
.3-# 2(.-

"'.+ 01'(/
%.0
'(1
'
5.0*
(-


$
' 1
$6/$0($-"$
%0.,
0$1$ 0"'
-#
$#3" 2(.- +

/0.&0 ,,$
+$ #$01'(/
2
1$4$0 +
3-(4$01(2($1
(-"+3#(-&
' +,$01
-(4$01(27
.%
$"'-.+.&7
 11$7

-(4$01(27
3-#
-(4$01(27
-#
3+$8
$"'-(" +
-(4$01(27
$1$ 0"'
(-2$0$121
(-"+3#$
31$0
"$-2$0$#
#$1(&-
-#
(--.4 2(.-
31$0
$6/$0($-"$1
/0.#3"2
(-2$0 "2(.-
#$1(&-
,$2'.#1
/0.#3"2

!0 -#
(#$-2(27
4(13 +
#$1(&-
$12'$2("1
#$1(&-
1$,(.2("1
-#
120 2$&("
#$1(&-
$
' 1
/3!+(1'$#
(-

).30- +1
13"'
1
'$
$1(&-
.30- +
$1(&-
23#($1
.30- +
.%
-2$0(.0
$1(&-
-2$0- 2(.- +

.30- +
.%
$1(&-
0$ 2(4(27
-#
--.4 2(.-
-2$0- 2(.- +
.30- +
.%
$1(&-
-#
--.4 2(.-

$1$ 0"'
-2$0- 2(.- +
.30- +
.%
0.#3"2
$4$+./,$-2
-2$0- 2(.- +
.30- +
.%
$'("+$
$1(&-

-#
'$

.30- +

$+%2
-(4$01(27
.%
$"'-.+.&7
'$
$2'$0+ -#1

193
Paper III
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION
7 & 8 SEPTEMBER 2017, OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES,
NORWAY

A SHIFT FROM TECHNICAL PROPERTIES TOWARDS

SENSORIAL CHARACTERISTICS IN PRODUCT
DESIGN EDUCATION
Charlotte Asbjørn Sörensen1, Santosh Jagtap2 and Anders Warell3
1
School of Arts & Communication, Malmö University
2
Blekinge Institute of Technology
3
Design Sciences, Lund University

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to evaluate a new pedagogic approach implemented in a compulsory materials
course for product design students at bachelors level at Malmö University. When developing a new
curriculum for the material course, a decision was made to teach materials and production methods in
a contextualized setting with emphasis on how students can deal with materials in a design process.
Methods can be seen as mental tools that aid the design students in navigating complexity and offers
them a structure to deal with unfamiliar territories. After an evaluation, some methods, guidelines and
tools were selected to integrate in the compulsory materials course for the product design students, e.g.
the Expressive-Sensorial Atlas [1], Meaning Driven Materials Selection [2] and the Material Driven
Design method [3]. The implementation is made in two steps in order to test, evaluate and further
develop a framework for teaching materials courses to product design students. The study evaluate the
first step of implementation in general, and the implementation of the Material Driven Design method
in particular. It is hoped that this research can contribute to further development of pedagogical
approaches for teaching materials and production methods in a contextualized setting for product
design students at bachelors level.

Keywords: Material Driven Design; Material education; Product design; Material selection;
Teaching practice

1 INTRODUCTION
This study evaluates a new pedagogic approach implemented in the two mandatory material courses
for product design students at bachelors level: ‘Applied materials and tools for model making in
Product Design, 15ETC’ and ‘Material and Production methods, 15ETC’. In particular, the integration
of the Material Driven Design (MDD) method is addressed. After a several-year long process of
gathering knowledge, gaining experience and finalizing negotiations with involved stakeholders, we
implemented a new curriculum in the fundamental materials courses that are mandatory for all Product
Design students at Malmö University. The radical shift in how product design students are taught
materials and manufacturing methods was possible after transferring Product Design education from
the Faculty of Technology and Society to the School of Arts and Communication. The first step was
implemented in the existing materials courses, without changing the learning outcomes in the course
syllabus; instead, literature, methods, tools and the pedagogic approach was updated. By doing it in
two steps allowed for testing, evaluation and to further develop a framework for teaching materials
courses to the product design students. The second step of implementation is to restructure the Product
Design bachelor program and write new course syllabi. This study only reports the first step of
implementation since the second step is under development and will be implemented during autumn
2017 and spring 2018. First part of this article describes the dilemma of the product design education
placed at a technical faculty. In the following section, we outline the new pedagogic approach and
describe how is the first step is implemented in the product design education at bachelors level. We

EPDE2017/259 1
then discuss the use of methods in design education in general and then present the implementation of
the MDD-method. The final part of this article consist of a discussion on the radical shift that occurred
in the pedagogic approach of teaching product design students about materials followed by the results
of the study. Finally, we reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of our approach and suggest some
improvements.

1.1 Design education at technical faculties

Design education at technical faculties is often characterized by a curriculum for materials education
with a predominant focus on technical properties. Due to long scientific and technological tradition,
the engineering discipline has well developed curricula for materials education supported by
textbooks, digital tools, etc. Effective communication of materials knowledge and design knowledge
between the two disciplines - material science and design - has been challenging due to their different
perspectives on materials. Engineering students, at bachelors level, study well-established textbooks
with scientific knowledge that is ‘unquestionable’ and developed during the past two centuries
(Bucciarelli, 2003). This kind of ‘content knowledge’ can be seen as static and difficult to apply in an
open-ended learning exercise typical for design students. There is a tendency of ‘watering down’ the
materials education for design students, instead of using adequate, up-to-date scientific methods from
the field of design to cover both the technical properties and sensorial characteristics [4]. Design
education at bachelors level needs to offer material courses that prepares the product design students
to work both on inspirational and analytical levels in material selection processes. Early in the design
education, students often have a preconception of materials, and they need to be introduced to an
open-minded inspirational material selection process, based on scientific design methods.

1.2 Development of a new curriculum

When developing a new curriculum for the material courses it was regarded important to teach
materials and production methods in a contextualized setting with emphasis on how students can deal
with materials in a design process. Methods can be seen as mental tools that aid the product design
students in navigating complexity and offer them a structure to deal with unfamiliar territories.
Experience from the old curriculum had indicated that when product design students and engineering
students were taught the same courses in material and production methods, the courses tended to
become too general and decontextualized. Design students are generally interested in applied materials
and often discouraged by the technical approach in the introductory courses. It became difficult for the
design students to relate the purely technical aspects of materials to the applied material knowledge
gained through the design projects. Early in the development of the new curriculum, it also became
clear that it was important to make a distinction between material selection and material exploration,
as they are two different ways of approaching materials [5]. Materials considered in the fuzzy front
end of the design process are dealt with at a more abstract and holistic level, e.g. creating a material
vision instead of defining materials requirements for product realization. This could contribute to
strengthen the abilities of product design students to integrate their material knowledge and skills in
the design process, from the fuzzy front end to the structured back end in a professional setting. A
literature review was carried out with a focus on guidelines and tools used in or developed for
materials education in the field of design [4]. Methods, guidelines and tools (see Table 1), were
selected and integrated in the existing material courses for the product design students. By
restructuring the course, the interaction between theory and hands-on learning were put at the centre,
as we believe the students gain a deeper understanding of materials if the theoretical lectures on
materials are closely linked to hands-on material experiments. In practice that could be a lecture on the
material family of metals in the morning followed by working with tube bending and welding in the
workshop later in the day.
Table 1. Selected methods, guidelines and tools.

The Uses four parameters, namely texture, touch, brilliancy and transparency [1].
Expressive- Charts provide illustration of sensorial qualities using a sample of materials
Sensorial Atlas combined with a simple, concise textual definition. Design students rank material
samples, based on personal sensation that result in a subjective and qualitative
sensorial scale from one sensorial extremity to another e.g. light-heavy.

EPDE2017/259 2
 MDMS Meaning Driven Material Selection, aims to assist designers in manipulating
meaning creation in materials selection [2]. The guidelines help students to
understand how the complex combination of manufacturing methods, shape and
function relates to the user experience defined by, for example, expertise, gender,
age, and cultural background.
Materials and Hodgson and Harpers guidelines (fig.3) offers an overview of how a range of 10
Product materials related product attributes contribute to the realization of Form, Function
Attributes and Fabrication in a product. These in turn ultimately determine both the cost and
value of the product, which must ultimately match the need, or market demand
[6].
MDD-method The Material Driven Design method facilitates design processes in which
materials are the main driver [3].

The lectures were developed in the spirit of active learning (Felder & Brent, 2009) with brief
interludes of practice and feedback to offer the students an understanding of the more complex context
of, for example, the relation between technical properties and sensorial characteristics. The
Expressive-Sensorial Atlas [2] was introduced and used during the lectures as a way for the students to
explore the relationship between what is perceived subjectively and what is measured objectively. The
content of the lectures was also adapted to design students’ prior knowledge of materials and
developed to reflect the latest research in the design and materials domain. The number of commercial
materials available is rapidly increasing and the traditionally used taxonomy of material families is
gradually decomposed with hybrid materials such as composites. Therefore, it is fundamental to
provide students with tools to create their own understandings of materials [7]. The MDD-method
(fig.1) is a synthesised method of well-established creative and rational methods, such as tinkering,
ideation, user studies and benchmarking. By working with an explorative approach, the product design
students understand the material in-depth, e.g. they understand experiential qualities, physical
properties and ‘the material’s purpose within a situational whole’ [3]. The MDD-method guides the
product design student on a journey organized under four main steps as: (1) Understanding the
Material: Technical and Experiential Characterization, (2) Creating Materials Experience Vision, (3)
Manifesting Materials Experience Patterns, (4) Designing Material/Product Concepts. In order to
create a meaningful application, the product design students need to move from material
characterization to a holistic vision (Step 2 of MDD). They also need to enable novel experiences by
crafting the vision into a meaningful application (Steps 3 and 4 of MDD).

EPDE2017/259 3
 Figure 1. The different steps of the Material Driven Design Method [3].

2 EVALUATION OF THE MDD-METHOD

The students were introduced to the theoretical framework of Material Driven Design in a series of
seminars where the class became a part of structuring the MDD-activities and timelines in the course.
It is important to encourage students to work explorative and also learn from failures in the iterative
process of tinkering with materials, and as a consequence create a certain degree of flexibility in the
timeline. The students were asked to apply the MDD-method to material proposals that were semi-
developed/exploratory (textile waste and coffee ground) or with a relatively unknown material
(mycelium). Learning to investigate a material in an explorative yet structured way increased the
integration of material thinking in the design process and motivated the design students to reflect on
the materials they use. The MDD-method was integrated in the course structure so that the different
learning activities supported each other, e.g. the pull test in the applied mechanics of materials module
was performed on the material samples the students produced in the course. The benchmarking of
materials was connected to the methods used in the production economy module and so forth.

2.1 Understanding the material

By combining the theoretical knowledge of the technical properties, found in literature, with tinkering
the students created their own range of fiber composites. To understand the technical properties of the
new composites, they were tested, e.g. pull test, fire resistance, water resistance (Figure 2).

Figure 2. A pull test of one of the material samples produced by a group of students in the
course ‘Materials and Production methods’ 2016.
A user study was conducted to unveil the sensorial, emotional, performative and interpretive
characteristics of the new fiber composite. For this purpose, an ‘experiential characterization toolkit’,
was introduced [3]. The ‘experiential characterization toolkit’ is made up of a facilitator’s brief that
guides the facilitator through the different steps of the user study and a set of templates for the
participant. The participant is asked to (1) freely explore the material sample, while commenting aloud
(2) show which actions the material makes her/him do (3) explore the material with her/his senses and
rate it with the sensorial scale provided (4) describe which emotions the material elicits (5) choose 3
adjectives from the set provided and to select 2 pictures for each word, to explain what they associate
with that word (6) reflect generally.

EPDE2017/259 4
 Figure 3. Step 5 ‘the interpretive level’ in the ‘experiential characterization toolkit’.
When using the pictures in the ‘experiential characterization toolkit’, the students discovered the
importance of cultural context. In step 5 ‘interpretive level’, the participants were asked ‘what do you
associate with the material? how do you describe it?’. They were then asked first to choose three
adjectives from the set provided and place them on a template. The adjectives were selected from
Desmet [8] and Fokkinga [9]. They then were instructed to select two pictures for each adjective, to
explain what they associate with that word by using pictures (Figure 2). It is important to notice that
the pictures were not validated before selected for the ‘experiential characterization toolkit’. The
majority of participants were confused when asked to pair adjectives and pictures that could convey
their interpretation of the material. They asked if they could choose other pictures, and were then
allowed to only choose one instead of two for each of the three adjectives if they could not find two
suitable ones. The pictures were interpreted in different ways depending on the participants in the user
study. Some participants were not able to interpret the symbolic meanings of the images and instead
interpreted the actual information in the pictures. This could also later be seen in results from the user
study. When the students analysed the result of the different steps of the user study it became clear that
step five ‘the interpretive level’ stood out from the rest, as it was difficult to discover a pattern in the
data. It was clearly difficult for non-design professionals to communicate with a combination of
pictures and words to describe a material. The majority ended up focusing on choosing pictures that
explained the adjective and not in relation to the experience of the material itself. One improvement
that was discussed in the course was to exclude the adjectives and instead develop guidelines for the
facilitator how to select suitable pictures that have contextual relevance.

2.2 Creating the Material Experience Vision

The greatest challenge for the product design students turned out to be the creation of the Material
Experience Vision. This is a critical step in the MDD-method as it synthesizes all the knowledge about
and experiences of the material gained so far in the process. The purpose is to expresses how a
designer envisions a material’s role in creating functional performance and a unique user experience
when embodied in a product as well as in a broader context [3]. The product design students found it
difficult to keep a certain level of ambiguity and not focusing on a final product or product category
when creating the material experience vision. It is important that the students understands the
difference between a material experience vision and a product experience vision as it influences the
quality of the outcome of the project.

2.3 Designing Material/Product Concepts

In the final step of the MDD-method, it became clear how important good documentation of the
material experiments performed during the tinkering was. At this stage, the final version of the fibre
composite had to be produced in greater quantities, different colours and textures for the prototypes
(Figure.4). The product design students that had felt most challenged by crafting the material
experience vision gained renewed confidence in the final familiar stage of the MDD-method.

Figure 4. The project Flexstil by A.Burdette, N.Krig, T. Lindqvist 2016.

EPDE2017/259 5
3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The MDD-method should be seen as a sequence of steps that can be altered depending on the
educational background of students. In the course ‘Material and Production methods’, we focused on
the steps: understanding the material, creating materials experience vision and designing
material/product concepts. We chose to skip the step ‘manifesting material experience patterns’, as it
was too time consuming and not relevant in relation to learning outcomes defined in the existing
course syllabus. We found it valuable to introduce tinkering as a mind-set and not only as a step of the
MDD-method. Tinkering takes place both in a physical and ‘mental’ space and demands a flexible
creative space with suitable tools and materials e.g. a workshop or a kitchen. In the course, four
seminars introduced the main steps of the MDD-method. Retrospectively, it would have been
pedagogic to introduce the different sub-steps of the methods gradually, as some of the sub-steps e.g.
material benchmarking, tinkering and user studies, are the result of several connected activities. In the
course, the product design students got both hands on experience and theoretical knowledge of
materials and production methods. It was challenging for the product design students to systematically
analyze the data collected during the project. This provides scope for further improvement in the next
step of developing the curriculum, as it is an important skill to master both qualitative and quantitative
methods. An unexpected learning outcome of the new curriculum was navigating ambiguity in an
explorative design process; this became evident when crafting the material experience vision.
Ambiguity is a powerful tool for raising topics or asking questions and avoiding dictating answers in a
design process. Working with the different steps of the MDD-method in a course structure is
rewarding but challenging for both teachers and students as it demands good communication between
everybody involved or else some of the synergies in learning activities are lost.

REFERENCES
[1] Rognoli, Valentina. 'A Broad Survey on Expressive-Sensorial Characterization of Materials for
Design Education', METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol. 27/no. 2, (2010), pp. 287-
300.
[2] Karana, Elvin, Paul Hekkert, and Prabhu Kandachar. 'A Tool for Meaning Driven Materials
Selection', Materials & Design, vol. 31/no. 6, (2010), pp. 2932-2941.
[3] Karana, Elvin, Bahar Barati, Valentina Rognoli, et al. 'Material Driven Design (MDD): A
Method to Design for Material Experiences', International Journal of Design, vol. 9/no. 2,
(2015), pp. 35-54.
[4] Asbjørn Sörensen Charlotte, Japtap Santosh, Warell Anders. ’Material Selection in Industrial
Design Education: A literature review’, The 18th International Conference on Engineering &
Product Design Education, (2016), pp. 111-111.
[5] van Bezooyen, Aart. , 'Chapter 19 - Materials Driven Design', in Karana,Elvin, Owain Pedgley
and Valentina Rognoli eds., Materials Experience (Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014), 277-
286.
[6] Hodgson, SNB, and JF Harper. 'Effective use of Materials in the Design Process: More than a
Selection Problem', Paper presented at the DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, the Netherlands,
02.-03.09. (2004).
[7] Hasling, Karen Marie, and Torben Lenau. 'Development of the Material Selection Practice in the
Design Education–A Study Exploring Articulation of Material Requirements'. Paper presented at
the DS 78: Proceedings of the E&PDE 2014 16th International Conference on Engineering and
Product Design, University of Twente, the Netherlands (2014).
[8] Desmet, Pieter MA. 'Faces of Product Pleasure: 25 Positive Emotions in Human-Product
Interactions', International Journal of Design, vol. 6/no. 2, (2012).
[9] Fokkinga, SF. Design-| Negative Emotions for Positive Experiences, (TU Delft, 2015). Retrieved
October 9, 2016 from http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:f81fbaab-b3d1-407d-98d4-6775fed2ec81

EPDE2017/259 6
Paper IV
21ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED17
21-25 AUGUST 2017, THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, VANCOUVER, CANADA

MATERIAL SELECTION - A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY OF

FIVE DESIGN CONSULTANCIES
Asbjorn Sorensen, Charlotte (1,2); Warell, Anders (2); Jagtap, Santosh (3)
1: Malmö University, Sweden; 2: Lund University, Sweden; 3: Blekinge Institute of Technology,
Sweden

Abstract
This qualitative case study aims at understanding when and how industrial designers, working in design
consultancies, engage in activities that will influence material selection in the design process. While the
extant literature presents material selection processes as a sequence of activities aimed at finding
candidate materials, there is paucity of research on material criteria activities. Formulating material
criteria is an activity that is performed during all design phases and they become clearer and more
complete throughout the project. For the case studies, explorative semi-structured interviews were
conducted with five industrial designers with 10 years of work experience or more. The results suggest
(a) that risk management has a major influence on the material selection process, (b) that negotiations
of project boundaries in the ‘fuzzy’ pre-design phase has crucial influence on the risk management
aspect of the material criteria activities, and (c) a lack of awareness that design briefs usually outline
material criteria expressed as sensorial characteristics, which are later translated by engineering into
final material criteria used for the material selection process.

Keywords: Design practice, Design process, Design engineering, Case study, Risk management

Contact:
Charlotte Asbjorn Sorensen
Malmö University
School of Art and Communication
Sweden
charlotte.sorensen@mah.se

Please cite this paper as:

Surnames, Initials: Title of paper. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17),
Vol. 1: Resource-Sensitive Design | Design Research Applications and Case Studies, Vancouver, Canada, 21.-25.08.2017.

439
1 INTRODUCTION
Materials contribute to technical quality and function of products as well as the way users can interact
with products (Hodgson and Harper, 2004; Gant 2005). Despite the importance of materials in product
design, there is time pressure in design projects and condensed educational programs in dealing with
aspects of materials (van Bezooyen, 2014). During the last decade Industrial Design Professionals have
experienced many changes. Sustainability has undergone a transition from being a buzz word to
becoming a part of legislation and thereby an expected design skill. The world of materials is also
witnessing numerous radical changes. Diminishing resources, new challenges and stricter environmental
restraints are driving changes in the working practices and mind-sets of producers and developers
(Peters, 2011). With the development comes new responsibilities and the need to develop the existing
methods and processes in relation to selecting materials and manufacturing processes. Mechanical
engineering and industrial design activities are both concerned with material and manufacturing process
selection, but the level of detail and the focus within the design work differs (Lenau, 2002; Ashby and
Johnson, 2013; Granta Design, 2016). Generally material selection processes are described as
formulating material criteria, making a set of candidate materials, comparing candidate materials and
choosing candidate material (Farag, 2006; Chiner, 1988; Ashby et al., 2004; Jalham, 2006; Van Kesteren
et al., 2006). While the extant literature presents material selection processes as a sequence of activities
aimed at finding candidate materials, there is paucity of research on material criteria activities. Materials
are pre-dominantly seen as the features of a physical structure, and as a result they are considered only
after the conceptual design stage, in 'system/embodiment design' or 'detailed design' (Deng, Edwards,
2007). This contradicts with the notion that material selection is an interdisciplinary effort combining
social, economic and environmental domains (Veelaert et al., 2016). Industrial designers have unique
skills to combine technical properties and sensorial characteristics of materials in the product
development process. This qualitative case study aims at investigating when and how industrial
designers, working in design consultancies, engage in activities that will influence material selection in
the design process.

2 THE DESIGN PROCESS AND MATERIAL SELECTION

Designers work by framing a problem in a certain way, making moves towards a solution and evaluate
these moves based on the criteria of coherence, affordance and the problem-solving value. All design
problems are unique and the core skills of the designer lie in determining how the problem should be
tackled (Dorst and Dijkhuis, 1995). It is well understood that design problem solving is open-ended,
with many potential solutions to tackle a given problem. Likewise, in material selection activities, which
may occur in conceptual or detail design stages, alternatives are available, which are evaluated to make
decisions (Deng, Edwards, 2007). Formulating material criteria is an activity that is performed during
all design phases and they become clearer and more complete throughout the project. Hence, they do
not come about at once, but are often changed and detailed. As a consequence, formulating criteria holds
a central place in the iterative design process (Van Kesteren and Ilse Engel Heleen, 2008). Studies show
that industrial designers gain best understanding of materials by handling physical material samples in
combination with material selection software offering both technical properties and intangible
characteristics (Hasling, 2015; Pedgley et al., 2015; Rognoli, 2010; Wilkes, 2011). The terms
‘properties’ and ‘characteristics’ used in this paper are adopted from the study of Hasling (Hasling,
2015). Properties that relate to the physical world of materials (mechanical, chemical, thermal etc.) are
based on quantitative measures. Characteristics that relate to the social world of materials (e.g. meaning
and emotions) are based on qualitative experiences. Mechanical engineers, typically working in a
technical domain, often consider sensorial characteristics (e.g. warmth, softness) difficult to handle. The
common properties of materials that mechanical engineers and industrial designers deal with are:
technical properties, manufacturing processes and environmental issues (Ramalhete et al., 2010;
Ferrante et al., 2000). Material characteristics that are particularly important to industrial designers are
intangible and sensorial characteristics. The materials a product is made of play a major role in how the
users experience the final product (van Kesteren, 2008; Karana et al., 2010, Hekkert and Karana, 2014;
Schifferstein and Wastiels, 2014; Barati et al., 2015).

440 ICED17
3 CASE STUDIES
Qualitative case studies offer a richness that enables sophisticated understandings of how and why
specific occurrences, processes, and constellations happen (Gary, 2011). The aim of the qualitative case
studies was to explore if commonalities in design practice could be found in relation to material selection
processes. A ‘practice’ (Praktik in German) is a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several
elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and
their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and
motivational knowledge. These conventionalized ‘mental’ activities of understanding, knowing how and
desiring are necessary elements and qualities of a practice in which a single individual participates, not
qualities of the individual (Reckwitz, 2002). The practice as a ‘nexus of doings and sayings’ is not only
understandable to who undertakes that practice, but is also understandable to potential observers, at least
within the same culture. To gather the data, qualitative interviews were conducted as described in
Section 4.1. The challenges were first to analyse the qualitative data and then to make analytical
generalization of these findings. For this reason the authors have chosen a practice theoretical
perspective of Category Zooming (Halkier, 2011). Category Zooming is a way of generalizing by
zooming in on particular aspects of the qualitative data material. This way of generalizing goes into
depth with the details and complexities in one single point of the study. In our multiple comparative
studies, comparison between cases were undertaken to ensure what was compared was analytically
sufficiently identical across the cases.

Table 1. Short description of participating industrial designers

A B C D E
Age 40-45 40-45 40-45 45-50 35-40
Gender M M M M M
Educational background:
Industrial designer MFA MFA MFA MFA
Design Engineer BA BA
Professional experience (years) 12 14 15 16 14
Title:
Senior Industrial Designer X X X X
Design Director X X
Partner X X
Type of case:
Consumer electronics X X
Sport equiptment X
Health care X X X
Consumer goods X X
Technical equiptment X X
Employees: 30-40 30-40 10-20 5-10 5-10

The participants recruited for the interview study were five industrial designers with 10 or more years
of professional experience (see Table 1). The participants all work in multidisciplinary design
consultancies, which is important in relation to having first-hand experience of complex material
selection processes. Due to their long experience in industry, all five designers had advanced to senior
design positions and two of the interviewees were partners in their respective companies. The design
consultancies vary in size from 6 to 40 employees trained as industrial designers, graphic designers,
interaction designers, Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) artists, mechanical engineers, etc. They
mainly work with well-established international brands (e.g. medical devices, consumer electronics and
sports equipment) and occasionally with smaller start-up companies. In the screening process 8 design
consultancies in Scandinavia were found and contacted. From these 8 design consultancies, 6
participants were recruited, one interview was unfortunately cancelled by the participant for personal

ICED17 441
reasons. All 5 participants came from different design consultancies. It is worth noting that all
participants are male and that no females were found in the screening process.

4 METHOD
For the case studies an explorative semi-structured interview form was chosen. To obtain realistic, not
edited, accounts of material selection activities in the design process, the interviewees were not informed
in advance of the research background and specific aims. The interviewees received a short general
introduction when scheduling the interview. Each interviewee was asked to choose a typical case and
was asked to 'talk us through it'. The informant prepared visual portfolio material from a typical 'bread
and butter' design project to be used as a guide during the interview. It was considered important to
avoid 'innovation' projects since they generally do not represent a typical 'everyday' design process. The
interviews were carried out in the interviewees' design offices so that visual and physical materials were
easily accessible during the interviews.

Figure 1. Interview guide with four main topics used during the interviews, italic text
indicates questions added after the initial interview

The four main topics (see Figure 1) remained the same during all interviews, but after each interview,
transcription and coding were undertaken, the questions were refined and some questions were added,
so that the depth of information could be optimised. The interviews lasted between 48-72 minutes. The
interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded in NVivo with open coding, and then analysed using a
cross-case comparison approach (Gibbs, 2008). Four of the interviews were conducted and transcribed
in Swedish and the fifth was conducted and transcribed in English. No translations were made before
coding the data, instead the final results were translated, to avoid losing important details in the data.
The interviewer has experience of working as an industrial designer in the automotive industry. This
was helpful in conducting the interviews, being familiar with the vocabulary and the context, as one of
the interviewees pointed out. This experience might also have a disadvantage, e.g. interviewees may
hold back some information believing that it is common knowledge in the industry.

442 ICED17
The main themes that recurred during the open coding were:
• Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary.
• The 'fuzzy' pre-design phase.
• Material criteria activities.
• Material selection activities.
• Risk management .

5 FINDINGS

5.1 Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary

The results of our interviews indicate that the design consultancies applied different strategies. The
smaller design consultancies (5-10 employees) tended to work in multidisciplinary manner, whereas the
bigger ones (20-40 employees) strived to work in an interdisciplinary way. One of the smaller
consultancies worked in an interdisciplinary manner with some of their regular clients in the healthcare
industry as they had developed strong relationships over time. The relationship contributed to increased
influence already in the pre-design phase. While multidisciplinary work is characterised by the
disciplines using their distinct methods, joining to work on a common task, then splitting apart
unchanged, interdisciplinary work occurs when disciplines actually question their own approach and
integrate, forging a new field or discipline. Divergence and convergence is a typical indication of
multidisciplinary work, whereas simultaneous and integrative approaches point towards
interdisciplinary work (Mansilla, 2006). Non-design participants typically start to envision an
innovation from their own 'world' or domain but the object to be designed takes shape when ideas
circulate from one domain to another. Acknowledging the absence of knowledge is also significant; it
pushes the team participants to go into a co-design mode (Lehoux et al., 2011).

5.2 The fuzzy pre-design phase

In the pre-design phase, boundaries were negotiated between the design consultancy and the client.
Starting point for the negotiations were often a brief with the optimal design process from the design
consultancy’s point of view. The communication skills of the lead designer became crucial in the
negotiation of the project boundaries. The results of our research indicate that the more skilled the
negotiator is in understanding the consequences of the different stages of the design process, the greater
influence he/she has on the final brief (see Figure 2). The industrial designers had all developed abilities
over time to identify problems and to see 'the bigger picture', this also contributed to identifying
opportunities in a project.

Figure 2. Factors that influence the negotiations of project boundaries

The pre-design phase is often referred to as ‘fuzzy’ because of the ambiguity and chaotic nature that
characterises it. Several studies point out that an individual's tolerance of ambiguity is an important
capacity of being creative (Merrotsy, 2013). Ambiguity is a powerful tool for raising topics or asking
questions, while renouncing the possibility of dictating answers (Gaver et al., 2003). The goal of the
exploration in the front end is to determine what is to be designed and sometimes what should not be
designed and manufactured. The fuzzy front end (see Figure 3) is followed by the traditional design

ICED17 443
process where the resulting ideas for product, service, interface, etc., are developed first into concepts,
and then into prototypes that are refined on the basis of the feedback of potential users (Sanders and
Stappers, 2008).

Figure 3. Fuzzy front end of the design process (Sanders, Stappers 2008)

The interviewees described their relationship with new clients as a maturing process and they nurtured
the client to become a skilled design client. The Design Ladder (see Figure 4) is useful in understanding
the client's experience and relation to design.

Figure 4. The Design Ladder is a tool for rating a company’s use of design and was
developed by the Danish Design Centre in 2001 to illustrate that companies’ use of design
may take on a variety of forms

Our results indicate that a lot of new information is gathered during the 'fuzzy front-end' of the design
process. Many aspects are considered in this critical phase, e.g. understanding of users and contexts of
use, exploration and selection of new technologies such as new materials and information technologies,
etc. When time available to gather and process information in the fuzzy front-end is limited, the
designers tend to rely on the re-use of their own experience about products, processes and materials. A
creative start-up session is an efficient tool to frame the problem-space and the solution-space together
with all the relevant stakeholders. This allows everybody to personally engage in the project, creating
ownership and a sense that everybody can contribute with knowledge in stages that not necessarily
within their area of expertise and comfort zone. These creative start-up sessions attempt to bring as much
knowledge as possible in the project and to visualise some of the initial ideas. Previous studies suggest
that design sketches serve not only as external memory or as a provider of visual cues for association of
non-visual information, but also as a physical setting in which design thoughts are constructed on the
fly (Suwa et al., 1998). Already in the 'fuzzy front-end', initial material criteria activities are performed.

5.3 Material criteria activities

Awareness of when initial steps are taken to define material criteria in a project was generally lacking
in all of the design consultancies. They regarded the material criteria as mainly the engineers'

444 ICED17
responsibility. A reason for this might be that the industrial designers interpreted material criteria as
purely technical properties and not sensorial characteristics. In the pre-design phase it is possible for the
design consultancies to influence how the brief is written. By describing the interaction between the
product and the user as rich as possible in the brief, one opens up the problem-space as well as the
solution-space. For example, a brief for a medical device described how the product should feel when it
came in contact with the user's body. The brief also described that the product expression in some of the
parts should signal the short lifespan of the part and that it is ok to dispose of as the main housing should
be made a trusted friend. The brief outlines material criteria expressed as intangible and sensorial
characteristics. Being aware of this can contribute to that intangible and sensorial characteristics later
on in the design process are carefully translated into technical properties. These translated technical
properties contributes to formulate the final material criteria used for the material selection process by
the engineers.

5.4 Material selection activities

In the interviews, two scenarios of material selection processes emerged. In projects based on
incremental design, e.g. a new up-dated version of a mobile phone, the possibilities to influence the
material selection as a design consultancy is very limited. In projects based on new product development
or radical design, the influence depends on the material knowledge embedded in the project team and
the skills of the negotiator in the pre-design phase. Earlier studies have shown that material selection
should be taken into account from the early design phases in order to create an impact on the product
life cycle cost and to support the conceptualisation (Veelaert et al., 2016). Materials considered in the
fuzzy front end of the design process are dealt with on a more abstract and holistic level where materials
can be used for creating a material vision and material criteria. Material selection refers to the well-
defined process applied in the later stages of a design process where the materials selection criteria
finally are defined by context of manufacturing and cost to realize an already mature product concept.
Moving from the conceptual level of ideas towards the selection of tangible qualities can be challenging
for designers, because of the diversity of aspects to consider (Camere et al., 2016). Often the material
selection becomes a secondary priority for the industrial designers in complex projects; instead, they
tend to rely on the skills of engineers. Consequently, it is crucial to translate the sensorial properties into
technical properties so that the result from the design process keeps its qualities in the final stages of the
embodiment design and pre-production. All product features contribute to users’ holistic appreciation,
and although products will be experienced as a whole (Schifferstein and Desmet, 2008), it is important
for designers to fine-tune every detail. The materialization of their experiential vision brings the
experience to life (Hassenzahl et al., 2015). For these reasons, moving from conceptual intentions to
tangible qualities is a delicate moment of transformation, in which every decision matters, and on which
the final success of the product depends (Camere et al., 2016). Reflection is crucial in a material selection
process since there is no specific answer; only contextually related material candidates are available
(Asbjørn Sörensen et al., 2016).

5.5 Risk management

Risk management is often mentioned in the interviews as an argument for not implementing alternative
materials that could contribute to improve the performance of a product. The interviewees indicated that
the project timelines did not accommodate in depth risk management. Ambitious product development
projects, working within tight time and resource constraints are difficult to handle in small to medium
sized businesses. A key challenge faced by new product development projects is how to acquire
knowledge and manage sources of uncertainty in order to reduce the risk of failure of either the project
or the resulting product. The product can “fail” due to intrinsic problems (e.g. does not meet
performance, reliability, or safety requirements in the environment for which it was designed) or
extrinsic problems (e.g. flops in the market, changes in regulations), while the project can “fail” by
violating constraints (e.g. delay, over budget), not delivering the product, or not surviving the intense
competition. Uncertainty exists relative to both possible outcomes and their likelihood of occurring
(Cooper, 2003). Risk management becomes an especially dominant factor in the implementation phase
of a product development project, (Narayana, 2005) but affects the design process as a whole. As a
design consultancy, it can be valuable to identify and understand what is considered a risk by the client
and then to systematically address them one by one.

ICED17 445
6 FINAL REMARKS
In the case studies the material selection process was difficult to extract from the intricate web of
activities in the design process. Industrial designers work both on inspirational and analytical levels in
material selection processes. Material characteristics are closely related to manufacturing processes and
these becomes intertwined in the creation of a products' function and expression. In a design project,
material selection is generally a team-based activity, with contribution from, amongst others, industrial
designers, mechanical engineers, and marketers. The industrial designers' skills in translating sensorial
characteristics into technical properties are important in team-based activities, and can have great
influence, especially in the later stages of the material selection process. Risk management is another
important factor that influences the material selection activities throughout the design process and
therefore the lead designers need a basic understanding of the mechanisms of risk management. This
would assist the lead designers to develop more powerful argumentation when negotiating project
boundaries in the pre-design phase. The designers' communication skills also play a central role in the
early stages of the design process when creating representations of ideas together with the client.
Creating these representations are important early steps of the material criteria activities.

The findings implicate a need for increased awareness amongst industrial designers: (a) of when material
criteria activities actually are performed during the design process; (b) that material criteria activities
are negotiated and outlined already in the pre-phase of the design process; and (c) about how risk
management influences both material criteria activities and material selection activities. Industrial
design students would benefit from being taught how to undertake activities in the pre-design phase.

Exploratory semi-structured interviews are rich in information but time consuming to analyse. To further
validate the findings, a complementary survey is planned and further interviews will be conducted. In
the case studies, the selection of interviewees was limited to design consultants and did not include in-
house designers. Further studies are planned to identify possible differences in material criteria activities
and material selection activities between design consultants and in-house designers.

REFERENCES
Asbjørn Sörensen, C., Warell, A. & Jagtap, S. (2016), "Material selection in industrial design education – a
literature review", The 18th International Conference on Engineering & Product Design Education. The
Design Society, 2016. p. 111-111.
Ashby, M.F. & Johnson, K.( 2013), Materials and design: the art and science of material selection in product
design, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ashby, M.F., Bréchet, Y.J.M., Cebon, D. & Salvo, L. (2004), "Selection strategies for materials and processes",
Materials & Design, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 51-67.
Barati, B., Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Jönsthövel, I. (2015), "Designing with an underdeveloped computational
composite for materials experience", Tangible Means-Experiential Knowledge of Materials, international
conference 2015 of the Design Research Society Special Interest Group on Experiential knowledge,
Kolding (Denmark), 25-26 Nov. 2015 Design School Kolding.
Camere, S., Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Bordegoni, M. (2016), "Materializing experiential visions into sensory
properties: The use of the experience map", Celebration & Contemplation, 10th International Conference
on Design & EmotionDesign & Emotion, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 27-30 September, pp. 201.
Chiner, M. (1988), "Planning of expert systems for materials selection", Materials & Design, vol. 9, no. 4, pp.
195-203.
Cooper, L.P. (2003), "A research agenda to reduce risk in new product development through knowledge
management: a practitioner perspective", Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol. 20,
no. 1–2, pp. 117-140.
Deng, Y.-. & Edwards, K.L. (2007), "The role of materials identification and selection in engineering design",
Materials & Design, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 131-139.
Dorst, K. & Dijkhuis, J. (1995), "Comparing paradigms for describing design activity", Design Studies, vol. 16,
no. 2, pp. 261-274.
Farag, M.M. (2006), "Quantitative methods of materials selection", Mechanical Engineers' Handbook, .
Ferrante, M., Santos, S. & De Castro, J. (2000), "Materials selection as an interdisciplinary technical activity:
basic methodology and case studies", Materials Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-9.

446 ICED17
Gant, N. (2005), "Plastics design-The unlikely pioneer of 7. product relationships", Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on The Art of Plastics Design.
Gary, T. (2011), "How to do Your Case Study, A Guide for Students & Researchers", .
Gaver, W.W., Beaver, J. & Benford, S. (2003), "Ambiguity as a resource for design", Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systemsACM, , pp. 233.
Gibbs, G.R. (2008), Analysing qualitative data, Sage.
Granta Design (2016) , Granta Design. Available: http://www.grantadesign.com/company/history.htm [2016,
03/01].
Halkier, B. (2011), "Methodological practicalities in analytical generalization", Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 17, no.
9, pp. 787-797.
Hasling, K.M. (2015), Learning through materials - developing materials teaching in design education, Kolding
School of Design.
Hekkert, P. & Karana, E. (2014), "Chapter 1 - Designing Material Experience" in Materials Experience, eds. E.
Karana, O. Pedgley & V. Rognoli, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp. 3-13.
Hodgson, S. & Harper, J. (2004), "EFFECTIVE USE OF MATERIALS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS: MORE
THAN A SELECTION PROBLEM", DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th International
Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, the Netherlands, 02.-03.09. 2004.
Jalham, I.S. (2006), "Decision-making integrated information technology (IIT) approach for material selection",
International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 65-71.
Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Kandachar, P. (2010), "A tool for meaning driven materials selection", Materials &
Design, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 2932-2941.
Lehoux, P., Hivon, M., Williams-Jones, B. & Urbach, D. (2011), "The worlds and modalities of engagement of
design participants: A qualitative case study of three medical innovations", Design Studies, vol. 32, no. 4,
pp. 313-332.
Lenau, T. (2002), "Material and process selection using product examples", Advanced Engineering Materials,
vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 351.
Mansilla, V.B. (2006), "Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration",
Research Evaluation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 17-29.
Merrotsy, P. (2013), "Tolerance of ambiguity: A trait of the creative personality?", Creativity Research Journal,
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 232-237.
Narayana, M. (2005), "A framework approach to measure innovation maturity", Proceedings. 2005 IEEE
International Engineering Management Conference, 2005.IEEE, , pp. 765.
Pedgley, O., Rognoli, V. & Karana, E. (2015), "Materials experience as a foundation for materials and design
education", International Journal of Technology and Design Education, .
Peters, S. (2011), Material revolution: sustainable and multi-purpose materials for design and architecture,
Walter de Gruyter.
Ramalhete, P.S., Senos, A.M.R. & Aguiar, C. (2010), "Digital tools for material selection in product design",
Materials & Design, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 2275-2287.
Reckwitz, A. (2002), "Toward a theory of social practices a development in culturalist theorizing", European
journal of social theory, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 243-263.
Rognoli, V. (2010), "A broad survey on expressive-sensorial characterization of materials for design education",
METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 287-300.
Sanders, E.B. & Stappers, P.J. (2008), "Co-creation and the new landscapes of design", Co-design, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 5-18.
Schifferstein, H.N. & Desmet, P.M. (2008), "Tools facilitating multi-sensory product design", The Design
Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 137-158.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Wastiels, L. (2014), "Chapter 2 - Sensing Materials: Exploring the Building Blocks for
Experiential Design" in Materials Experience, eds. E. Karana, O. Pedgley & V. Rognoli, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Boston, pp. 15-26.
Suwa, M., Gero, J.S. & Purcell, T. (1998), "The roles of sketches in early conceptual design processes",
Proceedings of Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1043.
van Bezooyen, A. (2014), "Chapter 19 - Materials Driven Design" in Materials Experience, eds. E. Karana, O.
Pedgley & V. Rognoli, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp. 277-286.
Van Kesteren, I., Kandachar, P. & Stappers, P. (2006), "Activities in selecting materials by product designers",
Proceedings of the international conference on advanced design and manufacture. Harbin, China.
Van Kesteren, Ilse Engel Heleen (2008), Selecting materials in product design, TU Delft, Delft University of
Technology.
van Kesteren, I.E.H. (2008), "Product designers’ information needs in materials selection", Materials & Design,
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 133-145.

ICED17 447
Veelaert, L., Ragaert, K., Hubo, S., Van Kets, K. & Du Bois, E. (2016), "Bridging design and engineering in
terms of materials selection", International Polymers & Moulds Innovations Conference 2016, eds. L.
Cardon, J. Kruth, A.J. Pontes & A.S. Pouzada, the Centre for Polymer & Material Technologies CPMT,
Ghent University, Belgium, 21 to 23 of September.
Wilkes, S. (2011), "Materials Libraries as Vehicles for Knowledge Transfer", Anthropology Matters, vol. 13, no.
1.

448 ICED17