77
approach, and a material is subsequently selected from among
many on the basis of its material qualities best meeting specific
design requirements. This is a common approach used in a great
many design situations, particularly in engineering and many
product designs with a technical orientation. Any of several materials might meet requirements, and a design process objective is
to find the best among them. The process is certainly relevant to
designing with nanomaterials, but it obviously demands that the
useful mechanical, optical, thermal, and chemical properties of
the nanomaterials be reliably known. At the current time, data
of this type in a form useful to designers is often not readily
available.
An alternative approach, often initially viewed as not rigorous and
even unseemly by more scientifically oriented designers, flips the
whole process. A designer becomes familiar, perhaps even fascinated, with a particular property or set of material properties and
then quite literally imagines or identifies interesting design uses for
the material. In this scenario, formal definitions of needs or design
requirements do not come first. To be sure, the considered material
does ultimately respond to some perception of needs or uses in a
particular design context, but a material orientation is set first. This
process is less deterministic and more opportunistic than the
former. Its procedural steps are more difficult to formalize, but they
are surely there for the experienced designer. It involves the systematic study and experimentation of the properties of a material by a
designer, who internalizes these findings and who has a large portfolio of design problems to solve or design opportunities to explore.
An internalized “fit” process occurs between material affordances
and design opportunities. It is a time-honored and effective way of
designing with materials. Interestingly, it appears to be one of the
primary modalities that is operative in the nanomaterial world at
the moment. Various nanomaterials have different technical properties that can be fascinating. What can we do with these kinds of
nanomaterials? What applications can we imagine?
Many other approaches evoke different processes or are somehow
combinations of the two extremes we’ve noted. Many designers’
long preoccupation with objects that are “strong and light” is a case
in point. In some cases there might be a strong technical or use
reason for making something strong and light, as is the case with
many handheld consumer products on one hand or aircraft components on the other hand, whereas in other cases there simply
might not be (e.g., it is only marginally important that a park bench
be really light in weight, and, indeed, extreme lightness could be
The Design and Development Process
approach, and a material is subsequently selected from among
many on the basis of its material qualities best meeting specific
design requirements. This is a common approach used in a great
many design situations, particularly in engineering and many
product designs with a technical orientation. Any of several materials might meet requirements, and a design process objective is
to find the best among them. The process is certainly relevant to
designing with nanomaterials, but it obviously demands that the
useful mechanical, optical, thermal, and chemical properties of
the nanomaterials be reliably known. At the current time, data
of this type in a form useful to designers is often not readily
available.
An alternative approach, often initially viewed as not rigorous and
even unseemly by more scientifically oriented designers, flips the
whole process. A designer becomes familiar, perhaps even fascinated, with a particular property or set of material properties and
then quite literally imagines or identifies interesting design uses for
the material. In this scenario, formal definitions of needs or design
requirements do not come first. To be sure, the considered material
does ultimately respond to some perception of needs or uses in a
particular design context, but a material orientation is set first. This
process is less deterministic and more opportunistic than the
former. Its procedural steps are more difficult to formalize, but they
are surely there for the experienced designer. It involves the systematic study and experimentation of the properties of a material by a
designer, who internalizes these findings and who has a large portfolio of design problems to solve or design opportunities to explore.
An internalized “fit” process occurs between material affordances
and design opportunities. It is a time-honored and effective way of
designing with materials. Interestingly, it appears to be one of the
primary modalities that is operative in the nanomaterial world at
the moment. Various nanomaterials have different technical properties that can be fascinating. What can we do with these kinds of
nanomaterials? What applications can we imagine?
Many other approaches evoke different processes or are somehow
combinations of the two extremes we’ve noted. Many designers’
long preoccupation with objects that are “strong and light” is a case
in point. In some cases there might be a strong technical or use
reason for making something strong and light, as is the case with
many handheld consumer products on one hand or aircraft components on the other hand, whereas in other cases there simply
might not be (e.g., it is only marginally important that a park bench
be really light in weight, and, indeed, extreme lightness could be
The Design and Development Process