PROJECTiONE has developed a position on how we would like to practice through self reflection and trial by fire execution of client-based work. As seen in our client-based strategy post, we have developed more appropriate definitions and descriptors of our processes. These descriptions have evolved over time and through reflecting on our experiences with actual clients. We used this process as the basis for generating our contracts. It was immediately apparent to us that our work could not be contained within a single contract or practice structure and we therefore developed the following client relationships/contracts. They are: Product to Client, Process to Client, and Seed Money. These relationships are described in more detail in the following diagrams, but they allow for a greater degree of flexibility in dealing with clients with varying expectations. It is expected that our clients may be traditional owners, fellow designer, or manufacturers looking to invest into innovative usage of a material or process.

This comparison was developed as a means of best understanding the internal PROJECTiONE process. By reflecting on our process over the course of our work together we developed this set of descriptions which represent us. This thought experiment has served as the basis for the development of our client relationships and our own practice structures. The comparison is not intended as a critique of traditional practice structures but it is a standard against which our practice can be most clearly represented.

In this structure the client is interested in a sketch or prototype previously developed by PROJECTiONE. They realize the potential of the design and would like to adapt it to fit their needs. During the development of the design, the client approves the product after the Informed Design phase before moving into the Production, and Assembly and Installation phases.

PROJECTiONE is commissioned by the client to apply design thinking/processes to their unique problem. The client approves the design after the Critical Thinking phase and again after Investigation and Testing, and Informed Design.

PROJECTiONE partners with a Manufacturer/Designer/Venture Capitalist/Investor to provide seed money used to develop an initial concept. PROJECTiONE then interrogates the material/process/idea, investigating innovative technologies, methods, and applications. The deliverable of value is typically the knowledge generated.

Our Design Platform is a set of values and concepts that exist to further explain our thesis framework. They give insight into processes of working, designing, and thinking within our collective, providing a foundation to work from and consider throughout design and fabrication.

Value of Inefficiency
Craft and innovation often emerge from time and energy intensive processes. When this concept is applied to seemingly mundane materials the results can transform them into valued pieces. The care involved in this process is evident in the final product and exposes latent beauty and subtle characteristics. This goes beyond a monetary gain in value and elevates the product into something that carries emotional or psychological value for the user and for the designer.

Digital Hangover
In response to the certain digital fabrication movements, we are interested in addressing the notion that designers are able to seamlessly translate a digital model into a physical form with very little effort. It is a rare occurrence that entire assemblies “snap together” without complications, that wood which is fresh off the mill doesn’t need hand finishing, and that tectonics are developed without extensive testing. Instead we acknowledge these processes and embrace them as part of the digital analog exchange. Furthermore, digital manufacturing tools are no longer the avante garde of design. They exist at a level equal with analog fabrication processes and the understanding of their relation must now be explored.

Loosening Precision
Materials often directly inform designs and the processes involved in production. We aim to allow for circumstantial results, loosening precision. While tectonics and details are often tied to materiality, a greater understanding of the material is developed by closley working with it and the resulting knowledge informs design. This approach also applies to the processes involved, as methods play just as an important role in developing design.

Post-Design Design
Because we design, fabricate, and assemble there is an understanding that the design will develop as it is produced. We can anticipate certain results, but the process of making often reveals unforeseen challenges and opportunities. Post-design design is more than just troubleshooting, it is the understanding that the initial idea is flexible and will most definitely adapt. Often in our early design process unknowns are understood and expected, anticipating that a solution will later be inserted into these gaps.

High Intensity/Low Duration- Throughout the next two weeks we will be rigorously designing and creating. The purpose of this quick set of crafted objects is to take the Design Platform and embody those within a physical format. Each project, though highly different from the next, carries the same platform as the next.

woodScan
popPanel
plyLight

We just returned from the annual ACADIA Conference (Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture) at the Art Institute of Chicago. There were some very informative lectures and we were fortunate to network with many of the designers and academics present. This year’s conference was entitled reForm(), exploring how architects, engineers, artists and designers are using HARDWARE, SOFTWARE and MIDDLEWARE technologies to transform the ways in which buildings and spaces perform, act and operate. Many interesting lectures were centered on computer-human interface and augmented realities.

Kai Strehlke: Head of Design Technology, one of the keynote speakers, spoke about Herzog and de Meuron’s design process, contrasting most of the other presentations. He emphasized that their use of technology does not control the design process; instead, they seek tools to realize designs, many of which come from cultural and social concepts rather than complex algorithms.

It was exciting to hear Robert Aish speak about his history within the field of computer programming and parametric design. Aish described his experience developing computer models for the ship building industries (which had developed parametric models before the advent of computers). He is currently developing a programming language (D#) for Autodesk in order to produce new forms of parametric scripting. He showcased some examples of the language and the developing software.

Achim Menges presented research on wood veneer and hygroscopic reaction. He is currently continuing that research, studying wood’s reactive/sensory characteristics relative to moisture and humidity. Experiments were set up to determine how much deflection veneer could produce in low / high moisture environments. These studies are translated into some larger scale design schemes. It was exciting to see the research existing outside of the computer, in the analog world.

We have been following the ongoing work at the ETH in Zurich (specifically that of Gramazio and Kohler). Their approach to an additive design process has taken them from bricks to wood construction. They are continuing to develop a relationship between their robotic arm and standard miter saws for full scale building skins. Their no-holds-bar approach to creative uses of digital and analog tools has similarities to our own, and it was interesting to hear their perspective.

The last keynote lecture was unexpected, dealing with the developing use of robots in the military. Peter W Singer is a writer and researcher for 21st Century Defense Initiative – Brookings. The presentation was an awakening exposing some of the ethical implications of this research and development. Robots in Iraq with loaded cannons are taking on a major role, sometimes malfunctioning and firing at our troops, other times saving lives. This raises concerns of liability: who is to blame if a robot kills a civilian: the programmer, manufacturer, commander in chief? It also raised moral questions about the replacement of the human in warfare.

The conference included a diverse collection of papers but did not maintain any consistent thread across them. Somebody made the comment that ACADIA is alive and kicking but doesn’t necessarily know in what direction. This isn’t to say that the diversity wasn’t appreciated but we need to ask, what are the implications of these projects and research on the field and on our future?

We enjoyed our MegaBus adventure to Chicago.

__________

We returned from New York City after interviewing some of the top designers and fabricators in the country. It was interesting to learn of the connections between the firms and the collaboration that exists across them. Each interview gave us an understanding of not only the individual and their firm, but also the network of practices throughout the city.

Our questions highlighted their perspective on the relationship between digital and analog tools and processes. Many of these firms are recognized for their contributions to digital design and architecture yet their responses indicated sensitivity towards the human involvement in these processes. We heard stories of a master plasterer finishing a CNC milled wall and a Native American weaver suturing two very scripted components together. This attitude is emerging as an area of great interest to us and is the main focus of our research and projects.

These firms represent a broad spectrum of size, experience, and expertise. Many of the younger firms we interviewed are small scale and are seeking to better define their role in design and fabrication. These firms are struggling to bridge the gap between design and fabrication. They would like to pursue their own design work but fall victims to their own success with digital fabrication tools.

__________

These interviews will take place over the week of 9.28.09 to 10.2.09 in New York City, in the offices of various architectural designers, fabricators, and consultants. A diverse range of practices were selected in order to gain information on the question of how practices integrate digital design and fabrication techniques with more traditional methods. Do firms actually practice in the purely digital realm? Focusing strongly on firms that design and fabricate customized components, how do these firms manage the design fabrication feedback loop? These interviews are intended to gain the perspective or attitude on these issues.

Aranda/Lasch
Associated Fabrication
BuroHappold
Case Design Inc.
DavidZachary
Freecell
Front Inc.
Lewis Tsurumaki Lewis
Nastasi Architects
SITU Studio
Tietz-Baccon