mass customization nomenclature
Guest post by Matt Sinclair at Fluid Forms blog made me think about the mass customization nomenclature in general. I think designing what was once called at Fluid Forms “Meta-Design” – meaning a framework for customization – could be called a process of design indeed. What customers do could, on the other hand, be called “personalization” or “co-creation”, as Massimo Menichinelli proposes in his comment on the other post. Anyway – I assume that it should not be a term based on a word “design” – for example: “user-generated design” is quite misleading.
This way designers preserve their domain. Customers (or prosumers), on the other hand have a say, but the nomenclature does not impose that they are designing from scratch. Some of them, I guess, are quite puzzled if they hear that they are about to “design”.
Filed under: mass customization | 7 Comments
Tags: Michal Piasecki
At Fluid Forms a “Meta-Design”, as you say, is a kind of “framework” or a template for creation. It specifies the boundaries that protect a user who should not require design skills. As the target group becomes more design savvy these boundaries need to be relaxed in order to provide creative freedom.
The term “Meta-Design” is used in product centric communication. We are looking for a term that applies in customer centric communication. Customers or prosumers create variations of a meta-design. Internally we call these people, for lack of a better word, “variation designers”.
Whilst many people from the design industry would argue that people who customize products are not designer, the line between them is very blurred. Whether an act constitutes design or customization is a question of the degree of freedom. A user that designs a tee-shirt on spreadshirt would not be called a product designer but they may well be graphic a designer. Whether it is considered design or not comes down to ones subjective assessment of the result.
Thanks for the comment Stephen.
I think the issue of the “degree of freedom” left to the prosumer is a crucial and very problematic one. It seems hard to asses the actual “degree of freedom”, since the one users experience is the one perceived by them. I mean that it is quite hard to design “degree of freedom” while designing meta-design, because it doesn’t only depends on a number of parameters available to change, but also, for example, on “synchronicity” (Liu and Shrum define “synchronicity” as “the amount of time between user input into an online system and system’s output”). It is one of the issues which I’m planning to research for the PhD.
Stephen is right about Meta Design – except I am not sure why it should not be called Genetic Design. Because the idea and the science of variations flows nicely if you think in terms of genetics.
We are being to see sophisticated templates that create good quality effect in blogs – they greatly reduce the barrier of entry as design knowledge and the bounds of variations are embedded in it. Product templates can work in the same way, in 3D. Genoform – a software developed by our company enables the creation of such – templates, meta designs or genetic models.
Thanks for reminding us that Fluid Forms mention “meta-design”, I have to admit I almost forgot it!
So, after thinking awhile on the issue….I’d use the term “co-creation” if we refer to the business model, and the “meta-design” term if we refer to the design model.
@sivam
“Meta-design” has a broader meaning than “genetic design”.
“Meta-design” means that we design the process and its platform that enable someone else (or something else, if a computer) to design the final project.
“Genetic design” means that we set up a process that develops a project using genetic analogies and an evolutionary approach, a process that is usually based on hardware and software. It is a “meta-design” project, because we set up a system that actually design the final project.
But Meta-design has a broader meaning, and also applies to social systems.
For example, we could design a service and a platform that enable a community to participate and design an urban furniture product. We don’t design the furniture, the community designs it (and probably it won’t design it using genetic algorithms).
Also, I’d use the term “Generative Design” only if the design process is based on algorithms.
I think Sivam’s analogy to blog templates is very strong. Indeed – the variety of blog appearances is great. The analogy opens a new question though. Blog engines like wordpress.com allow the users to modify CSS – if that would take place in case of “meta-designs” spectrum of objects possible to generate would become virtually infinite. At this point the user’s or prosumers process of creation goes beyond the interaction with a parametric model. The is the other side of it too – the notion of modification of CSS demands much more knowledge and engagement from the prosumers.
Regarding the nomenclature – Perhaps, as Massimo says “meta-design” is a broader term than “genetic design” because “meta-design” covers all kinds of types of interaction with the parameters. GA – in turn – is one of the ways to interact with them. A very powerful one, I believe.
Hello, Michal, since it’s my first comment here. I have some general thought on the topic. I think that the term ‘meta-design’ is no product-centric, but rather process-centric, since designing is a process (as Massimo mentioned above). So, we have two actors mentioned here: designer and consumer (prosumer lets say). And there is an object: the goal and at the same time the result of the process. Designing was always rather about a process involving designer and object, even in the participatory approaches to it. The ‘meta-design’ idea brings the other – prosumer – onto the stage. What is, or what should/could be his role? If he is given a framework, which undoubtfully permits variations, then who is to judge and approve the final result? It’s him, the prosumer. The result is always individual, regardless of the ‘meta-designed’ framework. So this is the issue to consider. The line is blurred, as Stephen says.
Meta stands for ‘external’, ‘level up’ also ‘about’ (like language of languages – as “meta-language’). So, if we consider design as process, then the ‘meta-design’ stands for ‘designing the design process’. In my oppinion this is far more than (designing) interaction with parameters. The design process itself is extremely complicated and delicate matter, let me mention only knowledge engineering, design computing etc. (works of John Gero for example).
Maybe when we speak about meta-design and meta-objects then we should also consider meta-designer? Then the prosumer, user/modificator/adaptator should be someone opposite, ‘on-the-other-side’, but still involved somehow in the design process. What is opposite to meta? In greek this can be a word ‘mesa’ but this is not popular yet. “Mesa-designer’?
There is no clear opposite to ‘meta’, but maybe this can be the way of thinking?
And last, but not least: Do ‘meta-design’ tools in the social meaning neccessarily lead to ‘designed’ objects or artefacts? I think, that artefacts can be created (but not always designed) in this way. I would still follow Gasparski’s definition of the design process: that this is preparing of the relevant change, where relevant means simultaneously: rational, desirable, efficient, permissible and esthetic.
Hi Krzys – Thanks a lot for your comment. Your suggestion that “meta-design” might stand for “designing the design process” might be a very precise description of what the designer has to cope with when she or he is about to design for online customization.
Breaking the shell and leaving the area of “designed designs” is yet another issue. Personalization might mean the oppoiste to efficient. But not neccessearily. I think this is a deep and undiscovered issue – leting the users or prosumers know about actuall performance of the object which they are co-creating and which they are about to purchase. For my PhD I’m planning to test if information about fabrication efficiency, for example, is going to influence prosumers decisions while they create objects with online customization tools. Maybe that will provide a part of the answer to your question?