sign in sign up
<<
Home , Industrial design

Architecture and Industrial A Convergent Process for Design

Shilpi Kumar Mississippi State University

Abstract

The use of technology has grown with the way design professions have evolved over time. Changing needs, desires of comfort, and perceptions of the consumers have led to a distinct improvement in the design of both product and . The use of the digital media and emerging technologies has brought a dramatic change to the design process allowing us to view, feel, and mould a virtual object at every stage of design, development, and . Change is often quick and easy since a virtual product does not inherently carry the biases of its physical counterpart. In order to communicate ideas across the team, digital processes are also used to bring together opinions, experiences, and perspectives. These methods encourage decision making based on information rather than prejudice or instinct. Thus, digital exchanges (technology) impact firm strategies at three levels: product, process, and administrative or support activities (Adler 1989). Digital tools for design exchange in Industrial Design (ID) began much earlier than many other professions. The profession of Architecture is also slowly moving to a similar model with digital exchange finding increasing prevalence in drawing, modeling, performance simulation, design collaboration, construction management, and building fabrication. The biggest problem is the disintegrated use of technology in the architectural profession without a strategy toward streamlining the design process from conception to fabrication. In this paper we investigate how the use of technology has evolved in the professions of Industrial Design and Architecture comparatively in their product, process, and support activities. Further, we will present a set of guidelines that will help in the convergence of design process, helping in a more efficient work flow with a strategic use of digital technology. Introduction On the other hand architecture had a legacy of construction that was separate Industrial Design has been practicing from design. A de facto fragmented and a systematic method of (now digital) disintegrated project delivery model has design exchange and communication in prevailed within architecture since the concert with the multi-modal character of Renaissance and the breakdown of the its work (flow) model. This has probably Master Builder and Guild system (Barrow evolved as a result of a need to design for 2000). Gradually architectural practice using , for mass is moving toward a similar integrated ID production in lieu of single pieces crafted approach componentized, industrialized by hand, and the need to manage and construction process (Build-Construct to communicate a complex organizational Fabricate-Assemble). Thus, the question we setup. Thus, ID designed for manufacturing ask (the basis of this paper) is: from the outset of the profession.

79 Can architects learn from methods used With the movement of -made in Industrial Design to make architectural goods as an economic mainspring, and processes and communications more with relationship between maker and efficient and systematic? buyer growing increasingly complex and increasingly remote, the ’s importance looms large. (Caplan 1982) Architecture and ID – An Evolutionary Perspective The inherent relationship of design ideation and making (i.e. manufacturing) naturally generated an interwoven Artisan (Craftsperson) relationship between the “design” idea and the “machine” of parts and assemblage. An artisan, also called a craftsperson, This innately facilitated an integrated is a skilled worker who uses tools and business model where businesses typically machinery in a particular . Artisans encompassed all the elements necessary were the dominant producers of goods to manufacture industrial products. This before the Industrial Revolution. In an enabled, if not required, a much more artisan mode of working, there is less structured management methodology as complexity as the craftsperson is the compared to the legacy of construction in conceiver, maker, and the distributor architecture. of their own work. Hence there is little exchange of information and little Designer - conceives by self - someone communication needed from the very else makes - someone else markets beginning to the end of the design process.

Craftsperson - conceives by self - makes by self - markets by self - sells by self “Architecture first evolved out of the dynamics between needs (shelter, security, Industrial Designer worship, etc.) and means (available building materials and attendant skills). Prior to the 18th century, production Prehistoric and primitive architecture was dependant on craftsmen and artisans constitute this early stage. As humans who typically made the products by hand. progressed and knowledge began to be The development of machines and the formalized through oral traditions and industrial system of mass production practices, architecture evolved into a craft.” brought about specialization of labor and (Wikipedia) the emergence of middlemen. During the Renaissance period of the Historically, industrial design shapes 15th and 16th century, we see the “designer’ objects that are manufactured by separated from the act of “making” at the machine rather than crafted by hand. scale of buildings in architecture. Similarly,

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Digital Exchange 80 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied as machines introduced mechanization The complexities involved in the in the 18th and 19th century, we again see process of design development led to the separation of the designer from the significant differences in approach within act of making at the “product” scale. In the two professions. To understand the the industrial era, the designer created complexity of approach let us divide the by themselves; someone else made / process in both professions into three manufactured the product, and, yet again, parts: someone else marketed the product. Hence, we can summarize by saying that • Design architecture and ID evolved in a similar • Product manner in the sense of fragmentation of • Process the “design-make” process as a result of specialization and mechanization for the In the following paragraphs we will production of both small and large artifacts evaluate each of these in detail. (i.e. buildings). Design Architect - conceives by self - someone else makes - markets by self Design begins from the time we start (Barrow 2000) ideating and ends only when the product is used. Within this timeline there is always Hereby we can see that both the interaction—interaction between the professions, Architecture and Industrial innovators, makers, distributors or the Design, began with a craft element that users themselves; interaction that may be was integral to its development. In short, physical or virtual; interaction that may be the genealogy of both professions can be supported by technology or not. traced back to the same roots. However over time, the work flow of the two professions evolved differently:

Industrial designer – with team of people - gets evaluated by Figure 1. Digital Design Dimensions (Typologies) (Barrow team of people – designs it for ease in and Mathew 2005). manufacturing – gets it made by team Architectural theory has evolved of specialists - gets it marketed by over time to reflect the development of someone else. new materials, new construction, new structures, new philosophies, new socio- cultural contexts, new scientific findings, Architect – design conception by self and, of course, new technology. Especially, – parts evaluated by individual experts digital technology is not simply a new and specialists – design development but a new design medium; in for execution – design execution by other words, it is not only a new way of someone else design making but also a new way of (Liu and Lim 2005). Thus it can be

Shilpi Kumar Architecture and Industrial Design: A Convergent Process for Design 81 understood that digital technology is the have limited (often no) say in what is medium which we use to design objects. built and how the architect produces the Yet, there is a close relationship between product. technology used in the process of creation The various product technologies used in of the product and the product itself. the two professions are: Technology impacts firm strategies at three levels (Adler 1989): Industrial Design: • Product • Process • strength and durability • Administrative/support activities • product mechanisms To understand this, let us analyze each • material technology activity in an attempt to understand how • IT, communication, fuzzy logic, the professions differ in their outlook to automatic behavior, other the specific activity. Such an evaluation embedded technologies will cover most aspects of the professions • componentization,modularity, and, thus, give us an understanding of how repetition differences have led to strategies for digital • mass consumption exchange. • user interactivity, product • customizability and personalization

Architecture:

• structure and strength technologies Figure 2. Technology usage divided as per typology. • structural durability • material technology • IT, communication • monolithic and built on site Product Technologies • custom made • user interactivity, product Product technologies include “the set customizability and personalization of ideas embodied in the product” (Capon is more experiential (closest and Glazer 1987) and thus are distinct example in ID are automobiles, from the product itself (Bond and Houston ships and airplanes where you 2003). Distinct technologies imbue distinct experience space) characteristics and opportunities to the • sustainability and passive product. Both in industrial design and in technology architecture, product technologies are relevant and equally important. There is however a distinction: Process Technologies ID caters to large number of users who have a choice to buy or to reject Process technologies are “the set the product once marketed. Architecture of ideas involved in the manufacture of caters to a large number of users who the product or the steps necessary to

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Landscapes Digital Exchange 82 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied combine new materials to produce a Support Technologies finished product” (Capon and Glazer 1987). Administrative technologies include The various process technologies used in “the set of management procedures the two professions are: associated with selling the product and administration of the business unit” Industrial Design: (Capon and Glazer 1987).

• market research Industrial Design: • • user evaluation • management • budget estimation • marketing • design detailing • engineering • testing and evaluation • manufacturing • design prototyping and models • other specialists • design for mass production and • consultants customization • design execution (manufacturing) Architecture: • distribution and marketing • re-evaluation and modifications • management • marketing Architecture: • engineering • construction specialists • conceptual design • consultants • client interaction • budget In both professions we see that there • design development exists complexity of the use of support • design detailing technologies; the difference is in the level • testing and evaluation of involvement and participation of these • models and sketches technology groups in design thinking and • design execution (construction) design making. • renovation and revitalization Product There are two ways in which we can look at process of product development. One is design thinking, and the other Modularity and Product is design making. Later in this paper we Efficiency will elaborate the step by step process matrix in both the thinking and making of Architecture continuously struggles products. to produce an original master-piece. The profession of architecture thus generally elevates “” who produce original one-off masterpieces in lieu of those

Shilpi Kumar Architecture and Industrial Design: A Convergent Process for Design 83 architects who produce “commodity / and repetition, as well as manufacturability mass” buildings. In architecture we have and are critical to the design generally seen single piece fabrication process. Minor cost reductions in a single that deals with the ability to produce one piece effects the economic feasibility of “original”, typically, complexly shaped piece, the whole product. Thus, modularity brings thus the manufacturing of one part for the the designer, the manufacturing expert, the sake of that single “original” product with marketing expert, and the materials expert little or no aspiration for repetition or into the circle of design decisions. Each commoditization. has his/her role to play in this circle: the Emerging prefabrication methods designer works to create a product that in architecture have deployed some will be liked by mass (presumed users and principles of modularity and repetition; buyers), the manufacturing expert works however, these are sporadic and always to bring down the cost of the product, have an intrinsic intention to produce one- and the marketing expert works to create of products. Because of the elitist nature a or develop a successful launch of architecture, the stake of collaborators of a product. Unlike the architect who in an architectural team tends to be has absolute power in the architectural unequal. An architect conceives a design collaboration, each collaborator in the ID and it is the job of site project managers process holds the same place in a decision and engineers to complete that design. In making hierarchy. This difference leads to this process the upper hand is often with better in the process the architect and very little modification starting from conception to distribution. actually happens through design interaction of multiple parties simultaneously as has Evolution of the collaborative emerged in ID over the last 10 years and model is now slowly emerging in architecture (Barrow 2000) During the industrial revolution In Industrial Design collaboration is increased use of machines and automation essential; ideation relative to modularity led to techniques for mass production of commodity products. As a result, ID grew as a profession. Early on ID was primarily focused on how to make machine-made goods aesthetically pleasing, which was required due to the elimination of hand craft and custom made commodity products. Through mass production the number of standardized products multiplied, leading to what has been called the assembly line process. The assembly line process first used in the automobile gave rise to the division of labor with expansion of Figure 3. Work flow models for ID and architecture. specialty job types and a narrowing of job

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Landscapes Digital Exchange 84 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied roles. This led to vertical organizational Process hierarchies and autonomous work teams.

Some outcomes of mass production: Design thinking

• Use of standardized parts Anne Beim and Kasper Jensen have • Interchangeability of parts developed four approaches (Pragmatic, • Use of division of labor Academic, Management, and Conceptual) • Large volumes of production in less for action, which help to categorize and time structure the different ways in which • Small variety in production designers try to control the design process • Higher quality control and the end results. Figure 4 explains Beim • Efficiency of work flow and Jensens’s model (Beim and Jensen 2005). Gradually, because of the higher perceived benefits of mass productions, designers started looking at other aspects of the product which would make it better for human use. In this process, Figure 4. Four approaches to the design process. an integrative-inclusive collaborative model took precedence over a singular Considering the complexity of the hierarchical model. design, and the process and support Mass production proved a boon to activities involved in the design and many aspects of manufacturing (function, development of a product, we believe that time and cost). Collaborative teams today’s growing industrialized context realized that they could utilize the needs a conscious strategic approach benefits of mass production techniques for design. We challenge the role of the while considering user specific needs and architect, not by discarding the traditional preferences. This was possible primarily role, but by making the architect more through the use of flexible (computer- conscious of his/her own choices and aided) manufacturing systems that enabled the architectural consequences of these custom output on the same assembly line choices. Akin to ID, there is an immediate that was now used for mass production. need to manage all four approaches into These systems combined the low unit a single unified and coherent system. costs of mass production processes with Such a system can only be brought the flexibility of individual customization. together through an interdisciplinary and Thus, as is necessary for the leveraging collaborative organizational setup. of technology (Barrow 2000) we can say Thus there exists a need for that three basic things changed to allow communication via new organizational the leverage of technology: a vision for models and adoption of congruent digital “better” products, organizational process information exchange in the search for changes, and the adoption of congruent a rationale to evaluate what designers technology. refer to as “intuitive.” Such exchange

Shilpi Kumar Architecture and Industrial Design: A Convergent Process for Design 85 is paramount to any design process. In an attempt to promote and systematic thinking, Edward De Bono describes a “six thinking hat” (Bono 1999) concept that allows the thinker to deal with one thing at a time. De Bono reveals a technique which allows any business to create a climate of clearer thinking, improved communication, and greater . Bengt Palmgren claims that design is a description of how an object Figure 5. Collaborative model of innovation(Albers, Chakravarthy et al. 2001). shall look, how it should feel to handle, how it should work. The description can consist of text, sketches, technical drawings, physical models, digital models, animations. (Palmgren 2005) In a growing ‘digital’, ‘collaborative’, ‘industrialized’ model of architecture it becomes all the more important to make decisions threading rational thinking along with intuitive thinking. In a field where intuitive decisions are what ultimately become reality, it is necessary to understand the need for such congruent Figure 6. Composition of the Core Team (Albers, philosophies. Chakravarthy et al. 2001) Chakravarthy and Albers (Albers, Chakravarthy et al. 2001) have shown that digital design exchange enhances effective • Core Team (for innovation) design-make interaction. They claim that • Cross Functional Team (enterprise the tangible nature of represented idea wide) generate doubts and discussions about • External Team (networked) the product. Knowledge and information sharing is effective in collaborative We have shown that design exchange teams; ideas gain impetus that results in is an extremely important part of the innovative product generation. design process. Once again, when we Chakravarthy and Albers’s model compare ID and architecture, we see that for innovation consists of two communication and representation is an intervened processes: the new product, integral part of the initial design process in concept management process and the ID, which allows intuitive to be evaluated collaborative teaming process. They divide and analyzed at an early stage of product the collaboration into three levels of design. On the contrary, in architecture teamwork: often communication and representation happens at the end of the design process

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Landscapes Digital Exchange 86 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied Design thinking in Architecture

Figure 9. Architecture - design thinking process matrix.

Figure 7. Composition of the Cross-Functional Team (Albers, Chakravarthy et al. 2001). Design thinking in Industrial Design

Figure 10. Industrial Design - design thinking process matrix.

Figure 8. Composition of the External Network Team It can clearly be seen that thinking (Albers, Chakravarthy et al. 2001). processes in ID are not linear, but iterative. once decisions have been Meanwhile, architecture uses a linear made. In fact most such representation is model of thinking that is non-iterative. only a means to communicate the “final” Here we acknowledge the shift in design to the client. It is important to note project delivery models in architecture. that we are now seeing more integrative The below graph shows the project design teams in architecture. For example, delivery models in Design-Bid-Build vs. performance based design (i.e. green Design-Build & CM architecture over a architecture) is increasingly facilitating a shift period of time; we can see that there is toward processes. However, a slow transformation in architecture the important point here is that these that parallels ID. However, the graph also examples are still exceptions, not the rule. supports the fact that architecture project To better understand this in the next delivery is changing and lagging well behind section we will analyze the design process in ID. both ID and architecture. This allows us to Thus we can see that a linear design- see a broader and elaborate picture of the make process lacks coherence—almost entire process. requiring an integrated approach for

Shilpi Kumar Architecture and Industrial Design: A Convergent Process for Design 87 Design making in Architecture

Figure 13: Architecture - design making process matrix One can see that design making in architecture is as complex as in ID. Once we understand that design thinking is integral to making, we can deduce that (in architecture) it is the design thinking model that needs evaluation and re- working so that it can lead to better design Figure 11. Architecture project delivery model (Barrow making. In a climate where architects are 2000). slowly adopting a more industrial design assessment/evaluation of the design approach to their design processes, we starting from the initial problem statement claim that architecture should learn from to the solution. ID and incorporate some of the successful aspects of collaborative workflow that is Design making intrinsic to ID.

Design making refers to the Design Management “making” aspect of the two professions: manufacturing and building construction. In short, that which results as a tangible Communication and outcome of design exchange. Here we see Collaboration: Before, during that both ID and architecture have taken and after conception a more collaborative approach. This is evident from the similarities in structure of A designer is not required to be an the process flow: expert of all the processes involved in and around the product development. What is required is that a designer knows enough Design making in Industrial about each attribute/process so that he/ Design she can communicate efficiently and have the ability to predict/assume subsequent stages of development. The designer must also be able to communicate this from conception to execution to the people involved in the team. In fact, some have argued that the evolution of architecture Figure 12: Industrial Design - design making process will dictate that some architects take on matrix the role of the “hub-firm” for the central

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Landscapes Digital Exchange 88 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied management of “design-specialists”(Barrow its siblings—email, FTP, file sharing) has 2000). reduced distances between us. It has made The question arises—how does digital transfer of files a simple button one evaluate systematic thinking/ press activity. Additionally, communication communication (digital) methods? technology has leaped since the beginning How can they be adopted into existing of the century; internet-intercom and architectural project delivery models? voice and video conferencing facilities have It is important that we recognize allowed us to attend meetings in Tokyo in ID, digital exchange is one of the sitting in Batesville, Mississippi. These and critical factors for the collaboration and other technologies afford a minimal time communication between the people in lag between the conception of a design the team. Because of digital exchange and and being able to see it as a physical/virtual a congruent organizational model, there product. exists a systematic collaborative process of communication. Through such means, Communication and each interdisciplinary partner is brought Collaboration: tools to a common level of understanding of the project. Remember, an interdisciplinary There are various tools and techniques partner in ID refers to an equal stake commonly used in design that enable of contribution and decision making. concept management. Some like QFD, Thus digital exchange becomes the six thinking hats model, contextual means for the design team to convert inquiry, kano model, image boards, affinity intuitive thinking into rational and tangible diagram and may others have found use in products. architecture also. However, its use is again The understanding of how technology sporadic and minimal. can be used in design making is as Oxman (Oxman 2005) mentions “four old as technology itself. However the components” for a successful digital design understanding of how technology can be exchange: used in design thinking is a relatively new concept (Barrow and Mathew 2005). The 1. Representation—representational use of technology in creating products media brings about efficiency in terms of function, 2. Generation—generative processes cost, and time. The use of technology in 3. Evaluation—evaluative analytical and thinking brings about collaborative thinking judgmental processes of intuitive processes. 4. Performance—performative Apart from digital technology processes - programmatic and (hardware and software) used in the contextual considerations process of design (2d digital sketches, 3d models, tablet PCs, smart boards) it is Below we have analyzed what these communication technology and changing mean to the two professions: project delivery models that is enabling real time flow of design information between teams. The internet (through

Shilpi Kumar Architecture and Industrial Design: A Convergent Process for Design 89 Industrial Design + Architecture: paper and tape, wood • Mock ups—3D computer models Representation (Laser cut, CNC routed, 3d Print) • Paper/digital sketching • Ergonomic/Anthropomorphic • CAD drawings study—relationship with the • Scale physical models human body • Virtual computer generated 3D • Form study— and models prototyping using 3D printing • Physical hand made models (virtual, CADCAM, physical) Generation • Design evaluation—use of mixed • Sketching media • Physical 3D models • Virtual 3D model Thus, for the first time in history, Evaluation digital exchange technology enables us to • D models communicate in a complex organization of • Drawings interdisciplinary teams that may be spread Performance all around the world. Moreover, because • D animations of this rapidly evolving technology, we can • Virtual simulations + analysis now afford to make our organizational • Virtual testing models more efficient. • Physical scale () testing • :1 prototype testing Mass customization – a model of opportunity We propose a fifth component to the above model—that of communication. Tseng and Jiao definemass It is paramount that communication customization as “producing goods and is considered integral to the whole services to meet individual customer’s process of design exchange because of needs with near mass production the complexity of collaborative product efficiency” (M.M. Tseng and Jiao 2001). development. Thus: Joseph Pine II describes this paradigm through a business model which he calls Communication the 8-figure-path. The model describes • Capturing existing situation—digital a process that starts with invention, , ethnographic stud moves to mass production, to continuous • Concept generation—2D Sketching improvement, to mass customization, and • Concept generation—3D back to invention. modeling using sketch tools (Alias This dictates repetition and reuse in Sketchbook, SketchUp etc.) order to add value to products. Pine‘s • Concept generation—3D Sketching four typologies of mass customization (Sketch Up, Rhino, 3DS Max) (Pine 1999): • Market research—internet • Mock ups—hand made models • Collaborative customization—firms using PU foam, paper, cardboard talk to individual customers to

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Landscapes Digital Exchange 90 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied determine the precise product technologies, companies are trying to offering that best serves the determine the amount of variety that they customer’s needs. This information should offer to optimize profits. Design is then used to specify and for Variety (DFV) research focuses on manufacture a product that suits methodologies which will help companies that specific customer. quantify the costs of providing variety ID: Custom-made footwear and and will qualitatively guide designers in clothing lines developing products that incur minimum Architecture: Residential homes variety costs (Martin and Ishii 1997). designed for a specific client In sum, we understand that ID evolved • Adaptive customization—firms from craft to mass customization through produce a standardized product, the industrial era. Architecture, however, but this product is customizable in is still struggling at a stage stuck between the hands of the end-user craft and mass production. At a time when ID: Bicycle height adjustments, chair ID extensively utilizes the advantages of adjustments function, cost, and time, architects are still Architecture: Windows and doors, looking at specific needs of custom design movable and adjustable partitioning with an aesthetic based design approach. system However, we believe this is changing as we • Transparent customization—firms see the emerging “performance” based provide individual customers with approaches in architecture, particularly unique products without explicitly in the area of “sustainability.” Ultimately, telling them that the products are the emergence of mass customization customized. In this case there is a will prompt architecture to adopt and need to accurately assess customer use efficiencies of mass production and needs. technologies that aid in custom output. ID: computer It is important to develop convergent Architecture: none methods of digital processes that facilitate • Cosmetic customization—firms common design thinking and making as produce a standardized physical used in ID. Digital architecture is the product, but market it to different means to a conscious realization of mass customers in unique ways. production techniques that will at the ID: mobile phone covers (same same time fulfill identity/individuality and phone with different cover designs); specific needs of the user/consumer. swatch Architecture: Exterior paints, user Conclusion: Architecture < > customization (awnings, curtains) Industrial Design

As companies look for ways to stay In this paper, we have evaluated the competitive in the global marketplace, professions of Industrial Design and the concept of mass customization has Architecture. Through this evaluation, we appeared as a potential advantage. Armed have mapped similarities and differences with new manufacturing and information in their historical evolution. We can hence

Shilpi Kumar Architecture and Industrial Design: A Convergent Process for Design 91 infer that parameters and attributes in architecture has defined the have heavily influenced and can further shape and nature of the process influence the methods and concepts of and the final product. digital exchange. In conclusion let us summarize Process: Componentized assembly RTA the various factors which work in the approach to architecture would evolve evaluation of the product and the process faster delivery methods and eventually of its creation: lead to reduced costs due to possible mass production for the different components. History: Both professions, ID and Process of design thinking: Architecture, have evolved from craft. Like in ID, architecture needs to Over time, Industrial Design evolved in evaluate the stake of each team response to the demands of the industrial member in a collaborative team age and mass consumption. Architecture, based on their role in the design however, still remains largely “craft” based thinking process. This model, in in process and product. lieu of the current hierarchal and sequential model, will encourage Technology: ID uses technology as creativity and innovation at each an integral tool for communication and phase of the design process (form collaboration in addition as a thinking tool. study to manufacturing). Architecture uses technology mostly for Process of design making: communication. Architecture should learn Coherence and integrity in design from ID in adopting new methodologies comes by integrating both the and technologies for the purpose of design design thinking and making in to thinking and collaboration. the design development of the product. This should come in the Product: Mass customization in form of iterative processes that are architecture is finding increasing irrespective of the complexity of prevalence. It is important to learn from the product. the use of mass production and mass customization in ID as a model for Support: Deployment of collaborative architecture to make mass produced and more systematic decision making custom products. methods and technology will allow rational thinking within the team that will lead to Need for modularity/ repetition/ more intuitive creativity. product efficiency in ID versus Collaboration: Collaboration need for identity/ individuality/ is traditionally accepted and originality/ craft element in practiced in both professions. In Architecture have dictated design architecture, however, this only approach and collaborative exists in design “making”. What methodologies in the design. is needed (and more challenging) Need for mass consumption/ mass is to enforce collaboration in the production in ID versus singularity process of design “thinking” that

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Landscapes Digital Exchange 92 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied links to “making”. This change will References in turn reflect in the final outcome of the design. Design “thinking” Adler, P. S. (1989). Technology Strategy: A collaboration can only be possible Guide to the Literatures. In: Research through an extensive use of in Technology Innovation, Management digital exchange for collaborative and Policy. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press. networking. Albers, A., B. K. Chakravarthy, et al. Communication: to be able to (2001). Collaborative Environment exchange tangible and intangible for Concept Generation in New ideas over the cross-functional and Products multidisciplinary team, it becomes International Council of Societies of Industrial critical to use the best understood Design ICSID 2001 Educational and easiest to use tools to Seminar, Seongnam City, Korea. communicate. Barrow, L. (2000). Cybernetic Architecture Process and Form, Impact of Contemporary architecture seems Information Technology Harvard to be ruled by a mixture of different Graduate School of Design. Cambridge, quality standards of external conditions MA, Harvard University. D.Des. (product demands, value-chain definitions, Barrow, L., and A. Mathew (2005). technologies, and desires of end-users) Digital Design and Manufacturing that are detached from the specific – A New Era of architectural context (Beim and Jensen). In and Representation. Design view of an increasingly changing paradigm Communications in Architecture (DCA) of architectural practice, one that is slowly National Conference, Bozeman, shifting towards an industrial design Montana State University. approach for commodity architecture, it Beim, A., and K. V. Jensen (2005). is paramount that we learn from our ID Making conscious the process of counterparts and adopt their collaborative industrialized architectural design. and organizational communicative digital . design-make methods. Bond, E. U., and M. B. Houston (2003). Barriers to Matching New Technologies Opportunities in Established Firms. Journal of 20. Bono, E. d. (1999). Six Thinking Hats, Back Bay Books; 1st Back Bay pbk. ed., rev., and updated edition (August 18, 1999). Caplan, R. (1982). By Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company. Capon, N. and R. Glazer (1987). Marketing and technology: a strategic coalignment. Journal of Marketing

Shilpi Kumar Architecture and Industrial Design: A Convergent Process for Design 93 51(3): 1-14. Liu, Y.-T. and C.-K. Lim (2005). New tectonics: a preliminary framework involving classic and digital thinking M.M. Tseng and J. Jiao (2001). Mass Customization, in: Handbook of , Technology and Operation Management. Martin, M. V., and K. Ishii (1997). Design for variety: Development of Complexity Indices and Design Charts. DETC ’97, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Sacramento, CA. Oxman, R. (2005). Theory and design in the first digital age.Design studies. Palmgren, B. (2005). The Potential of in an Industrial Context. Pine, J. (1999). Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition. Harvard Business School Press. Wikipedia. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Architecture.

ACADIA 2006: Synthetic Landscapes Digital Exchange 94 Digital Making: Superficies: Integral and Applied