From the past to the future: Integrating work experience into the design process

1.1 Non-teleological design process

In a teleological model, objectives are the cause of action, and plans are preconceived to determine the course of action [20]. This rationality is embodied in project methodologies, were the initial understanding of problems to be solved is determinant for following decisions. A non-teleological model for design assumes that learning during design phases can reorient objectives and decisions.

Conducting this process can be understood as a course of action, which should be articulated between two levels: the desirable and the possible [21]. In one hand, we have the representation “of what is desirable” as project results. On the other hand, there is the reality of the situation and its own possibilities and impossibilities, which should be taken into consideration to implement the desired change. Then, project management can be understood as a process through which what is desirable and what is possible should be converged (Fig. 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.1

Project management as an articulation process between ‘desirable’ and ‘possible’ [8].

This dynamics can be synthesized in a tension between the poles of Logos (idea, notion) and Praxis (practice) [21], in which intellectual formulations will confront practical possibilities. However, it is necessary to put a proposal and a provisional understanding in tension with their appropriation in singular situations. Donald Schön [22] in his famous metaphor of “reflective conversation with the situation” illustrates this tension: the designer works with an objective mobilizing knowledge and ideas, but the situation “responds” and presents unexpected problems whose previous responses will not be enough. These problems serve as a basis of learning for the designer, who needs to transform his initial ideas and design objectives. It is a dialogical process: as the understanding of a problem is constructed, solutions are designed; as these solutions are tested, more is learnt about the problem. The proposal of a non-teleological design model is to enable this dialogue within the project process so that the learning achieved during the project helps to guide design decisions.

The proposal of the construction of experience is a form of learning this non-teleological construction. The experience analysis is developed under a perspective by Dewey [23], in which experience is not simply an accumulation of memories concerning different life experiences, but a construction that transforms the individual’s perception and knowledge.

During work activities [19], individuals mobilize their knowledge and abilities to achieve strategies and deal with varied situations. However, the situation they face cannot always be solved with a mere reproduction of consolidated strategies. Work situations show several kinds of variability [24], which demand situated responses [25]. It is thus necessary to build new responses during the action, which demand a continuous and attentive interaction of individuals with the situations they encounter. Thus, we can analyse the results of their actions and redirect them according to their results and objectives.

The construction of experience discussed here does not refer to this process, which occurs individually during work activity, but rather to project situations with collective discussions in a participative context. In a project situation, the interest is not just in discussing past experiences but also future work activity. Thus, fragments of individually accumulated experience are put into perspective to enable collective thinking about the design solutions. Discussion on these experiences generates mutual learning about work and project, which helps to build new work scenarios and future experiences that could be lived. This paper presents a construction of experience regarding collective preparation for future work activity.

2.1 Case setting

The company intended to transfer four biotechnology teams to a new laboratory complex. The project coordinator involved user representatives of the future installations in the design process. The simulation media was a scale model made of Lego bricks. Resource choice was due to a previous project described by Turchiarelli et al. [28] in the same company, which also used Lego bricks. The Lego scale model was maintained because the tool proved to be versatile as a representation and communication support. Lego pieces allowed for mounting colored elements, which could be easily handled and fixed to a support. The click fit system enabled correction or insertion of new elements in the scale model during discussion of design solutions. Details of preparation and mounting can be found in another publication [29].

The ergonomist who coordinated the use of scale model and study of work situations is one of the authors of this paper. A company ergonomist with experience in Lego scale modelling also helped in the research work.

We organized the use of scale model in two cycles of simulation meetings. In the preparation cycle, four work teams met separately to discuss their main laboratory project. In four 3-hour meetings, each team used the scale model part representing their own laboratory (Fig. 2). All department researchers were invited to attend these meetings to practise using the model and test the method.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.2

Part of the scale model used in the preparation cycle.

The complete cycle consisted of two 3-hour meetings in consecutive weeks, with the complete scale model (Fig. 3) representing all laboratories and offices. Two or three members of each team presented their points of view to discuss design solutions for all laboratories.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.3

Complete scale model before the beginning of the study.

The scale model was presented to the work group only with its structural building elements (walls, doors and windows), thus the researchers had to place all furniture and pieces of equipment. Each group member was asked to explain the reasoning behind every piece positioning and consequent issues, which raised new questions of colleagues who had other points of view. The ergonomist and researchers’ questioning motivated discussions on work situations, which led to changes in the scale model for design propositions. The ergonomist proposed some typical action situations [2] so that the work team could evaluate solutions based on their own experience.

Scale model results were compiled in digital plans with a photographic collection representing the laboratories and the history of solutions. Project coordination and all department researchers received these compilation files.

The unit of analysis [26] was the development of solutions by researchers using the scale model. By observing solutions built for different work situations, we could realize how workers mobilize their experience to evaluate and propose solutions in the model. Design solutions were selected which enabled relating changes in the model with ideas on ways of working in the future. We first collected data from model handling videos and later through debriefing meetings with the work group.

The development of solutions and discussions were recorded during simulation meetings. Acting as the meeting facilitator, the ergonomist could use the video for further analysis of discussions on research questions.

During video analysis, we selected excerpts referring to construction of specific solutions for various laboratories. In these situations, the discussion of problems experienced by researchers and their work strategies were key points for developing new layouts and strategies. We transcribed the excerpts and analyzed the content of discussions with changes made to the model.

After video analysis, some situations of solution development with the scale model were selected for in-depth study with researchers after the simulations. Debriefing interviews were held with small groups of researchers to delve into their motivations, better detail the strategies formulated while using the model, and confirm the ergonomist’s understanding of the discussed situations.

For this interview, excerpts of videos of simulation meetings were prepared to remind the participants of key discussion points for the ergonomist’s research. Based on these excerpts, questions were presented so that researchers could deepen the discussion on proposal motivations and relationship between solutions and work. In addition, parts of the Lego model representing only the selected laboratories aided the interview process.

3.1 Developing a laboratory space for a desirable work scenario

A problem identified during laboratory visits was the interruption of researchers’ concentration, which is a major problem for quality of work. Activities in these laboratories demand high levels of concentration, thus people moving close to workbenches can distract and interrupt researchers. During analysis, the ergonomist identified that people passing between benches (Fig. 4) and benches located close to other equipment (ex. fridges) or entrance doors were the main causes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.4

Possible situation of passageway between benches in the first proposal.

During preparation cycle, the work group reproduced the initial proposal for one of the laboratories using the scale model, as shown in Fig. 4. This layout presented two columns of six workbenches surrounded by other devices, such as a fume cupboard. Each bench belonged to a researcher but, in general, they were used for preparations to be manipulated in another laboratory.

After this layout was represented in the scale model, the ergonomist put forward questions about circulation and proposed some situations for the work group to evaluate consequences. The arrangement in two columns was found to cause a lot of movement between benches, which would consequently disturb the colleagues. Additionally, this team frequently used fume cupboards and other equipment, thus movement between workstations was intense. The arrangement would force researchers to walk along “corridors” of benches, which the group considered impractical on a daily basis.

In light of this scenario, the group agreed it would be an undesirable situation. Thus, they formulated a new goal for the laboratory layout whereby the arrangement of elements would change people flow, so that a facilitated circulation would less disturb other researchers.

One of the researchers proposed arranging three groups of four benches instead of two columns of six. By placing the benches in smaller “islands” (Fig. 5), the circulation problem would be minimized. Even with researchers still walking between benches, the new arrangement would probably cause less interruption since the number of opposing benches was lower. Furthermore, the access to other pieces of equipment could be easier.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.5

Main benches organized in smaller ‘islands’.

However, it was necessary to eliminate two workbenches to make the new arrangement feasible, thus reducing the number of fixed pieces of equipment. Yet the group agreed that reducing workstations would be a lesser problem than the circulation issue, which could be solved in the new arrangement. Thus, they preferred to remove benches in order to achieve the main objective.

The second example regards developing a workspace to solve an issue in stock management of chemical products shared in the department. During the ergonomist’s analysis in work situations, the main problem identified in the stockroom was the way people stored and shared products, leading to unnecessary waste. The researchers discussed this issue in meetings around the scale model.

Waste of chemical products affects all teams and occurs partially due to form of usage. When researchers need to use a given product, they should go to the stockroom for it, use what they need in the laboratory and return the material immediately. Following this established rule for shared use, the products would be soon available for others to use. However, the chemicals were not always being taken back promptly.

The user would generally keep the product until finishing procedures, sometimes for several days or weeks. In the meantime, the chemical would not be available for others to use. Then, the researcher would go to the stockroom for a new pot, which resulted in waste of products due to expiration date.

During the first complete cycle meetings, the work team discussed issues concerning the chemical stock area. They decided that the stockroom design should help reduce the problem. The idea guiding the new layout was allowing researchers to use products with no need to take them out of the stockroom. To achieve this scenario, the team proposed to concentrate all chemical products in a small room with cupboards. Next to this room, a dedicated fume cupboard would be installed with measuring equipment (ex. scales and pH meter). Thus, researchers would take the product, measure the amount required in the dedicated fume cupboard then return the pot to the original place. Thus, the product would no longer have to be taken out of the stockroom (Fig. 6).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.6

Proposal for the chemical stockroom.

This example dealt with a proposal which altered both space and work activity. A new form of handling chemical products for shared use was developed to solve a previous waste problem, along with an agreement between teams on to how to use the space. Based on the initial formulation, proposals started to be materialized in the scale model to allow the activity to be undertaken in the new location. Thus, construction of experience led to development of work activity reflecting on space development: the initial project objective.