This report evaluates the complete progress of the author’s final year project. Contained in this report are criticisms of project handling, evaluations of timekeeping methodology and planning, and an overview of lessons learned.

The author aims for the report to be succinct and honest, and will not stop short of personal criticism where necessary.

Method and Process

Retrospectively, this entire module has been a massive learning exercise. From the outset, it was this author’s opinion that his existing knowledge of the design method and process were more than adequate to complete the module satisfactorily. This however did not turn out to be the case. As the design process is an ongoing tool for the designer, there is very clear evidence (from the completed journal) that there was a marked improvement in its understanding and application.

It is unfortunate that the lack of understanding was not realised earlier, as its effect was ultimately to delay the progress of the work. Unrelated to this task was an assignment in a different module (Studio Mentoring), which served as a sharp realisation of this situation.

As noted previously, there was a clear difference between design process use at the beginning and end of the project. This difference, it seems, manifested itself in the designer’s increasing ability to commit his thoughts to paper. Whereas initially care and attention was paid to each sketch or note on a page; ultimately, effort was refocused onto inspiration and contribution to the journal. Consequently, when this truth was realised there was an increase in creativity, and the designer was amazed at the constant flow of ideas.

After completion, looking over the finished work, it is painstakingly obvious that process knowledge was absent, and the actual methodology followed was akin to ‘blundering in the dark’. As uncomfortable as this may sound for a project of this importance, the design method was ultimately implemented, and has resulted in a perfectly sound product.

There have been many points at which the design process has been used to point out weaker ideas that were not initially obvious. If the designer had been more fluent with the process, this may have happened in a more timely fashion. This technique of weeding out inferior ideas, expanding them, and then contracting them again was repeated numerous times, explaining why there have been so many changes along the path to the final design. It is the designer’s opinion that this is the reason why the solution is successful.

If the designer were in the position to restart the project, it would be expected that a very similar set of conclusions would be reached. The timescale would be definitely different, with more time freed for the latter portions of the project.

Techniques and Skills

Being inefficient in some areas of the design process was to some extent alleviated by the quantity of work done in the middle portions of the project (December/January). By no means is this an example of quantity over quality, but the amount of work served as a ‘stream of consciousness’, and when evaluating the completed work this meant no important elements were omitted.

This author’s skills definitely lie in his method of production of computer models. Even though collectively the final year students were advised against computer modelling in favour of GDL’s (general design layouts), many more computer models were constructed than GDL’s. A GDL’s inherent usefulness however was not overlooked, and so the computer models when created were constructed to be manipulated later. Each time new inspiration occurred, or change was needed, the model could be quickly altered then printed for commenting. This methodology, in the author’s opinion, initially consumed more time per model, but for each change (where a new GDL would be needed) there was a time saving.

Over the course of the project approximately 100 different computer models, some rough, some detailed, were constructed. Not all of these were of direct use, but all allowed the designer to visualise some portion of the design.

Where the designer’s skills fell short, effort was made to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Research was an area where a more structured approach would have been of huge benefit. For example, if research had been conducted in more depth into basic conceptual areas such as ‘boxes’ or ‘storage’ in the beginning, huge amounts of time could have been saved. Of course, it could be argued that one needs to have travelled a train of thought to know it is not suitable; however, with experience it could also be argued that instinct should play a large part in these matters. Whatever the outcome of this project, it is definitely true that the designer is now in a better position for beginning further ventures.

Planning

It is a problem to note the designer’s lack of commitment at some key points during this assignment. This is not implying that the project was regarded apathetically, but just indicates the overwhelming pressure such a project bestows upon the designer. This has devastated the planning of the project, as it is inevitable such feelings arise when pressure is released by being ‘on schedule’.

It is inevitable then that lack of commitment would lead to slipping deadlines, but it should be noted that by no means is the author offering it as an excuse.

At two points during the project, the time plan was completely revised – due to changing attention required by different portions of the design. That noted, the designer almost met his personal deadlines for the entire project – only occasionally slipping behind.

If the opportunity to restart the project were to arise, a concrete plan would be created first. The time plan would be then exploited as a check not only for timekeeping, but also for gauging the amount of attention a particular problem should be given (and hence not wasting time). On too many occasions during the project it was realised focus had been placed on an irrelevant problem.

Proposal

During the development of this product, the requirements stipulated in the project proposal were always kept in mind. Strictly, whilst one of the targets was not met, the designer considers the product to be a success; this is because of the proximity the final design is to meeting its requirements. The costing of the final product is wrong when compared to the proposal; costing less than half the stipulated price for manufacture and retailing at around £100, where the proposal asked for £210-£250.

This decision to halve the manufacturing price was deliberate. It was decided during development that the quoted price was too high for a council to pay for such a unit, and so was lowered. With the quantities involved in this instance, the retail price could be lowered even further. One of the wishes for the product was met to a certain degree –the waste would be the volume of one kerbside bin, just not placed inside. Concerning the cleaning of the waste, that wish had to be disregarded because of practicality and costing.

Specific challenge

The solution needs to integrate with the existing recycling system, whilst suggesting a simplified solution to the existing problem of multiple wheelie bins on a driveway.

Most important wants

1 Who will buy the product? – Wealthy adults with a large kitchen and green lean

Who will use the product? – Everyone in the household of the above

2 Target manufacturing price: £20-50

Designed retail price: £210-250 (rough price of three wheelie bins)

3 Production quantity –?

4 Must accept all council collected recyclable waste

5 Must fit into the kitchen. must allow for different design tastes used in kitchen design

6 Some households have two or more wheelie bins outside for recycling; this system should be able to hold and compact this into one small bin for a week

7 As a premium product, ease of use is crucial

Most important wishes

1 Aim for a recycling system where all recycling is placed in one kerbside bin

2 Cleaning of the waste before collection

In retrospect, this project proposal was so broad that the solution could have met its requirements and been vastly different. This actually brings more problems than benefits, as it is left up to the designer to decide on specifics (which would only rarely happen in industry). Therefore, if the exercise were to be repeated, the designer would initially supply a much more restrictive proposal.

Final Solution

At the time of writing, some key features of the project are incomplete. The designer is unhappy with the status of the following aspects of the design:

· The material to be used for the internal boxes is still uncertain (at the time of writing, tests are underway to evaluate materials against others).

· There are some important safety features requiring much greater definition (currently only a handful of sketches)

· The add-on (as the decision has been made for it to be) for tin cans has no more than a rough definition

· Design for manufacture and assembly has been kept in mind throughout the project, but its definition remains to be committed to paper

The designer is happy with the following aspects of the design:

· The costing has been a focus for the project, and a product has been defined which makes economic sense

· The quality of the modelling throughout the project has been high

· The justifications for the technology used are sound

· The product capitalises on simple low cost technology, and does not have unnecessary complications

· The contemporary styling of the product is an achievement for the price break intended

As a solution to a problem, the design works very well. It would be more appropriate to comment on a more completed version of the design, as there may be issues which only the final detailing will bring to light.

Conclusion

To conclude, the final design is as it is thanks to the improvements the designer has made to his application of the design process. Whereas the design may be incomplete, the final stages of the product’s design show a competent solution. The design would be nearer completion had the set of plans been more strictly adhered to. Additionally, more appropriate blanket research was needed to begin with – rather than just paying it lip service, as this could have been used as a shortcut to a solution, which in reality took longer to reach.

Initially, there were several key design processes unfamiliar to the designer. As previously stated, the project has been a massive learning exercise, and the designer notes the learning undertaken during the project equips him well for similar situations in the future. The new appreciation of time planning, self-discipline and initial research contributes to improved future capabilities.

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Major Design Project Approval Form

Issue Number: 5

Project Title: *unconfirmed*

Recycle Waste Collector

Name: Tom Tidswell

Date Submitted: 03/10/06

Contact N^o: 07841403961

Summary of Product

A collection facility to collect waste in the kitchen, under the worktop. A premium product, to do to the ordinary waste bin what the dishwasher did for the sink. It needs to fit, and perform perfectly in this environment.

Specific Challenge

The solution needs to integrate with the existing recycling system, whilst suggesting a simplified solution to the existing problem of multiple wheelie bins on a driveway.

Most Important Wants

1	Who will buy the product? – Wealthy adults with a large kitchen and green lean Who will use the product? – Everyone in the household of the above
2	Target manufacturing price– £20-50 Designed retail price – £210-250 (rough price of three wheelie bins)
3	Production quantity –
4	Must accept all council collected recyclable waste
5	Must fit into the kitchen Must allow for different design tastes currently used in kitchen design
6	Some households have two or more wheelie bins outside for recycling; this system should be able to hold and compact this into one small bin for a week
7	As a premium product, ease of use is crucial

Most Important Wishes

a	Aim for a recycling system where all recycling is placed in one kerbside bin
b	Cleaning of the waste before collection