Workshop "Research Through Design in Situ" at the DIS 2020 More Than Human Centred Design

We have participated at the DIS 2020 Conference which had the topic "More than human centred design". In the workshop "Research Through Design in Situ: Discussing the Domains and Impact of Design Research" we presented the theoretical framework of 'Reconfiguring Artefacts'.

With the title "This is a design imaginary" the extended abstract sought to provoke a discussion on the research foundations of design. It was a lively debate and we enjoyed the exchange.

Abstract

I propose to research design as the object of research. We may as well start with researching ourselves, the designers and our practices, as we acknowledge that methods and research objects constitute each other, just as material worlds and our imaginations reconfigure each other. I draw on 15 years of design practice to argue that the thorny issues of the world can be tackled by a design (research) that is an epistemological device, sensitive to itself changing in practice alongside the issues it is tackling.

Read the extended abstract: This is a design imaginary - DIS Extended abstract


Designing the Reconfiguring Artefacts Design Process

The design process is a guiding and orientation device which we use in innovation projects. While often, tacit understandings guide our work as designers, the making explicit of our guiding framework is the attempt to make it accessible and reconfigurable to our needs and conditions. The design process itself can therefore be our tool that we can design according to our local needs.
Together with 3rd year Management by Design students, we developed a representation of the design process we were using. It had been part of the semester project, to think about how we may represent our design process and its particularity. It was challenging to think about the design process simultaneously as something to be used and to be designed.
We see design as a practice that renews itself while being practiced. The mechanisms of change are present in the practice of design itself. Therefore, any change made through design, is tied to changing its own designers and its local conditions. Understanding design in this way, it is necessary to make the conditions of design and the design process visible, and utilizing this process of visualizing as a reflection and innovation of the practice itself.

Management and Design are equal parts of our particular design / learning / innovation practice. The “x” expresses the “by” and emphasizes at the same time its interconnectedness.

Terminology such as “Empathy” are leaned from understandings of design postulated by IDEO or by Stanford dschool. Also “open innovation” is a particularly connoted in the discourses around human-centredness and participation in design decision making. Because of these connotations, it was necessary to rethink these words and making them more precise in their meaning how we want to use them.

‘Hands-on proactivity’ was equal to ‘making’, emphasizing design’s capability to deal with the robustness and resistance of materials, and their shaping. ‘Open innovation’ was meant to draw attention to the necessary teamwork and collaboration in design processes that acknowledged interdisciplinary expertise and the multiplicity of the sources of knowledge required to successfully innovate. ‘Bricolage’ was the word inspiring the original ‘recombination’ and was replaced with ‘integration’, expressing design’s role in synthesizing and building relations. ‘Empathy’ was meant to express the centricity of human experience in design, and its mechanisms to bring it to the forth. However, in order to emphasise the relationality of human experience and its multi-directional flow within relationships between people, we simply use the word ‘experience’.  ‘Prototyping’ is the core of iterative working, by experimenting with different things, probing ideas, we therefore go with the word probe, which not unintentionally leans also on ‘cultural probes’ (Gaver, Dunne & Pacenti, 1999), a technique to evoke different responses from use scenarios through design artefacts, which may in turn taken up again in design practice. The word ‘probe’ should reiterate the recursive and relational nature of making and experiencing.

This translation process allowed us get to a representation of the “Management by Design” design process with the following activities: 1. Experience, 2. Imagine, 3. Integrate, 4. Make, 5. Probe, 6. Iterate.

Next, we worked on creating a visual shape and order for the process and its activities. We had previously experimented with the “x” as a representation of relationality, and extended it to a star in order to emphasise the multi-directionality of relations, and in order to accommodate more elements in the relational system.

We took up the multi-element shape, and derived a windmill-type graphic with arrow-shaped sails connected at a central hub, hinting at a possible rotating movement.

Filling the shape with words, we derive the following graphical representation. 6 principles drive our recursive design process: 1. Experience, 2. Imagine, 3. Integrate, 4. Make, 5. Probe, 6. Iterate. We add in inverted style the words ‘management’ and ‘design’, to reflect the name of the design course ‘management by design’, hinting at ‘management’ as the ephemeral and conceptual stage, and ‘design’ as the practical stage.

References

Gaver, W., Dunne, A., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural Probes. Interactions.


Embodied Interaction Workshop

In our project, we research how artefacts help us reconfigure the world and materialise our ideas. As teachers, students and practitioners of design, we begin by investigating our studio environment and the material conditions of design activity.
By inviting Dorothé Smit and Verena Fuchsberger to a Management by Design (MxD) class, we aim to focus for an afternoon on “interaction” – how we interact with the world – and on “embodiment” – how we are related with our body in the environment around us. We aim to find out more about the embodiment of ideas.

The Cartesian split, ascribed to philosopher Descartes, is the assumption that body and mind are separate entities whereby the mind is invisible. This view on human nature has informed much of the theory around how humans interact with their surroundings. This dualism has also caused problems in the illumination of how action is organised and comes to bear on the material conditions of the world (Orlikowski, 2007). It has led to the difficulty of understanding how the digital and the physical stand in relationship (is the digital a mere representation of the physical?), but more importantly how cognition and the execution of action unfold (Hummels, 2015). This same issue applies to the design process, where concept (“analysis”) and implementation (“synthesis”) are usually split (Lawson, 2006, pp. 31–40).

From the enactive point of view, people don’t passively receive environmental information and then translate this into representations of the world in their minds. Rather, people actively participate in the ‘generation of meaning’ (Fuchs & De Jaegher, 2009). ‘Embodied cognition’ offers a theoretical foundation of understanding action and changing conditions as a sensing and knowing in action (Hummels, 2015). Following this idea, we assume that our bodies interact with the things around us in a direct and relational way. Plans or ideas may be understood as organised in a continuous, improvised and iterative manner, rather than the linear execution of a preconceived representation of action (Suchman, 2007). Interaction takes place in a reflective, and dialogical activity between bodies and materials (Schön, 1983), and within interaction, we can view the body as a dynamic and temporally unfolding agent, taking a reflexive stance towards others in social situations and the occuring action (Goodwin, 2000). For the design process, this means that ideas and designs evolve through explorative action.

Design spaces and scripts

Dorothé showed us a design kit she developed in her Master’s project (Smit et al, 2016). The design kit has the purpose to enable multi-stakeholder design processes, in which different people can communicate and create shared meanings about their experiences, problems, understandings and ideas. She showed us photographs of the design kit, and described it to us. For her it was very important to keep the objects in the kit as abstract and open-ended as possible, as to not use fixed prescriptions of concepts. She explained the importance of not prescribing concepts, such as for example “house”. There are so many different types of houses in the world, and to use a particular representation of “house” would exclude other versions of “house”, such as a high-rise flat or a tipi. Furthermore, it helps to have non-descript objects for re-usability: participants are often willing to ascribe new meaning to a previously used object if agreed upon by their group. Previous research on these types of toolkits have shown that “meanings and relations were discussed and changed on-the-fly” (Jaasma et al., 2017, p.10).
Design engages in the creation of “scripts”, inscribing a vision into possible futures (Akrich, 1994). The design kit enables the design space to be kept more open. In design, ambiguity can be used as a resource where meaning is constructed collaboratively between designer and user (Gaver et al, 2003). The design kit utilises ambiguity, and leaves the design space and its scripts as open as possible. Rather than being a tool for scripting designs, the design kit allows to explore the collaborative production of scripts in interaction.

The embodiment of ideas

In an exercise with design students, Dorothé asked the students to create an “embodied prototype” of their thesis. I had warned her that the students might be preoccupied during the workshop with their looming thesis submissions. She took this as an inspiration to come up with the task to use household and kitchen items to represent the core research problem of their thesis. The students very happily engaged in this exercise and some fantastic examples emerged.

Prototype by Victoria Bersch

As Verena and Dorothé commented on the results, and asked questions, an interesting use of metaphors emerged. It became apparent that although the design kit (their household) was as non-figurative as possible (none of the items were dedicated objects for design scripts), and students could choose anything to represent anything, in our conversation fixed meanings emerged – a figure emerged. ‘Government’ is not ‘a toxic bottle of bleach’. But when Victoria used this metaphor and declared this meaning (in her prototype about the problem of food waste), it made sense to us, and we were confronted with a very clear view on the problem. When Kimberly created a relation between the important actor with the large office space, and the less important actors and the small office spaces, we understood her vision of how the problem was ordered. Although the household items left meanings open, the students chose items for particular reasons and declared fixed meanings. However, through the ‘making visible’ of these declarations of meaning in our follow-up conversation, we had a chance to respond and to negotiate these – thus creating potentially shared meanings. In conversation, the meaning of the representation was developed and discovered not by any participant alone, but emerged from the interaction between the participants (cf. Jaasma et al., 2017). Figures were declared, with the help of non-figurative items in an open design space, and these figures had the potential to be negotiated, settled and ‘fixed’ in conversation.

These insights were particularly interesting to Ruth and the MxD students in the research project, because we had toyed with the idea to create a design template, or a design kit, which should be used in the MxD studio. The ‘figure’, and what something ‘is’, as a flexible entity, has been proposed by Donna Haraway in the cyborg manifesto as a way to negotiate futures (Haraway, 1991). The configuration of existences and the reconfiguration of their material relations can be negotiated (Suchman, 2012). Design is a configuration and reconfiguration of shared worlds. In this negotiation around the configuration of our world, ideas are embodied and materialised collaboratively through the moving from one’s own figures and meanings towards shared figures and meanings.

References

Akrich, Madeleine. (1994). The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In Wiebe Bijker & John Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology / Building Society (pp. 205–224). London: The MIT Press.

Fuchs, T., & de Jaegher, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-009-9136-4

Gaver, William, Beaver, Jacob, & Benford, Steve. (2003). Ambiguity as a Resource for Design. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.

Goodwin C. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 2000;32(10):1489-1522

Haraway, Donna. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late twentieth Century. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (pp. 149–181). London: Free Association Books.

Hummels, Caroline, & van Dijk, Jelle. (2015). Seven Principles to Design for Embodied Sensemaking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction – TEI ’14.

Jaasma, P., Dijk, J. van, Frens, J., & Hummels, C. (2017). On the Role of External Representations in Designing for Participatory Sensemaking. In M. B. Alonso & E. Ozcan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Design and Semantics of Form and Movement—Sense and Sensitivity, DeSForM 2017. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71207

Lawson, Bryan. (2006). How designers think: the design process demystified (4th ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

Orlikowski, Wanda J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.

Schön, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Smit, Dorothé, Oogjes, Doenja, de Rocha, Bruna Goveia, Trotto, Ambra, Hur, Yeup, & Hummels, Caroline. (2016). Ideating in Skills. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction – TEI ’16.

Suchman, Lucy. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, Lucy. (2012). Configuration. In Celia Lury & Nina Wakeford (Eds.), Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social.


About MxD

MxD is not a method to follow strictly, it is based on different inputs and interpretations. Every participant has unique values in his/her style, his/her way to do things and his/her own ways to think. These characteristics of the designers create the possibilities of the product.

The MxD method shows some material to work with and provides a certain way to approach problems, but not how to solve these problems, that is on the group of designers. This fact indicates, that for similar tasks, the outcome would be different every time, if you change the team or even just some team members. The team members choose and bring the materials that turns the general ideas to possibilities. And with every conversation in this group of designers, possibilities change, because of the diversity of the team. But MxD is more than being creative and process ideas within a group of designers.

What differentiates Management by Design from Design is the main purpose to create value. Turn ideas into design or products is very important, but turn ideas into value is the MxD goal. MxD creates a vision to follow, with an economical background and innovative ideas.

 


Reflection

We have worked on projects relating to architecture of workspaces in our university in the past, making the topic one we were already quite familiar with. Quickly we felt that we might even have analysed most aspects of it previously and found ourselves digging for new perspectives. In the beginning of this MxD Studio we definitely had some difficulty figuring out what the final outcome should look like, which made and finding the “right” approach for the project somewhat challenging. 

Once we as a group did agree on an outline, our plan was disrupted by having to change our concept from the premises of the NDU to home offices to adapt to the unique situation everyone was suddenly thrown into. After some intense brainstorming on our part, we found our focus again and got excited to get input from fellow home office practicing students through interviews and we enjoyed sharing the outcomes and build prototypes from them. 

While we felt that the communication between the different groups in our class and the professors was not optimal and slight frustration was definitely present, our own group always worked more or less flawlessly together. We found common ground in our different ideas and worked problems out quickly. When one of couldn’t be present during a Studio, the others took over without discussion and we made time for calls to catch up on our progress. We realized just how well the four of us worked together once we were working with another group, which took a lot more effort and time. After a long discussion we did find a way to combine our groups’ main objectives into a prototype, which proved to be successful in the end. 

The last step of this course, getting every group (and every individual) to agree on a final definition of the “MxD Method” and a fitting presentation might have been the most challenging yet. It might have been the months of home office that made the whole process seem somewhat frustrating and like we lost the elements of flexibility and interaction how we knew them, but we are glad to report that me made it to the end of the Studio with an outcome that everybody took part in achieving. 


Three Interventions

Part of our MxD process is to be able at some point to knock everything on the head, pull a cut and start the process new in order to see things from another perspective. Of course there is also always the possibility to readopt rejected ideas.

The process also includes lots of prototyping and testing and one of our mottos is „fail fast in order to learn fast“. That´s why we had the got the task to do interventions during the last few weeks of class. In the following we will give you an overview of three interventions we as group „Room and Architecture“ did.

 

Intervention 1

The first intervention was based on the results of the interviews we did with other students and employees about homeworking and their needs concerning the working environment. We decided to check the theses we got out of the interviews on our collegues. Therefore we did a flow with them were told them small things they should do which can change the atmosphere of their home office to the better. Some of this tasks were for example to open the window, to do ten jumping jacks, to put your phone away from you and to get a huge glass of water.

In the end of this interventions we asked the others how they experienced the flow and if they approve the theses we build on the basis of the interviews, and they did. They experienced it as refreshing and told us that they noticed that little changes in your environment and routines can change a lot.

 

Intervention 2

We got the idea for our second intervention from the feedback Mr. Wecht gave us on our first intervention. He told us that it would be nice if there would be a „MxD“-background available on Zoom, so all of us can come together in the same virtual room.

Therefore we created a folder in Microsoft Teams with a picture of one oft he classrooms at our university and a instruction how to use this picure as a background on Zoom. Although there were some technical difficulties because Zoom has some requirements on your background in real life in order to make the virtual background work, the result turned out nice and gave a protoypical idea on how a virtual room can work and how we can work with it.

 

Intervention 3

Our third intervention was in collaboration with the group „Room and Time“. In order to plan and organize the intervention we had a 2h meeting where we mainly discussed each others goals and intentions as well as our differences and commonalities as groups. Finally we agreed on two topics which were important for all of us: team work and „to swarm out“, which is a term which on of our professors coined for us since the beginning of our studies, which we all thought that got sometimes a bit lost over time, especially during the last semester due to the adaptations in our working methods because of COVID-19.

For the intervention we diveded the class in two groups: group „Social Walking“ and group „Lonely Watching“. Group „Social Walking“ had the task to get into pairs of two and take a walk in their environment while talking to each other on the phone and discussing about good and bad design. In the end they should present the class a short summary of their findings. The topic for the group „lonley walking“ was also good and bad design, but people of this group had to swarm out and talk a walk alone and take a picture of an example for good design and a picture of something which they think is badly designed, which they also had to present to the class.

Afterwards there was a short questionaire via „MentiMeter“ in order to gain feedback about the intervention. The feedback was mainly positive and almost everybody said that the change of the environment in general as well as the specific tasks to „swarm out“ and to have a „walking meeting“ helped them to gain new thoughts and perspectives and they would like to further implement these practices into their working routines.

 

 


Conducting interviews = understanding people's needs

Interviews serve to understand a person's wishes and needs through bilateral discussions. Therefore we conducted a guideline-based interview with a total of 6 people to find out which parameters are particularly important to them in their everyday home learning. The questions were created during a team call, in which we defined the central question schemes and then formulated concrete questions from these. During the interviews it was especially important for us to find out which architectural environment creates a good working atmosphere and which indicators are important for long-term concentrated work. 

In the course of the interviews we were able to obtain some interesting results. Especially important was your respondent sufficient light, an orderly workplace and peace and quiet. In addition, the telephone was identified as a disturbing factor which should be placed at a far away place. Furthermore the observance of regular breaks was also discussed. 

Basically, it was found that home learning or home office is perceived as positive, but that social contact with friends and colleagues is clearly missing.


How to ensure a digital interface for bridging collaboration in time and space?

Dear Readers,

we would like to explain some challenges to you. The goal of our research team is to examine a few challenges that may affect you as well. For some of you, it may be uncharted territory and only became relevant through Covid-19.
Currently, several million people are being asked to stay at home and only leave the house for necessities. For many people this is a new challenge: WFH (working from home). For most of the people, at least in Austria this is a totally new situation

How do people manage to communicate effectively and make joint decisions even if they are not physically and temporally in the same place?

Some problems that arise through virtual communication:
- Knowledge gap of important information
- making decisions in teams
- technical hitches
- lack of working platform
- Keeping track of progress
- collaborative works

In order to better understand these problems, we conduct several interviews. For the selection of the interview partners we have chosen different categories to get a wide range of insights.

For this purpose, we have established six categories that make sense for us to examine more closely in the context of remote work.

1. state of the art: the goal of the interviews in this section is to become an understanding of the common used tools and practices companies use.
2. future technology: we try to collect different ideas for the future.
3. trend research: what innovative tools are available to conduct trend research efficiently?
4. team culture: we want to learn as much as possible about teamwork and team spirit.
5. empathy phase: is there already a way to implement the Empathy Phase in a digital framework?
6. events / concert / sport: marketing and advertising is a big aspect, how are new ideas communicated?Are there any tools that can help the imagination?

The companies of the first category help us to gain an understanding of the state of the art.
What are the tools and processes companies use now? What difficulties do they face?

Now we want to give you a little insight into the challenges we are facing.

We try to communicate with each other remotely as efficiently as possible. We have different platforms on which we are in contact with each other. On the one hand, we have a WhatsApp group where we make time arrangements. When we have an online meeting, we use Skype.The task definition for our project is on MicrosoftTeams. The work results are again uploaded separately on a new page.

Could this lead to confusion? Could this work process also be more compact? How can we most effectively work together remotely?

To close this blogpost I will tell you a little story. How do you think we decided who of our group will write the first blog post? …
… We did it old-school, we wrote our 4 names on 4 little pieces of paper, folded them and then randomly selected them.

How and where can important information be recorded for those who are not present? Maybe you have some innovative ideas.
#weareallinthistogether #wfh

Thanks for reading, stay tuned!


How to not limit your creative-phase @homeoffice

The movement starts:

 

Working together on one project but separated by a huge ocean. Many companies have to face this problem everyday. Maybe you are a freelancer working on Bali for a company in America. Or you are a student whose brain is fried, working over a prototype with your colleagues. But what happens if, triggered by a crisis, a war or maybe just because of a cough, we are not able to go to work? How can we still finish our team-based-projects and help to keep the economy stable? And how can we provide everyone with their relevant data and share our thoughts in real time just like in the office and let no creativity pass away?

 

The Setup:

 

When you think about creativity, what is important for you? If you compare your thoughts, you will see that everyone will need something else. The situation and the project you are assigned to will tell you in what kind of environment you can work the best. Of course we can say, working in a natural light will help you to stay focused and so on, but what works best for you might not work as well for your colleagues. Think about your experience. When have you felt creative the last time? Where was it? In which surrounding was it? Have you been listening to music? All those questions will help you to set up your perfect creative space(es). 

 

Bye Bye, Mr. Lasercutter-Guy

 

Now if you found your “Magic Place”, we need to think about the question: “How can I work on that prototype without being where the magic happens? At first, when you think like this, read the first paragraph again. The magic happens where you are! So grab your colleagues into a skype-call and start to plan how this could work out. 

Don´t set roles (e.g: documentation) for the whole project, just for the tasks need to be done today or the next, near deadline. Today you feel like you are not in a good mood for writing everything down? That's okay, Mike or Sarah don’t have a problem with this task today. And so you don't have to do what you thought will be a good idea one week ago. 

Maybe you will see that the things people do at work will change. The Lasercutter-Guy is not able to make precise cuttings through almost every material anymore, but starting to take part when a meeting is due. That's because we are all limited to the things we have at home or that are easy to get. No Lasercutter, no need for Lasercutter-Guy.

 

Use local and simple materials

 

Limited by the things you have at home will make it hard to build a prototype and share it with your colleagues. Work with the things you have at home. Do you have kids? Take their Lego to build on your ideas (also ask your kid about ideas and solutions - children are big dreamers!) Think about how you could use material in different ways. You don't have a drawing circle-pen but need to draw a perfect circle? Use a normal pen, a small piece of rope and you are done. Rebuild it with what you have. After building comes the sharing-part and we face another major problem. How to get the prototypes to the colleagues? How can they review on the prototype? Therefore it is possible to use a 3D Scanner. A 3D - Scan Application will use your mobile camera to create an original sized model. You can now share it easily and also set colours to the prototype and make it moveable in a digital way. If you want to work offline, there are people in the streets selling “Prototype @Home-Kits”. Those Kits provide you with different materials a manuals about how to build and think in prototypes.

 


Material Storage and Mobility

Our Team is in charge of the aspects „material storage and mobility“ in the context of our course „Management by Design“. Together we are working on improvements in storage and transportation for the materials, which are used by the students during the MxD Process. In the first phase, the empathy phase, which takes place at the beginning of our solution process, we try to gain as much profound insights of stakeholders as possible. We could gain some information through short and simple interviews. These first inputs came from our professors and through their opinions we were able to find problems and also possible solutions.

Our two questions:

  • How do we store the material so it can be easily moved to desired places?
  • How and where do we store the prototypes?

To get a better impression at the subject, we asked how much material is used by the students, how much it weights, which volume it has and which ones are the most popular. But also questions like where the materials are currently stored, how they are transported, why there isn’t any small vehicle yet and what the main problems are, where answered. The outcomes of the interviews were informative, contained much value and some possible solutions.

There are one big bag, two small bags and some cartons - these are bulky and not so easy to carry. According to our professor, the overall scope of the material in boxes and bags is 2x2 meters. Currently the bags are stored under a desk in the professors room. There is a small vehicle for the transport but nobody really knows who’s it is - very suspicious. There is also a storage room for all the materials but not everyone is allowed to enter. Playdoo is the most popular material but it’s also the most expensive. Pencils and post-it’s are quickly used up and have to be bought quite often. Same with scissors and tapes. Here it is important to differentiate between tools and consumable supplies. A big problem is the chaos after the students give the materials back, because they often don’t sort it properly. Furthermore, the materials often can’t be used again. One solution could be, that the diversity of materials is reduced. The optimum would be order or tidiness because it leads to a bigger offer and subsequently to a better result of the prototype. For the professor personally, it is not comfortable to push the small wagon because it leads to a feeling of stress and discomfort. The other professor, on the other hand, has no problem with it.

For example in D-school there is a fixed placed, like our storage room for materials, but with one difference - everyone is allowed to step in and take what he or she needs for the prototypes. Everything is organized in signed chutes. The students stick to the rules and put the used materials back in their place. A refutation here is serendipity. Because if there is only one big box where all the material is without much order, then the probability to find something you’ve never been looking for is much higher. As a result there could be very creative and never conceived solutions.

The desires from our professors in regards to the transport of the materials are that there is nothing to push and that they will magically appear in the preferred place - which is also called „magic appearance“. Specifications are, that the soon-to-be design has to fit through doors and the elevator. Wishes from our students are that there are more and different materials to selection: oasis foam, fabric, mechanical components, technology, glue, double-sided tape, metals, raspberry pi, NXT mindstorms and chalk pencils.

We also got thought-provoking impulses like for example the construction of a „suggestion-corner“, where materials can be shared. If a student doesn’t need his carton pieces anymore, he can bring it to this place and take something different from there. Afterwards another student maybe finds his carton pieces and can use them for her prototype. There could also be a rethink when you ask yourself, if we could move the room and not the material in order to have a new storage place for materials.

Now it is our challenge to select and improve the best ideas in order to fulfill the two questions.