The reason why the research is focused on the scenario building process can be found in the most well-known scenario definitions. Evans observed that future scenarios are important tools within the design process to inform, validate and endorse design decisions. With the help of forecasting and scenario building techniques, designers provide organizations with a link between the future and strategy (Evans & Sommerville, 2005). Scenario building is a way to generate shared visions within a large system of actors. The term scenario is considered as a synonym for an overall vision of something complex and articulated: a set of possible conditions, or transformations, affecting the domain under consideration. In addition, Design Orienting Scenarios (DOS) have to demonstrate a clear motivation (what the scenario is aiming at?) and practicality (the concrete actions that have to be taken in order to favor its implementation). They are called Design Orienting because they provide a framework for the design and realization of new products and product-service systems (Manzini & Jegou, 2004) The scenario stories may be seen as a ‘bridge’ between the analytically oriented planning and the creatively oriented vision making activities due to their ability to transmit both rational and creative layers of thoughts and beliefs (Moore, 2000). According to Rasmussen (2005), building a future scenario through stories can be an effective way to integrate imaginations as part of strategy formation and planning, viewing short-term preoccupations from the perspective of long-term objectives. The narrative approach allows the scenario designer to provide holistic views of the future. By using concrete stories to supplement abstract descriptions, it is possible to be user-driven rather than discipline-driven (Bell et al, 2013). According to this point of view, the scenario is an essential element in the representation of a future vision and it answers the question: “How would the world be if ...?” (Manzini & Jegou, 2000). It also suggests a story or a synthetic image of the world if a sequence of events to become a reality. The elaboration of possible futures through the stories is an effective method for Design Scenarios | 15 integrating the imagination as a part of training strategy and planning. It leads to familiarity with the future and stimulates the creation of ideas connected with it. Especially in the advanced design process scenarios are the elaboration of metaprojects in the form of storytelling, of one or more possible futures, aimed at defining the trajectories of innovation to conceptualize at the stage of product development. In the design world, scenarios are generally elaborated by maps, in a graphic format, which create a sort of topographical representation of innovation allowing, through the interpretation of strong and weak signals, to trace the trajectories of the project (Celaschi, 2007). In conclusion, scenarios are a complex multifaceted tool, used with different aims and in many ways into the design processes: from one side there is the strategic dimension more related to the business prognostication and to foresight planning; on the other hand there is a more visionary perspective, related to the ideation and visualization of products and services. This dual dimension has a central role in my research, for the different variables related to the role of scenarios. Research Questions and Hypothesis Despite the detailed definitions of scenarios in the design field, there is not a formal set of approaches or tools for creating or narrating them. As previously states, the research is focused on the roles of Design Orienting Scenarios (DOS), on their positioning into the design process, and on the systematization of approaches and tools used for building and materializing scenarios. After a first phase of theoretical grounding and definition to frame scenario origins in the military field (Khan, 1964) and in the strategic planning (Schwartz, 1991; Ogilvy, 1992; Ringland, 1998), the research focuses on scenarios as a tool to obtain the convergence of the actors towards the same target (Jegou & Manzini, 2000). The literature research identified the architecture of design scenarios: the scenarios are referred to a micro-scale for presenting possible feasible hypothesis and they should represent projectual simulation. In terms of features, they are used to create strategic ways for developing: • a business/a product/a service or a brand, • to share the different competencies and the different visions among the stakeholders involved in, • to analyze possible alternative context and market, • to create a set of options and to evaluate the related implication. After the first desk research layer, the research funnel provides the first conceptualization of the different scenarios types within the design field, through the Simona Maschi’s work (2002). In her PhD thesis, she depicted the DOS state of the art in four categories: mission-based, context-based, concept-based, and solution- based. Dr. Maschi left some open issues related to scenarios as a tool for design: they are not considered as formalized tools (there was not specific literature on design scenarios) with an important gap between theory and practice. Scenario building is considered as a mere visualization tool but not for supporting the design driven innovation process. Finally, there is not knowledge sharing about the scenarios opportunities and their characteristics into the design field. The most important point is the need for a systematization in the scenario knowledge to identify different positioning, approaches, tools and other significative variables. The first layer of desk analysis provides the research questions, that act as a fil rouge during all the research. They are related to four different themes: 1. OBJECTIVES / TARGET How is the scenario building process used in the design field today? 2. BUILDING PROCESS What is the building process? Is there a codification in terms of approaches and tools? 3. PARTE CIPATORY DIMENSION OF SCENARIOS Who is involved in the scenario building phase (in addition to the design team)? 4. INSTRUMENTAL DIMENSION OF SCENARIOS What are the different tools for narrating possible scenarios in the design field? These assumptions led to an insight that became the hypothesis of this work: is it possible to define the positioning of scenarios within the design process and to systematize the tools used during the process? To explore plausible answers, the research focuses on two main points: 1. Scenarios as a tool The research aims to create a conceptual process model with a complete perspective on the different role and positioning of scenarios in design processes, and to build a critical systematization among approaches and tools in a praxemiological dimension considering both dependent and independent variables. Intermediate objectives: approaches classification Since scenarios are multifaceted, there is a need to define an interpretative model for the required intermediate steps. The first complexity coefficient is due to the lack of a univocal method and, at the same time, to the presence of many different approaches. They change according to the researchers group or to the field (strategic design, product design, HMI). This creates the need for a classification by target. The research presents a matrix for clusterizing the approaches according to the aim for developing a set of scenarios and provides a definition for each and a classification of the different building process. The matrix aims to synthesize a system of complex information to yield an understandable framework about design scenarios. 2. The tools of scenarios The tools have different targets and are generally used in a combinatorial way: exploration tools, narrative tools and visualization tools are combined according to target, actors and available resources. Therefore, the second issue is focused on the possibility to cross-pollinate approaches and tools to develop a specific toolkit adaptable according to the different situations for optimizing process and resources. Intermediate objectives: tools classification Before creating a set of toolkits, it is necessary to fill a gap in literature relating to classifying tools in the scenarios building phase. The first step is an analysis of the tools in order to identify a number of polarizable features. A hierarchy of tools divided in two main families emerged: Generic tools and Specific tools; Codified tools and Uncodified tools. The literature does not classify the role of the instruments within scenario creation; this work proposes a tool clusterization on the basis of their use during the scenario building phase. The classification provides three categories: building tools, narrative tools and the tools located in the overlapping area between the two (called Hybrid Tools). In parallel, a taxonomic mapping is presented that considers variables as objectives (idea generation, evaluation of an economic model, etc.), involved actors (project team, end users, business actors), and conduction methods (individual, collective) to give a complete perspective on the relationship between tools and resources. Results summary and original contribution The research results are both theoretical and practical. There is an overview of the scenario building process into the design field, with an actualization in terms of sources and new functional consideration. This work provides a current state of the art and a model for the classification of approaches. Indeed, one of the output supports a different reading of the theme, based on features and objectives of design scenarios. Also the entrepreneurial implication should be considered: the design oriented businesses and the consultancies can use the output as a tool to improve the effectiveness of their design process. The knowledge systematization is able to solve one of the open issues identified during the early 2000’s (Maschi, 2002) regarding the formalization of scenarios not just as a visualization tool but as a tool for supporting the whole design process in many ways (external and internal communication, business model analysis, strategic planning, concept definition, solution generations and alternative testing). The conceptual interpretative model identifies six different positioning of scenario building into a possible design process, each with different aims. Each of them is synthesized with a name: Exploratory Scenarios, Strategic Scenarios, Opportunity Scenarios, Focalization Scenarios and Testing Scenarios. They have a definition and a set of features related to the target (internally use, externally use, sharing with the stakeholders, etc). The model could be used to identify the scenarios’ purpose according to the different process step and for choosing the best tools for each position, to focus and optimize the whole process. The positioning is directly related to the tools used for building and narrating possible scenarios. Indeed (as explained in the hypothesis formalization) there were two issues related to the design scenarios nowadays: the first one is related to the design process and the second one to the tools. In this work, tools are clustered and a taxonomic definition is created to relate tools and approaches/positioning in a praxemiological dimension. In particular, this structure has an implication in the practical use of the scenario in the design profession, proposing a reliable and replicable system to create specific sets of tools, depending on the type of scenario.

La ricerca condotta è focalizzata su una fase fondamentale del processo progettuale: lo sviluppo di scenari futuri. Lo scenario building è collocabile nell’area dell’advanced design e si può definire come uno strumento per realizzare alternative di ambienti futuri su cui orientare delle scelte da prendere oggi. Uno dei maggiori problemi nel tentativo di esplorare quest’ultimo, è la sua intrinseca componente di imprevedibilità e la presenza di fattori di incertezza e rischio molto elevati, soprattutto negli scenari con un ampio orizzonte temporale. Tuttavia, la scenaristica è considerata una costante irrinunciabile sia nelle discipline economiche che nel processo di progettazione di prodotti/servizi per creare tendenze di innovazione e sviluppare nuovi concept di progetto. Il seguente lavoro è suddiviso in sei parti: analisi della letteratura e dei casi studio, classificazione degli approcci, classificazione degli strumenti, sistema di selezione degli strumenti e applicazione progettuale. Dall’analisi della letteratura e dai casi studio (orientati al prodotto) si sono identificate una serie di research questions a cui rispondere per comprendere l’evoluzione della scenaristica nel design dalla sua formalizzazione ad oggi (2000) e quali possano essere le variabili coinvolte. Le domande sono: 1. Obiettivi: Perchè viene costruito oggi uno scenario nel design? 2. Processo di costruzione: Come viene costruito uno scenario? Che strumenti sono utilizzati? 3. Dimensione partecipativa dello scenario: Chi partecipa allo scenario building nei processi di design? Team di progetto, stakeholders, utenti? 4. Dimensione narrativa dello scenario: Come vengono materializzati gli scenari? Per rispondere alle domande, si è effettuata una seconda ricerca ed analisi nel campo della letteratura del design, dalla formalizzazione degli scenari ad oggi e l’analisi di sei casi studio. Dal primo elemento sono emersi cinque approcci differenti, che sono stati organizzati in una matrice di sintesi. La matrice pone in relazione gli approcci con i relativi obiettivi per cui lo scenario viene sviluppato, i processi e gli strumenti. Sull’analisi approfondita di questi ultimi è basata la seconda fase dello studio condotto. Dopo aver classificato gli strumenti secondo un sistema cartesiano ad ipotesi polarizzate (tools generici e specifici sull’asse delle ordinate e strumenti codificati e non su quello delle ascisse), è stata realizzata un’ulteriore clusterizzazione: tools per la costruzione dello scenario, per la sua rappresentazione e altri che si trovano all’interno di una zona di overlapping tra le due. L’inventario degli strumenti, poi, è stato poi raggruppato in alcune tabelle tassonomiche che classificano gli strumenti sulla base di obiettivi, attori e modalità di conduzione per l’utilizzo degli stessi. Il terzo risultato è legato all’identificazione del posizionamento e del ruolo degli scenari nei processi di design. Grazie allo sviluppo di un modello concettuale di processo, sono state identificate sei tipologie di scenario: exploratory scenarios, strategic scenarios,opportunity scenarios, concept scenarios, focalization scenarios, testing scenarios. La commistione del sistema di classificazione e delle posizioni degli scenari nel processo, permette quindi di identificare e creare dei toolkits customizzabili di volta in volta sulla base del progetto specifico. Dopo una fase di testing svolta in quattro fasi, il sistema di selezione è stato sintetizzato in un’unica matrice.

Design scenarios. Approaches and tools for building the future within the design processes

ZINDATO, DANILA

Abstract

The reason why the research is focused on the scenario building process can be found in the most well-known scenario definitions. Evans observed that future scenarios are important tools within the design process to inform, validate and endorse design decisions. With the help of forecasting and scenario building techniques, designers provide organizations with a link between the future and strategy (Evans & Sommerville, 2005). Scenario building is a way to generate shared visions within a large system of actors. The term scenario is considered as a synonym for an overall vision of something complex and articulated: a set of possible conditions, or transformations, affecting the domain under consideration. In addition, Design Orienting Scenarios (DOS) have to demonstrate a clear motivation (what the scenario is aiming at?) and practicality (the concrete actions that have to be taken in order to favor its implementation). They are called Design Orienting because they provide a framework for the design and realization of new products and product-service systems (Manzini & Jegou, 2004) The scenario stories may be seen as a ‘bridge’ between the analytically oriented planning and the creatively oriented vision making activities due to their ability to transmit both rational and creative layers of thoughts and beliefs (Moore, 2000). According to Rasmussen (2005), building a future scenario through stories can be an effective way to integrate imaginations as part of strategy formation and planning, viewing short-term preoccupations from the perspective of long-term objectives. The narrative approach allows the scenario designer to provide holistic views of the future. By using concrete stories to supplement abstract descriptions, it is possible to be user-driven rather than discipline-driven (Bell et al, 2013). According to this point of view, the scenario is an essential element in the representation of a future vision and it answers the question: “How would the world be if ...?” (Manzini & Jegou, 2000). It also suggests a story or a synthetic image of the world if a sequence of events to become a reality. The elaboration of possible futures through the stories is an effective method for Design Scenarios | 15 integrating the imagination as a part of training strategy and planning. It leads to familiarity with the future and stimulates the creation of ideas connected with it. Especially in the advanced design process scenarios are the elaboration of metaprojects in the form of storytelling, of one or more possible futures, aimed at defining the trajectories of innovation to conceptualize at the stage of product development. In the design world, scenarios are generally elaborated by maps, in a graphic format, which create a sort of topographical representation of innovation allowing, through the interpretation of strong and weak signals, to trace the trajectories of the project (Celaschi, 2007). In conclusion, scenarios are a complex multifaceted tool, used with different aims and in many ways into the design processes: from one side there is the strategic dimension more related to the business prognostication and to foresight planning; on the other hand there is a more visionary perspective, related to the ideation and visualization of products and services. This dual dimension has a central role in my research, for the different variables related to the role of scenarios. Research Questions and Hypothesis Despite the detailed definitions of scenarios in the design field, there is not a formal set of approaches or tools for creating or narrating them. As previously states, the research is focused on the roles of Design Orienting Scenarios (DOS), on their positioning into the design process, and on the systematization of approaches and tools used for building and materializing scenarios. After a first phase of theoretical grounding and definition to frame scenario origins in the military field (Khan, 1964) and in the strategic planning (Schwartz, 1991; Ogilvy, 1992; Ringland, 1998), the research focuses on scenarios as a tool to obtain the convergence of the actors towards the same target (Jegou & Manzini, 2000). The literature research identified the architecture of design scenarios: the scenarios are referred to a micro-scale for presenting possible feasible hypothesis and they should represent projectual simulation. In terms of features, they are used to create strategic ways for developing: • a business/a product/a service or a brand, • to share the different competencies and the different visions among the stakeholders involved in, • to analyze possible alternative context and market, • to create a set of options and to evaluate the related implication. After the first desk research layer, the research funnel provides the first conceptualization of the different scenarios types within the design field, through the Simona Maschi’s work (2002). In her PhD thesis, she depicted the DOS state of the art in four categories: mission-based, context-based, concept-based, and solution- based. Dr. Maschi left some open issues related to scenarios as a tool for design: they are not considered as formalized tools (there was not specific literature on design scenarios) with an important gap between theory and practice. Scenario building is considered as a mere visualization tool but not for supporting the design driven innovation process. Finally, there is not knowledge sharing about the scenarios opportunities and their characteristics into the design field. The most important point is the need for a systematization in the scenario knowledge to identify different positioning, approaches, tools and other significative variables. The first layer of desk analysis provides the research questions, that act as a fil rouge during all the research. They are related to four different themes: 1. OBJECTIVES / TARGET How is the scenario building process used in the design field today? 2. BUILDING PROCESS What is the building process? Is there a codification in terms of approaches and tools? 3. PARTE CIPATORY DIMENSION OF SCENARIOS Who is involved in the scenario building phase (in addition to the design team)? 4. INSTRUMENTAL DIMENSION OF SCENARIOS What are the different tools for narrating possible scenarios in the design field? These assumptions led to an insight that became the hypothesis of this work: is it possible to define the positioning of scenarios within the design process and to systematize the tools used during the process? To explore plausible answers, the research focuses on two main points: 1. Scenarios as a tool The research aims to create a conceptual process model with a complete perspective on the different role and positioning of scenarios in design processes, and to build a critical systematization among approaches and tools in a praxemiological dimension considering both dependent and independent variables. Intermediate objectives: approaches classification Since scenarios are multifaceted, there is a need to define an interpretative model for the required intermediate steps. The first complexity coefficient is due to the lack of a univocal method and, at the same time, to the presence of many different approaches. They change according to the researchers group or to the field (strategic design, product design, HMI). This creates the need for a classification by target. The research presents a matrix for clusterizing the approaches according to the aim for developing a set of scenarios and provides a definition for each and a classification of the different building process. The matrix aims to synthesize a system of complex information to yield an understandable framework about design scenarios. 2. The tools of scenarios The tools have different targets and are generally used in a combinatorial way: exploration tools, narrative tools and visualization tools are combined according to target, actors and available resources. Therefore, the second issue is focused on the possibility to cross-pollinate approaches and tools to develop a specific toolkit adaptable according to the different situations for optimizing process and resources. Intermediate objectives: tools classification Before creating a set of toolkits, it is necessary to fill a gap in literature relating to classifying tools in the scenarios building phase. The first step is an analysis of the tools in order to identify a number of polarizable features. A hierarchy of tools divided in two main families emerged: Generic tools and Specific tools; Codified tools and Uncodified tools. The literature does not classify the role of the instruments within scenario creation; this work proposes a tool clusterization on the basis of their use during the scenario building phase. The classification provides three categories: building tools, narrative tools and the tools located in the overlapping area between the two (called Hybrid Tools). In parallel, a taxonomic mapping is presented that considers variables as objectives (idea generation, evaluation of an economic model, etc.), involved actors (project team, end users, business actors), and conduction methods (individual, collective) to give a complete perspective on the relationship between tools and resources. Results summary and original contribution The research results are both theoretical and practical. There is an overview of the scenario building process into the design field, with an actualization in terms of sources and new functional consideration. This work provides a current state of the art and a model for the classification of approaches. Indeed, one of the output supports a different reading of the theme, based on features and objectives of design scenarios. Also the entrepreneurial implication should be considered: the design oriented businesses and the consultancies can use the output as a tool to improve the effectiveness of their design process. The knowledge systematization is able to solve one of the open issues identified during the early 2000’s (Maschi, 2002) regarding the formalization of scenarios not just as a visualization tool but as a tool for supporting the whole design process in many ways (external and internal communication, business model analysis, strategic planning, concept definition, solution generations and alternative testing). The conceptual interpretative model identifies six different positioning of scenario building into a possible design process, each with different aims. Each of them is synthesized with a name: Exploratory Scenarios, Strategic Scenarios, Opportunity Scenarios, Focalization Scenarios and Testing Scenarios. They have a definition and a set of features related to the target (internally use, externally use, sharing with the stakeholders, etc). The model could be used to identify the scenarios’ purpose according to the different process step and for choosing the best tools for each position, to focus and optimize the whole process. The positioning is directly related to the tools used for building and narrating possible scenarios. Indeed (as explained in the hypothesis formalization) there were two issues related to the design scenarios nowadays: the first one is related to the design process and the second one to the tools. In this work, tools are clustered and a taxonomic definition is created to relate tools and approaches/positioning in a praxemiological dimension. In particular, this structure has an implication in the practical use of the scenario in the design profession, proposing a reliable and replicable system to create specific sets of tools, depending on the type of scenario.
GUERRINI, LUCA
GUERRINI, LUCA
10-mar-2016
La ricerca condotta è focalizzata su una fase fondamentale del processo progettuale: lo sviluppo di scenari futuri. Lo scenario building è collocabile nell’area dell’advanced design e si può definire come uno strumento per realizzare alternative di ambienti futuri su cui orientare delle scelte da prendere oggi. Uno dei maggiori problemi nel tentativo di esplorare quest’ultimo, è la sua intrinseca componente di imprevedibilità e la presenza di fattori di incertezza e rischio molto elevati, soprattutto negli scenari con un ampio orizzonte temporale. Tuttavia, la scenaristica è considerata una costante irrinunciabile sia nelle discipline economiche che nel processo di progettazione di prodotti/servizi per creare tendenze di innovazione e sviluppare nuovi concept di progetto. Il seguente lavoro è suddiviso in sei parti: analisi della letteratura e dei casi studio, classificazione degli approcci, classificazione degli strumenti, sistema di selezione degli strumenti e applicazione progettuale. Dall’analisi della letteratura e dai casi studio (orientati al prodotto) si sono identificate una serie di research questions a cui rispondere per comprendere l’evoluzione della scenaristica nel design dalla sua formalizzazione ad oggi (2000) e quali possano essere le variabili coinvolte. Le domande sono: 1. Obiettivi: Perchè viene costruito oggi uno scenario nel design? 2. Processo di costruzione: Come viene costruito uno scenario? Che strumenti sono utilizzati? 3. Dimensione partecipativa dello scenario: Chi partecipa allo scenario building nei processi di design? Team di progetto, stakeholders, utenti? 4. Dimensione narrativa dello scenario: Come vengono materializzati gli scenari? Per rispondere alle domande, si è effettuata una seconda ricerca ed analisi nel campo della letteratura del design, dalla formalizzazione degli scenari ad oggi e l’analisi di sei casi studio. Dal primo elemento sono emersi cinque approcci differenti, che sono stati organizzati in una matrice di sintesi. La matrice pone in relazione gli approcci con i relativi obiettivi per cui lo scenario viene sviluppato, i processi e gli strumenti. Sull’analisi approfondita di questi ultimi è basata la seconda fase dello studio condotto. Dopo aver classificato gli strumenti secondo un sistema cartesiano ad ipotesi polarizzate (tools generici e specifici sull’asse delle ordinate e strumenti codificati e non su quello delle ascisse), è stata realizzata un’ulteriore clusterizzazione: tools per la costruzione dello scenario, per la sua rappresentazione e altri che si trovano all’interno di una zona di overlapping tra le due. L’inventario degli strumenti, poi, è stato poi raggruppato in alcune tabelle tassonomiche che classificano gli strumenti sulla base di obiettivi, attori e modalità di conduzione per l’utilizzo degli stessi. Il terzo risultato è legato all’identificazione del posizionamento e del ruolo degli scenari nei processi di design. Grazie allo sviluppo di un modello concettuale di processo, sono state identificate sei tipologie di scenario: exploratory scenarios, strategic scenarios,opportunity scenarios, concept scenarios, focalization scenarios, testing scenarios. La commistione del sistema di classificazione e delle posizioni degli scenari nel processo, permette quindi di identificare e creare dei toolkits customizzabili di volta in volta sulla base del progetto specifico. Dopo una fase di testing svolta in quattro fasi, il sistema di selezione è stato sintetizzato in un’unica matrice.
Tesi di dottorato
File allegati
File Dimensione Formato  
2016_03_PhD_Zindato.pdf

non accessibile

Descrizione: testo della tesi
Dimensione 11.56 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
11.56 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10589/117861