Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Design in use and inventiveness are key concepts in ergonomics. It is well-known that users design but is not explored in the literature how they manage to do that.
OBJECTIVE:
This paper aims to contribute to the discussion of how users actually design, by showing a research conducted in sugar cane harvesting in Brazil and in Australia.
METHODS:
Through the methodology of the Ergonomic Work Analysis (EWA), the design modifications made by the harvesting teams were identified as well as their elaboration process.
RESULTS:
Three categories of modifications in machines’ design were identified: structural, functional and operational and they were more numerous in Brazilian situations. It is proposed that two theories underlying the theme are intertwined: the instrument-mediated activity approach and the design as bricolage.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is argued that users design through the articulation of: a) the operators’ activity, b) the mechanical technicians’ inventory to practice bricolage as a way of designing and c) the work organisation and the existence of social spaces of interaction between these two subjects.
Introduction
The issue of inventiveness manifested by the users when confronted with a technique has been receiving attention from ergonomists for some time now. It is known that, with an appropriation of the artifact by users, a process of construction and reconstruction of uses and devices occurs [1]. In other words, as the activity develops, the worker puts in practice and interrogates the outcome produced by designers, so that the design continues in usage [2].
Dejours [3] describes this inventiveness as cunning intelligence, i.e. intelligence from practice. According to the author, this form of intelligence was first identified and described by the Greek as métis and it means creative and inventive intelligence, essentially engaged in technical activities. Métis is mobilised in novel, unexpected and unpredicted situations. As pointed out by the author, this is because every work has a real dimension, which cannot be obtained by the rigorous enforcement of what is prescribed. Instead, it requires innovation and utilisation of the cunning intelligence [3].
Nonetheless, how does cunning intelligence occur? How do users design?
Through the analysis of the sugar cane harvesting, this paper will identify what innovations are made by the harvesting teams. This is because the mechanical sugarcane harvesting is organized in teams, which comprises basically, the harvester operator, tractor driver (transhipment), mechanical technician and the team leader.
Also, the present paper aims to facilitate an understanding of the origin and source of the inventive process.
To do so, two theories are relevant. The first one is the instrument-mediated activity approach proposed by Rabardel and Béguin [1]. This approach states that: An instrument is a mixed entity of both scheme and artifact and design continues in usage due to instrumental genesis [4]; Schemes are techniques, forms of thinking and actions. When the utilization schemes are modified or new ones are developed by the users, the process called instrumentation occurs;
When the artifact component is enriched, through adaptations, attribution of properties, transformation of its structure, function, etc., then the instrumental genesis is instrumentalization;
By recognizing that users develop and modify tools, they can be considered real designers [5].
The second theory was developed by Louridas [6] and proposes to treat the design process as bricolage. Through the use of this metaphor, the author presents the essential features of the design activity: Bricolage itself is about making things with what is there, with what one can find, with a closed universe of tools, redefining the existent means. Therefore, it involves a reorganization of the elements of an inventory possessed by the bricoleur; Design can be seen as a bricolage through the analysis of its two historical phases: unselfconscious design and self-conscious design; The unselfconscious design is design without designers, practiced before its professionalization. In this case, the bricolage is used in the literal sense, once the designer works with materials taken from his immediate environment and he structures them and solves immediate problems; The self-conscious design is a design practiced as a distinct activity with formal qualifications. Here, the bricolage is at the metaphorical level since the designer works with a model of the finished artifact and metaphors are used to modify and understand this model.
Based on these two theories, the aim of the present paper was to analyze the instrumental genesis in the operation of sugar cane harvester machines and to identify the origin of the inventiveness, i.e.: the genesis of instrumental genesis. First, the method used to conduct the research will be presented. Then, the foundation and key aspects of each theory will be deepened and after that, the results obtained. Through the discussion of the results, it is intended to show how these two theories are complementary and explain how workers design.
Method
The present study used a qualitative approach based on the methodology of Ergonomic Work Analysis (EWA) [7], which has as its central part a comprehensive analysis of activities.
The research was divided in two phases: the first in Brazil and the second in Australia, where the sugar cane harvester machines were developed.
The first phase in Brazil was developed from May/2013 to February/2014 at three sites located in the city of Piracicaba, São Paulo State: a sugar mill (situation A), a company that offers harvesting services (situation B) and a sugar cane grower (situation C). The analyzed machines were: Case 8800, John Deere 3520 and John Deere 3522.
The research in Australia was undertaken from July/2014 to November/2014 in cooperation with the Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre (MISHC) of the Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI) from The University of Queensland. In Australia, the sugar cane growers are the ones responsible for the harvesting thus, the research was conducted at two properties, one in Tweed Heads, New South Wales (situation D) and in the other in Tully, North Queensland (situation E), with machines John Deere 3510 and Cameco CH2500, respectively.
The following methods and research techniques were used in this study: open and systematic observations, photographs and video footage, non-structured and semi-structured interviews, questionnaires.
Eight visits were conducted in Brazilian sites, with 44 hours of observation in field, 23 of them spent inside the cabin control of the harvesters. Video footage of the operation varied from 30 to 40 minutes per operator.
In Australia, two visits were conducted in situation D and three in situation E, totalizing 35 hours of observation. The period of observation inside the cabins (of the harvester and tractor) was 26 hours. The duration of video footage was 50 minutes per operator.
The design modifications performed by the teams were collected through photography during the off-season period in Brazil and during pauses in harvesting in Australia, as the period of research in the country comprised the season time.
In Brazil, the team is composed basically by: team leaders, harvesting machine operators, tractor drivers and mechanical technicians (and their assistants). In Australia, the sugar cane growers own the machinery or they hire a contractor so there are no leaders, nor mechanical technicians. The operators are responsible themselves for the maintenance. The interviews were conducted individually and collectively with all team members. Individual interviews were carried out during the operation and the collective ones, during moments when it was possible to gather the team such as pauses for refueling, maintenance, etc.
The questionnaires were applied with the operators and they aimed to detail the workers’ experience and the evaluation of the machines’ design using a Likert Scale for nine design features related to ergonomics: cabin access, cabin’s internal space, cutting visibility, posterior visibility, seat comfort, acoustic comfort, thermal comfort, layout of controls and layout of displays. The questionnaires applied with the mechanical technicians in Brazil aimed to detail their experience, maintenance process, design’s limitations and modifications.
For data analysis, filming and recording were transcribed and keywords were selected and used to facilitate the interpretation and description of results.
The design modifications identified in the study were divided in three categories: structural modifications (reinforcements of machine’s structure), functional modifications (design improvements) and operational modifications (design improvements aimed at operation).
After the description, the results obtained were validated with all the teams. The study adhered to the guidelines of the ethical review process from both universities: The University of Queensland and Federal University of São Carlos. All workers participating in the study were informed about the research goals and signed a consent form.
Referential theory
The instrument-mediated activity approach
According to Béguin [8], there are three possible interpretations that can be adopted to explain why design continues in usage.
The first one, called crystallization, is based on the fact that any technical system or dispositive crystallizes knowledge, a representation and, more broadly, a model that designers have of the user and his activity [9]. Therefore, design continues in usage because these embedded representations can be sources of difficulties, if the users’ needs and practices are not complete and sufficiently considered and anticipated [8].
The second interpretation, called plasticity, states that there is an unbridgeable gap between the activity defined during design process and the one actually carried out due to unforeseen situations related to industrial variability [10].
Therefore, no matter how well-planned and well-designed, it is impossible to fully anticipate the activity: the performance of the action cannot be the mere execution of a plan [11, 12]. The real activity is guided by situations that are in constant change: maladjusted tools, differences regarding the raw material, absence of a co-worker, etc. [13].
Finally, the third interpretation, called developmental approach or instrument-mediated approach considers that users’ inventiveness also has intrinsic origins. Thus, this approach adds a new dimension to design-in-use: it is not rooted in the extrinsic aspects of the activity such as an insufficient elaborated design process (crystallization) and the dynamic variability of circumstances (plasticity), but in the constructive activity, in its development [8].
This means that workers inevitably put in practice their competences, forms of action, of thinking, etc. and they appropriate the innovation.
The appropriation of artifacts is called instrumental genesis [1]. Once the instrument is composed of artifact and utilization scheme, the instrumental genesis has two orientations: instrumentation and instrumentalization.
The instrumentation is the process directed towards the worker and involves utilization schemes of the artifacts, i.e. forms of action and techniques. Thus, the instrumentation occurs when schemes are developed and modified as well as when new artifacts are incorporated into pre-existent schemes [14].
The authors describe that a utilization scheme suffers two processes. First, they can assimilate, which means that they can be applied to several different kinds of artifacts. For example, the hammering scheme, which is usually associated with a hammer, can be momentarily associated with a wrench. Secondly, schemes can accommodate: they can change when the situation changes and this leads to the gradual diversification of uses.
The instrumentalization, on the other hand, concerns the emergence and evolution of the artifact component of the instrument, i.e., the artifact’s properties are enriched. This process involves selecting, grouping together, producing and defining the functions of an artifact as well as its physical transformation. Therefore, instrumentalization extends the artifact’s intended use [1, 15].
One of the key aspects of this approach is that the workers’ creativity and inventiveness are seen as an ontological feature of the design process rather than an indicator of user’s deviation or a defect in design specification [14]. Through the instrumental genesis, users contribute concomitantly to design of artifacts, utilizations schemes, use and its conditions.
Kaptelinin [5] highlights that the instrument-mediated activity approach has obvious implications to the design of artifacts, once it essentially requires that artifacts must be conceived in a manner that they can be efficiently transformed into instruments through use. In the same way, it also shows the need for designers to take into consideration the real practices and users’ needs, who are expected to appropriate an artifact.
Another topic raised by the described approach is related to the notion of instrumentalization: the development and modification of a tool by the users. This means that users are assumed to be designers in a very sense of this word. Design, thus, should be seen as a mutual learning process between users and designers [8], since both subjects can contribute to the conception based on their diversity and competences.
In synthesis, designers elaborate an instrumental proposal in the form of artifacts and anticipated operational modes and users will (partly, totally or not at all) take on this proposal to develop their own instruments, according to their own characteristics and needs. Hence, design seems to be a cyclical process involving a dialogical process [2] and co-design [1].
Nevertheless, facing these assumptions, some questions arise: how do users design? If they are not formal designers, how do they design? What is the origin of the design in use, mainly with relation to the transformation of artifacts (instrumentalization)? The answer seems to be found on the theory of design as bricolage, described below.
Design as bricolage
There are several approaches to elucidate the design process. The most broadly used [see 16–18] basically converge regarding their focus: design is stated as an engineers’ task, which aims to create solutions for technical problems and can be divided into a sequence of steps in the design cycle.
However, all these approaches adopt a predominantly technical perspective and do not consider the design process as a social construction (as proposed by Bucciarelli [19]) and let alone as an activity that can be practiced by subjects who are not designers or engineers.
In this way, the perspective described by Louridas [6], which uses bricolage as a metaphor to face the design process seems appropriate to explain the origin of the instrumentalization, considered above.
As described [6], the first practical step of a person who performs bricolage (bricoleur) is retrospective: he or she must turn to an already constituted set (formed by tools and materials), take or re-take an inventory of it and engage into dialogue with it, in order to index and choose among them the possible answers that the set can offer to the problem. Thus, bricolage is at mercy of contingencies, either external (influences, constraints, adversities of the external world) or internal (related to the creator’s idiosyncrasy).
The practice of bricolage involves the redefinition of existent means, the use of a inventory of semi-defined elements (concrete and abstract at the same time) which carries a meaning, given to them by their past uses and the bricoleur’s experience, knowledge and skill. This meaning can be modified, up to a certain point, by the requirements of the project and the bricoleur’s intentions [6].
According to the referred author, whereas the engineer and the scientist break down, decompose and analyze, the bricoleur reorganizes. The engineer and the scientist create and use concepts; the bricoleur uses signs. The decisions to use an element interacts with the other elements’ possibilities of the artifact he or she makes, thus, each choice will involve a complete reorganization of the structure. Therefore, bricolage is the creation of structures (in the form of artifacts) out of events [6].
Although design is not a bricolage, according to the author, it can be seen as a bricolage. To corroborate such idea, the author identifies and describes the two historical phases of design: unselfconscious design and self-conscious design.
The unselfconscious design is design without designers, when design professions did not exist: artifacts were manufactured by their prospective users, houses were designed and built by their inhabitants. Consequently, unselfconscious design was direct because it responded to immediate problems and the designer had to use the materials that he or she could find in the environment, inserting them in the artifact’s structure that it is created [6].
Self-conscious design, on the other hand, involves designers with formal education in special schools. According to the author, it is also a form of bricolage: a metaphorical bricolage. This affirmation is supported by the fact that: like the unselfconscious design, the freedom here is also limited because once decisions are made and the more design proceeds, the more closed the universe of tools and materials is; the self-conscious designer does not usually work with the final artifact but with a model of it. This means that he or she uses metaphors on that model in order to understand it then, he or she modifies it and tries to understand it again. In this case, bricolage is at a metaphorical level.
Therefore, the perspective presented by Louridas [6] defines design as “tinkering using materials which the designer cannot freely select, and which have meanings which he cannot freely specify, in order to make a structure fit the structure of the context”. And a good designer works with signs, which he combines and recombines and whose meaning he partially redefines, working not by analyzing and decomposing, but by reorganizing the materials he has.
Results
The modifications encountered in the study can be divided into three categories: structural, functional and operational. Each category will be detailed below as well as its elaboration process in the field.
Structural modifications
Structural modifications are related to the reinforcements or even substitution of machine’s parts in order to improve reliability. Specific parts are reinforced through welding process to prevent wear during the harvesting season. In Brazil, it was observed that besides welding, parts are replaced by others more resistant, mainly because these machines often work in sloping grounds.
Functional modifications
Functional modifications comprise design improvements, i.e., design solutions elaborated by the teams to fix specific problems that were not anticipated during design process.
Only one functional modification was identified in Australian situations: the Cameco CH2500 cooling system. Originally, the machine had a radiator without the self-cleaning cooling package that the modern machines do (automatically reversed every 20 minutes and also reversed by the operator at any time). This used to lead to frequent stops to clean the rubbish and avoid the overheating. The operator explains:
“We have changed the cooling package so it doesn’t heat up so much and you can cut for longer periods without stopping. The new ones have a cooling package, they have got a reversible fan that takes off the rubbish so we can go without stopping”.
Considering the three Brazilian situations, more than 30 functional modifications were identified to solve the various problems. Among them are: hydraulic oil tank, positioners of the tracks, elevator’s basket, steel cable for the elevator and radiator’s door lock. Hydraulic oil tank
The original design of hydraulic oil tank of the John Deere 3520 and 3522 had a problem in the oil level warning system. The sensor was way below the oil level (Fig. 1A), which led to great oil losses until the system could detect the oil leak. According to one operator: “when there was a burst hose, we used to lose up to 100 litres of oil”. Then, the maintenance team designed an additional tank, with capacity of 20 liters, containing the sensor and connected to the main tank (Fig. 1B). According to the mechanical technician: “Now it is only 4 or 5 liters before the machine beeps”.
Original location of the sensor (A), tank modification in John Deere 3522 (B), and tank modification in Case 8800 (C).
Original track of Case 8800 (A), positioners added (B), positioners added and displaced of John Deere 3522 (C).
The same solution was encountered in machines Case 8800 (Fig. 1C), with an additional tank of 40 liters connected to the main tank and containing a John Deere’s sensor. According to the mechanical technician: “We have put this tank with a sensor from the 3520. Case’s sensor doesn’t work well”. Positioners of the tracks
Positioners are meant to keep the tracks in position during locomotion and manoeuver. The tracks of Case 8800 have only two lateral steel sheets and are not enough to position the tracks (Fig. 2A) so the team made positioners in each side of the tracks (Fig. 2B). The mechanical technician explains: “as we work, the sheets bend, the screws get lost and the track moves, so we put four positioners in each side”. In John Deere machines, the teams displaced the original positioners and put two additional ones: one inferior and one superior in each side (Fig. 2C). According to the mechanical technician: “The track used to move out of position and it hit the cylinder, so we separated the original positioners then we put one in the middle of them and one superior too”. Elevator’s basket
After the sugar cane bundle being chopped, the billets are deposited in the elevator’s basket that feeds the elevator, which carries and unloads the material into the tractor. In John Deere 3520, it was observed that the teams modified the basket’s area. According to the operators, due to the circular shape of the basket, the billets often fall out on the ground (Fig. 3A) so they made two lateral flaps in order to fulfill the gaps (Fig. 3B). Steel cable for the elevator
Elevator’s basket of John Deere 3520 (A) and lateral flaps (B).
It was observed that the teams added a steel cable in Case 8800 machines to hold the elevator in position once the original strap (Fig. 4) was not enough to contain the elevator’s weight. According to the mechanical technician: “the strap breaks very often and the elevator falls down. It really falls down on ground! It’s dangerous if it falls over the tractor or someone ... ”. Therefore, the team made a steel cable attached through a pin placed in the elevator, as shown in Fig. 4. Radiator’s door lock
The radiator’s door lock of John Deere 3520 originally is made of aluminum and is not resistant, according to the teams; thus it was replaced by one made of iron from Cameco machine (Fig. 5). As explained by the mechanical technician:
“The door lock always breaks. If the door hits, it breaks. It is too weak because is aluminium so we have to replace it all the time. (...) I put the Cameco’s one, it’s like a hook made of iron, way better. I searched for it and called some specialised companies in the nearby city and they got it for me”.
Steel cable to contain the elevator of Case 8800.
Radiator’s door lock replaced.
Operational modifications also comprise design improvements, however, they are focused specifically on the operation.
Six operational modifications were identified in Brazilian situations and two in Australia. Among them are: posterior illumination, pulley system, water container and cabin’s elevation. Posterior illumination
During the harvesting season in Brazil, the work occurs 24 hours a day, which means harvesting at night. It was observed that additional lights were places at the back of Case 8800 machines so the operators cane have better visibility of the residue removal and cleaning (Fig. 6). As explained by the operator: “the radiator is a bit displaced to the right and we cannot see see the extraction of rubbish so we put this light”. Pulley system
Concerning maintenance of Case 8800, it was observed that the team created a pulley system to move the three radiators of the machine (Fig. 7). Due to the weight and location at the top of the machine, operators and mechanical technicians used to find difficulties in handling the heavy parts. A mechanical technician explained:
Additional light at the back of Case 8800.
Pulley system being used in Case 8800.
“When the radiators break, we have to take them off and put them on the ground to make the repairs. It is 5 metres from up there and they are heavy, around 60 kg and there is no grip. We used to do it by hand, with 3 or 4 people to help (...) Then we invented this pulley system and each machine has a pin and a hook to attach it (...) We are not engineers, you know, but we try”.
Water container
It was observed that in situation B, the team added a water container in John Deere 3522 machines so the operators can wash their hands after maintenance tasks. The container was placed behind the stairs to the cabin and it is filled with the remaining water from the air conditioning system (Fig. 8). According to the operator:
“We are always fixing the machine so we have to wash our hands ... The machine should come from the factory with a container but the mechanical technician put it for us recently and we do not even have to fill it up because the water comes straight for the air conditioning”.
Cabin’s elevation
One of the operational modifications identified in Australia was the elevation of the cabin control of Cameco CH2500 (a 16-year-old machine) in order to improve the operator’s cutting visibility (Fig. 9). According to the operator:
Water container in John Deere 3522.
Elevated cabin of Cameco CH2500.
“The new machines have higher cabins, but this cabin used to be down and we could not see. Then we put longer legs to lift it up and also an additional step. Now it is higher and we can see better, see where we are going ... ”.
The design modifications observed in the study occurs through the use of the machines in the field. Specially in Brazilian situations, the elaboration of any modification is allowed by a process of analysis, which articulates two subjects: the harvester operators and the mechanical technicians.
As reported by all interviewed teams of situation A, B and C, usually the operators notice the problem and report the mechanical technicians, who in turn, elaborate the solutions that are discussed and validated by the whole team. It is also possible that the operators themselves come up with solutions that are discussed by the team as well.
“Usually they [operators] are the ones who notice a problem and they call us. In the season, we are always in the field, always on guard and whenever they need, they call us on the radio. If something weird happens, some different noise, they call us and we go there to see what is going on”.
After the application of the solution, the teams analyze their effectiveness during use and perform adaptations, if necessary. Also, the modifications are first made in one machine and after its test, adjustment and validation, it is performed in the other existing machines, as explained by a mechanical technician: “we first change one machine and test it. If the test goes well then we change all the other machines we have”.
John Deere’s and Case’s bearings at the maintenance place of situation A.
It was observed that some problems encountered by the teams could not be solved in the field once the intervention capacity of the teams are limited, considering the final design. One of the problems of this nature is the bearings of crop dividers of Case 8800 machines, that frequently break but the teams could not find a solution. It was observed that they have even got a John Deere’s bearing in order to compare and to elaborate something similar (Fig. 10). According to the mechanical technician:
“Can you See? That is why John Deere’s bearings can bear the entire season. Do you see the difference? John Deere’s is different and it doesn’t break. (...) That is something we’ve been trying hard to change in a long time but up to now, nobody succeeded”.
The mechanical technicians are essential subjects in the elaboration of design modifications. As shown in Table 1, they have many years of experience in the job, having worked with several different types of machines thus, they deeply know each one of them: “some machines have problems in hydraulic parts, others in electric parts, others have problems with chassis, so that depends”.
Mechanical technicians interviewed in Brazil
In Australia, it was observed that there are no mechanical technicians in the harvesting teams so the harvester operators are the responsible ones for maintenance and basic repairs, as explained by the operator of the situation E:
“I am the mechanic. When the machine breaks, I jump out and try to fix it. If I need help, the bin drivers help me out. (...) I can fix most things but if there is something I cannot do, we get someone who is specialised in hydraulics, electrics, to fix it”.
Functional and operational modifications are the two categories of design modifications that show the continuation of design in use. Functional modifications comprise design improvements and adaptations considering the everyday usage of the machines in the field.
As described, several functional modifications were identified in Brazilian situations to solve the most diverse problems, which were not anticipated or predicted during the design process.
However, as pointed by Rabardel [20], although instrumental genesis comes from an insufficient elaborated design (which is evidenced by the functional modifications), it is at the same time, the expression of the part of design that is in any case carried out by the user (which here is evidenced by operational modifications).
The examples of operational modifications encountered in the study show that the development in use, i.e., the continuation of design through use, is inherent to human activity. As stated by Kaptelinin and Nardi [21], technological creativity is rooted in our primate past: even nonhuman primates can “think out of the box”, developing and sharing simple tools to transform their activity.
The cunning intelligence described by Dejours [3] implies the idea of craftiness, which brings about the creative imagination and invention, in other words, the addition of anything new to what is already known, to what is linked to routine and tradition. According to Dejours [3], cunning intelligence goes from familiarization with work processes to a capability of anticipating and intuiting the possible outcomes.
So what is the origin of the inventiveness? How does the cunning intelligence happen at work? How do all the several design modifications identified in sugar cane harvester machines occur? How do users design?
As described in the results, the design modifications are elaborated through a process that involves operators and mechanical technicians collectively. One of them notices the problems (usually the operator) and together they discuss, test and validate the solution.
Thereby, it can be stated that design in use of sugar cane harvester machines or the artifact’s modification depends not only on the operator but also on a specific subject: the mechanical technician. It is him who puts in practice and gives life to the ideas raised and discussed by the team.
Additionally, since mechanical technicians are the ones who execute the modifications, some of these modifications aimed to improve maintenance tasks itself, as the pulley system for handling of loads (radiators).
The mechanical technicians have several years of experience and they know all the different machines. As observed, one of them has worked with six different machines and the other, with 10 different machines throughout his career.
In some modifications, it is possible to note that parts from different machines are used to solve the problems found. The new hydraulic tank linked to the main Case tank has a John Deere’s sensor because “Case’s sensor does not work well”. This shows that design in use of harvester machines occurs through bricolage.
Louridas’s [6] proposal of facing design as a bricolage process offers a relevant theory foundation to the present study. By dividing design into unselfconscious (literal bricolage) and self-conscious design (metaphorical bricolage), the author shows that design is a distinctive human activity but not so distinct and more common than is usually thought: it can be practiced by designers and also by users.
According to the author, unselfconscious design (design without designers) is direct and responds immediately to problems: first, the designer works with the materials taken from the environment, i.e., the means for the construction are taken from the surroundings; second, the designer responds immediately to design problems. This means that the designer builds what needs to be built, makes an artifact when is needed and even more: he adjusts and fixes the artifacts at the moment when the need arises [6].
According to Louridas [6], the unselfconscious designer practices bricolage once he works with what is available, with elements that are not of his own making. He must determine which of the tools and materials are suitable for his purpose and to do so, he searches his inventory and chooses among the possible answers.
Consequently, it can be inferred that the mechanical technicians are unselfconscious designers, as described by Louridas [6]. By working and knowing the different machines, they acquire an inventory that is the source for bricolage and design solutions.
The interviews with the mechanics provided relevant information to identify their inventory, as observed in their verbalizations: “some machines have problems in hydraulic parts, others in electric parts, others have problems with chassis”.
The modifications encountered also show this aspect, such as the replacement of the radiator’s door lock of a John Deere 3520 by one from an old machine (Cameco). The mechanic has worked with that machine before, he knew that it used to have an ideal door lock and searched for someone who could provide that very door lock: “I searched for it and called some specialized companies in the nearby city and they got it for me”.
Bricolage is also clear in situation A, where it was observed that the team managed to acquire a John Deere’s bearing in an attempt to make comparisons and replicate it to solve the problem they were facing with a Case’s bearing.
According to Louridas [6], by reorganizing the materials he has to create the structure he wants instead of trying to decompose the problem. Thus, the unselfconscious designer achieves admirable results even without any design qualifications. For this reason, the author states that a good designer is able to see things in different ways, to determine their meanings, to organize them in a structured whole and to reorganize them depending on the result. As one of the verbalizations: “we’re not engineers, you know, but we try”.
As pointed by Kaptelinin [5], the perspective of the instrumental genesis approach implies that users are designers, developing and modifying the artifact. However, it is not explained how users do that. In other words, the genesis of instrumental genesis is not explicit.
Considering the case of sugar cane harvesters, it is concluded that the evolution of the artifact, i.e. the design in use occurs not only by the development of the activity (as proposed by Béguin [8]) but also by its junction to the inventory owned by the mechanical technicians who are unselfconscious designers (as proposed by Louridas [6]). These two subjects own different representations and competences that, when associated, allow the creation of new competences.
Thus, design in use has origin in the activity, in the action of operating the machine and also in the inventory developed by mechanicals through their experience in fixing, assembling and disassembling the various machines. We find here the cooperation and complementation of competences as contributors to instrumental genesis.
The lack of a mechanical technician in the Australian harvesting teams can be one of the main reasons for the few modifications encountered in the studied machines.
Additionally, as highlighted by Dejours [3], the cunning intelligence (metis) has two sides: at the same time it is an innovation, it is also a failure to prescription, an excursion out of tradition and out of the rules. Thus, to the author, utilizing bricolage, making tests and trials is making them secretly, far from the controls.
However, it does not have to be always like this. If there are conditions for this cunning intelligence to be exercised, if spaces are created formally within the organization, then the workers can put into practice this intelligence in all its extent prior to being out in the field.
It is concluded that the form that the sugar cane harvesting is organized in Brazil (demanding a mechanical technician in the team and in the field) is what allows the creation of social spaces for exchanges among subjects and conditions for design in use.
As described by Katzenback and Smith [22] a team melds together the skills, experiences and insights of various people. Therefore, teams perform well because first, they bring together complementary skills and experiences that, by definition, exceed those of any individual on the team and this broader mix of skills and know-how enables to respond to multifaceted challenges like innovation, quality, etc. Second, in jointly developing clear goals and approaches, teams establish communications that support real-time problem solving and initiative, so they are flexible and responsive to changing events and demands.
During the season period, operators and mechanics work together in the crops and during the off-season they also work together in the maintenance garage exchanging all their different knowledge and experiences, with disassembled machines and several different equipment and tools available. Therefore, favorable conditions are created for the workers to invent, elaborate and develop modifications.
In conclusion, the answer for the question of how users design, i.e., the genesis of instrumental genesis is: the activity itself, the inventory that allows bricolage and social spaces of interaction among workers.
Final considerations
Design in use is related to users and the advantages they take from the designers’ proposal in order to develop their own instruments according to their needs. For this reason, perhaps the most appropriate term may be “redesign” instead of “design in use”.
This study showed that users design through the articulation of three factors: the development of the activity, which instigates the improvement an artifact through its use, the inventory developed by users, which allows a literal bricolage as a means of design, the work organization, which allows the approximation of different actors and offers conditions (social spaces), means (equipment) and freedom (formal authorization) for the users to put into practice their ideas.
Limitations
Due to the limits of the paper, it was not possible to address and deepen the topic concerning the relations between bricolage and formal design, i.e. whether the bricolage is incorporated into conscious design process. If so, how does such feedback system occur? If not, how to facilitate an articulation between the two approaches of design in order to improve equipment designs? Further research needs to consider these questions.
Conflict of interest
None to report.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Brazilian Government–CAPES Agency under Grant PDSE 99999.012452/2013-00.