PLATFORMS
FOR
MULTI-CULTURAL
EXPLORATION
IN
VIETNAM
IN
PRESSURE
COOKER:
SUSTAINABILITY
IN A PRESSURE
COOKER:
PLATFORMS
FOR
MULTI-CULTURAL
EXPLORATION
IN VIETNAM
SHAUNA
JIN
SUSTAINABILITY
IN A PRESSURE
COOKER:
PLATFORMS FOR
MULTI-CULTURAL
EXPLORATION
IN VIETNAM
Design for Sustainability Program publication no. 29
ISBN 97890-6562-3850 Shauna Jin, 2015
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. ir.K.C.A.M. Luyben voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op 28 Oktober 2015 om 12:30 uur
door Shauna JIN
ingenieur industrieel ontwerper, TU Delft NL bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, MIT USA bachelor of science in architectural art and design, MIT USA
copromotor: Dr. M.R.M. Crul Composition of Doctoral Committee:
Rector Magnificus, chairperson
Prof. dr. ir. J.C. Brezet, Technische Universiteit Delft,
promotor
Dr. M.R.M. Crul, Technische Universiteit Delft,
copromotor
Independent members:
Prof. dr. P.V. Kandachar, Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. dr. H.H.C.M. Christiaans, Ulsan National Institute
of Science and Technology
Prof. dr. A. Remmen, Aalborg Universitet Prof. dr. C. Ryan, University of Melbourne Dr. F. Swierczek, Asian Institute of Technology
Center Vietnam
Other member:
Prof. dr. ir. R.H.M. Goossens, Technische Universiteit Delft,
reserve member
This Ph.D. research was funded by the Sustainable Product Innovation Project (SPIN) under the EU SWITCH-ASIA Programme.
Attribution-ShareAlike, CC BY-SA by Shauna Jin. Remix, tweak, and build upon this work even for commercial purposes.
Credit the author and license new creations under identical terms. See https://creative-commons.org/licenses.
1. Introduction
1.1. Global and local dimensions of sustainability 1.1.1. Sustainability in Vietnam
1.2. The context of sustainable product development in Vietnam 1.2.1. Local consumers
1.2.2. Local producers
1.2.3. Local product designers
1.3. Visions and actions toward a sustainable future 1.4. Two expert-consultant approaches
1.4.1. Product transfer approaches 1.4.2. Knowledge transfer approaches 1.5. Positioning the research
1.5.1. A focus on local designers
1.5.2. A knowledge exchange approach 1.5.3. The research question guiding the study 1.6. Thesis outline
2. Research design
2.1. Unpacking the research question 2.1.1. Leveraging design
2.1.2. International knowledge exchanges 2.1.3. Emergent contexts
2.1.4. Fostering sustainable product development practices 2.2. Research framework
2.3. Research questions and approach 2.3.1. Research questions
2.3.2. Approach
2.3.3. Research quality: validity
3. Studio design and adaptation
3.1. Future Living Studio design 3.1.1. Vision
3.1.2. Concept
3.1.3. General intervention design 3.2. Initial studio design: FLS 1
3.2.1. Intervention design 3.2.2. Mechanism design 3.3. Adapted design: FLS 2
3.3.1. Tuning the intervention design to Vietnam 3.3.2. Mechanism design to capitalize on learning 3.4. Summary
4. Future Living Studio in Vietnam
4.1. Case description
4.1.1. Holistic case and studio sub-units 4.1.2. An overview of the studios
4.2. Base case: FLS 1 4.2.1. Overview 4.2.2. Starting conditions 13 14 14 18 18 19 20 25 27 27 27 29 29 30 30 34 41 43 43 45 46 48 51 53 53 54 60 67 70 70 70 71 76 76 78 82 83 84 90 95 97 97 97 100 100 100
4.2.3. Studio processes 4.3. Adaptation: FLS 2
4.3.1. Overview
4.3.2. Starting conditions 4.3.3. Studio processes 4.4. Transfer to the North: FLS 3
4.4.1. Overview
4.4.2. Starting conditions 4.4.3. Studio processes 4.5. Connecting the studios
4.5.1. Processes linking the studios 4.5.2. Aggregate outcomes
4.5.3. Tracing longer-term connections and processes 4.6. Reflection on the project
4.6.1. SPIN project goals 4.6.2. FLS goals and vision 4.6.3. Research goals 4.7. Summary
5. Theoretical templates for emerging contexts
5.1. Theoretical approach
5.1.1.Alternative Templates Strategy 5.1.2.Template selection
5.2. Socio-technical experimentation: a strategic frame 5.2.1. Defining socio-technical experiments
5.2.2. Starting conditions: niches 5.2.3. Action-reflection processes 5.2.4. Outcomes
5.2.5. Connecting experiments
5.2.6. Enabling desired processes and outcomes 5.3. Bricolage: an adaptive process for dynamic contexts
5.3.1. Defining bricolage
5.3.2. Starting conditions: Resources at hand 5.3.3. Action-reflection processes: “making do” 5.3.4. Outcomes
5.3.5. Connecting: Two organizational processes 5.3.6. Enabling desired processes and outcomes 5.4. Insider-outsider theory: a lens for collaboration
5.4.1. Defining the insider-outsider continuum
5.4.2. Starting conditions: Relative insiders and outsiders 5.4.3. Action-reflection processes
5.4.4. Outcomes
5.4.5. Connecting processes
5.4.6. Enabling desired processes and outcomes 5.5. Connection to the empirical case in Vietnam
5.5.1. Socio-technical experimentation 5.5.2. Bricolage 5.5.3. I/O collaboration 5.6. Discussion 106 116 116 118 124 135 135 136 140 149 149 150 153 158 158 158 159 160 165 167 167 167 169 169 169 169 170 170 173 175 175 176 176 178 179 179 181 181 182 182 183 184 184 186 186 187 188 189
5.6.1. Starting conditions
5.6.2. Action-reflection processes 5.6.3. Outcomes
5.6.4. Connecting processes 5.7. Summary
6. Process and outcome analysis
6.1. Method
6.2. Socio-technical experimentation template 6.2.1. Starting conditions
6.2.2. Action-reflection processes 6.2.3. Outcomes
6.2.4. Connecting processes
6.2.5. Design and management strategies 6.3. Bricolage template
6.3.1. Starting conditions
6.3.2. Action-reflection processes 6.3.3. Outcomes
6.3.4. Connecting processes
6.3.5. Design and management strategies 6.4. Insider-outsider template
6.4.1. Starting conditions
6.4.2. Action-reflection processes 6.4.3. Outcomes
6.4.4. Connecting processes
6.4.5. Design and management strategies 6.5. Discussion
6.5.1. Reflection on the templates 6.5.2. Cross-cutting themes 6.6. Summary
7. Product evaluation
7.1. Two approaches
7.1.1. Limitations of a pure Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach 7.1.2. Incorporating value into sustainability
7.1.3. Approach
7.2. Evaluating products between studios using HSR 7.2.1. Method
7.2.2. Results 7.2.3. Discussion
7.3. Evaluating the products in general using EVR 7.3.1. Method
7.3.2. Results 7.3.3.Discussion 7.4. Summary
8. Conclusions
8.1. Main research findings
8.1.1. Revisiting the sub-research questions
189 190 190 191 192 199 201 202 203 203 205 207 207 212 212 212 217 218 219 221 221 221 226 226 227 233 233 235 239 245 247 249 249 249 250 250 253 256 259 262 264 277 281 287 289 290
8.1.2. Revising the research framework and propositions 8.2. Theoretical contributions
8.2.1. Future research and limitations 8.3. Practical contributions and impacts
8.3.1. Reflection on the multi-level impact of FLS 8.3.2. Reflection on the praxis in Vietnam
8.3.3. Design-oriented bricolage for sustainable product development: recommendations
Boxes
1. Overview of the Sustainable Product Innovation Project 2. Author’s experiences in the field
3. The Future Living Studios (FLS)
4. The researcher’s perspective and positionality 5. Building a shared visionon sustainability 6. The researcher’s role in the studies 7. Friday Open Tea (FOT)
8. Theoretical contributions to interventions 9. Cross-cultural and positionality factors 10. Radical or not?
11. Closing thoughts
Collages
1. Contextualizing Vietnam
2. Wood / bamboo / rattan / water hyacinth: Material and production culture in Vietnam 3. Facilitated activities
4. Collaboration within the team 5. Collaboration with producers 6. Connecting to the public 7. FLS 1 collection
8. FLS 2 collection 9. FLS 3 collection
10. Connecting to users and markets
References Abbreviations Summary Samenvatting Tóm Lược Appendices A. Cases in Vietnam B. HSA
C. EVR LCA Sheets D. EVR Regression results
Publications Curriculum Vitae Acknowledgements Colophon 294 299 300 302 302 303 304 16 22 32 58 87 98 133 193 229 274 307 9 37 63 91 161 195 242 243 244 283 311 319 321 327 333 339 347 355 369 375 376 377 378
“From my first impression of Vietnam and its furniture/
handicraft industry, I discovered that the web of
stakeholders throughout the production and supply
chain was very rich, connecting a host of diverse
actors; a naturally evolved ecosystem of craftsmen/
women, suppliers, middlemen, etc. Ngoc Dong Company
is deeply connected to and indeed grew out of several
craft villages, evolving into a communally owned
entity in the Communist era, and into its
manifestation today as a company. Supplying parts for
Ngoc Dong provides important supplementary income
for the farmers in these villages beyond connecting
them to the heritage of rattan weaving. Ngoc Dong in
turn is accustomed to accommodating the seasonal rice
farming needs of farmers and factory workers. There
is a unique opportunity to work off of the existing
relationships present in this region, to connect past,
to present to future...”
Field notes from Vietnam,
May 18th 2010
1.1. Global and local dimensions of sustainability
The world is more interconnected now than ever, and addressing the state of global unsustainability at all scales is likely one of the greatest challenges of our times, not only in industrialized contexts but also in emerging ones. Since the publication of the Silent Spring (1962), the foundation of the Club of Rome (1968), and the publication of the Bruntland Report (1987), to name a few sources, there has been a steady influx of reports detailing environmental challenges such as resource depletion, the detrimental effects of climate change, and negative socio-political-economic consequences stemming from environmental issues.
Though much “know how” has been built up in the last 20 years, issues of over- and hyper-consumption in “developed” and industrialized countries have not yet been adequately addressed, and meanwhile the same problems are mirrored and, in some cases, accelerated in emergent contexts for sus-tainability in Asia and all over the world. Indeed, the Western design communi-ty has only recently started to discuss the role that technologies and artifacts play in issues of production and consumption (Thorpe 2010). In addition, industrializing countries bear the double burden of shouldering impacts from production activities for global consumption markets, as well as the impacts from their growing domestic, middle-class consumer segments (Schultz et al. 2002). The addressing sustainability in emergent contexts thus, has global and local dimensions of responsibility.
1.1.1. Sustainability in Vietnam
Since the implementation of Đổi Mới1 in 1986, Vietnam has been in transition
from a centrally planned economy. This has produced today’s Vietnam, which is a complex mix of State controlled and market oriented processes (Scott, et al. 2006). As a result, Vietnam has undergone rapid economic development with an average growth of 6.4% annually. It is now classified as a lower middle income country and has achieved most of the Millennium Development Goals. Vietnam has been particularly successful in addressing poverty reduction, education and gender equality. Vietnam’s labor intensive manufacturing exports, such as furniture, have played a key role in pushing the country’s rapid development. Recently, Vietnam has moved into high-tech, high-value products such as electronics and computers that now takes the largest export share (World Bank 2015).
Like in the rest of the world, Vietnam is witnessing side effects of “devel-opment” that create motivation to act toward fostering sustainability. Vietnam must reconcile its continuing economic growth with environmental, societal and cultural impacts. Its growth has come with a price tag. The country is experiencing environmental degradation (pollution, health scandals, etc.), resource shortage from over exploitation of natural resources, and climate change vulnerability. These effects are linked to rapid economic growth and
1 Literally “renovation” referring to economic reforms to create a “socialist-oriented market economy” (Worldometers 2015)
widespread production activities, mainly for export markets. The World Bank calculated in 2010, that Vietnam lost 5.5% of its GDP to pollution and energy waste annually, not including the money spent to address community health problems linked to pollution (WWF Vietnam 2010).
The SWITCH-Asia, Sustainable Product Innovation (SPIN) project, which this research is a part of (see box 1), and adjacent projects such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) sustainable rattan project, the GIZ sustainable timber project, etc. are projects that represent international interest in addressing sustainable practices connected to product development in Vietnam. These projects exemplify a small sub-section of many more projects aimed at ad-dressing diverse sectors touching sustainability and sustainable development in Vietnam. Indeed, the Vietnamese government has taken the Rio+20 sustain-able development goals as national goals from 2011-2020 with priority on developing a green economy (UNCSD 2012). This research project locates itself in the context of Vietnamese small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) that represent 21.4% of production networks, and 16.8% of exports (Wignaraja 2012); specifically this research project targets handicraft and furniture production sectors.
Aligned with the SPIN Project’s goals, the starting point of this research is to address sustainable product development practices in these industries. Within SPIN’s target stakeholders, designers are particularly identified as key actors. Designers play a significant role in determining the sustainability of products. Indeed, 90% of a product’s impact is determined in the design phase (Hawken et al. 1999). According to Papanek (1972), “there are profes-sions more harmful than design, but only a few of them”. Thus, addressing sustainable design can have an impact on both local and global scales as Vietnamese producers continue to export products, and start to access the domestic market.
This thesis project is part of the four year, European Union, SWITCH-ASIA, Sustainable Product Innovation (SPIN) project. The project resulted from pressures to promote sustain-able product innovation in Asia following the global sustainability agenda, and to promote ties between European and Asian partners includ-ing between industry, knowledge centers, and local organizations. SPIN aims to promote green product development practices in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos by disseminating the Design for Sustainability
(D4S) methodology.
The SPIN project couples the introduction of sustainability with product innovation knowledge to increase the competitiveness of participating SMEs. The project gives input on domains including design, marketing, and branding to “ develop and produce more sustainable and advanced products for the domestic, regional and European markets” (Le et al. 2010).
The implementation takes place throughout four cycles of scaling/ customization and outreach. The D4S methodology is transferred to local producers and consultants via train-of-trainers (ToT) trainings, demon-stration projects, and other knowl-edge and network building activities. External experts work with internal stakeholders to conduct demonstra-tion projects to design and re-design products within small to medium size enterprises (SMEs) (Crul and Diehl, 2006; Crul, Diehl, and Ryan 2009). The main technology of SPIN is the D4S methodology. Developed at the
Technical University Delft, D4S claims to be a promising strategy to transfer sustainable product innova-tion knowledge to emerging econo-mies (Crul and Diehl 2006; 2009; Jansen and Crul 2012), building off of Eco-Design (Brezet and van Hemel 1997; Ryan 2003). D4S is a leapfrog approach that aims to transfer a sustainable design process to local producers, designers, and consul-tants. An assumption behind the SPIN project is that sustainable design methodology developed for the context of emerging economies can be transferred and adapted to the South East Asian context. This meth-odology has been applied and tested throughout the world, in Middle America, South America, Africa, and Asia, and has the potential for wide dissemination and impact in emerging economies as the official sustainable product development approach championed by the United Nations Environmental Programme.
BOX 1:
Overview of the Sustainable Product Innovation (SPIN) Project
Partners:
> Vietnam Cleaner Production Center (VNCPC),
> the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Vietnam,
> United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP),
> and Delft University of Technology (TU Delft).
When:
April 2010 - April 2014.
Where:
The project set up its headquarters, the Green Office (G.O.) on the campus of Bach Khoa University of Technology in Hanoi in close proximi-ty to VNCPC. The office housed 20-30 full time staff for the SPIN project and for related projects.
Budget:
2.85 million EUR of which 80% comes from the EU SWITCH Asia
Pro-gramme. Countries: Vietnam, Cam-bodia, and Laos.
Sectors:
Furniture, handicraft, fashion, foot-wear and food packaging.
Key activities:
Dissemination of the D4S methodolo-gy through train-the-trainers work-shops, company work with local and external consultants, and participa-tion and organizaparticipa-tion of networking activities.
Goals:
200+ national trainers are trained in D4S methodology.
50+ national trainers conduct work in 500+ companies to develop
1,000+ new or re-designed products.
Technology:
The main technology of SPIN is the Design for Sustainability (D4S) methodology that embeds a Life Cycle approach to applying environ-mental sustainability in the product design process (see http://www. spin-asia.org and http://d4s-de.org/ for more information about the fund-ing project and its methodology).
Evaluation tools:
Company project evaluation reports and the UNIDO Holistic Sustainability Assessment (HSA).
1.2. The context of sustainable product development in Vietnam
Several developments have created opportunities to develop sustainable products in and for Vietnam. This section quickly sketches out the context in 2015, zooming in from local consumers, to producers, and to designers, who are also the main focus of this research. They are the three interconnected stakeholder groups that this thesis must touch on either directly or indirectly. Issues of sustainable product development necessarily touch the larger context of users, consumers, and the community. Thus, the current context, challenges, and the opportunity to address sustainability are outlined for each stakeholder group. The findings are supported by several pre-studies and practical work conducted within the SPIN project starting in 2010 (see box 2). This quick sketch aims to give a rough idea of the context for addressing sustainable product development in Vietnam.
1.2.1. Local consumers
The growing domestic market is becoming attractive to local and foreign investors (Meyer et al. 2006). The Vietnamese economy has grown steadily at an average rate of 6.1% per year from 2000 to 2014 (Trading Economics 2015). By 2020, the middle-class is forecasted to grow to about 33 million consumers (out of 93 million people) (Boston Consulting Group 2013; Worldometers 2015). Their increased spending power and development as consumers is reflected in their diversifying tastes and knowledge regarding products and brands (Trinh 2007). In addition, international flows of people are quickly hybridizing the domestic market. The exchange between Vietnamese consum-ers, returning Việt Kiều2, Vietnamese who have lived, worked, or studied
overseas, expats living in Vietnam, traveled wealthy-classes, and aspirational middle- classes have interacted with international communities and have imitated, assimilated, and co-opted global consumption patterns. Moreover, advertising and fashion trends have been modeled after global trends and many in Vietnam wish to emulate such patterns.
Currently, the availability of high-quality or suitable, local products is limited, though Vietnamese people would perhaps like to support Vietnam by buying local products. Often, consumers consider Vietnamese-made prod-ucts poor in quality or too traditional for their tastes. Uncontrolled retail environments feature both real and fake products next to each other, lowering the trustworthiness of products (Kovacevic 2011). The furniture that is avail-able lacks, for example, considerations of the use context, or considerations of ergonomics fitting the Vietnamese body.
There is an opportunity to shape new consumption patterns that steer away from the unsustainable consumption lifestyles demonstrated by industri-alized countries; this will require targeting emerging domestic, Vietnamese consumer groups whose tastes are influenced by local, regional, and global
2 The term used in Vietnam to refer to the overseas Vietnamese that once migrated or are part of the post-war diasporic community that make up around 4 million ethnic Vietnamese overseas.
trends. Consumption patterns are being formed now and will be fixed in the next two decades (Tukker et al. 2008). Sustainable production and consump-tion issues will be exacerbated if these emerging consumer groups follow the unsustainable trajectories exemplified by their Western counterparts.
1.2.2. Local producers
Vietnamese furniture and handicraft producers have much experience producing commodity products, mainly for export markets. Vietnam has long been a popular manufacturing destination for producing for export markets; 60% growth of foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2014 was attributed to manufacturing (Jennings 2015). Vietnam is well known as one of the top producers of mass-produced handicraft products in the world (Breu et al. 2012). Environmental sustainability challenges in these sectors are especially pressing because traditional resources such as wood, bamboo and rattan are in short supply with the growing demand outstripping the supply; this has led to illegal exploitation of resources originating from Laos and Cambodia (Le et al. 2010). Over-exploitation of renewable resources combined with the fact that Vietnamese industries depend heavily on these resources, means that the natural ecosystems are beyond their carrying capacity.
Vietnamese producers must transition from producing commodity prod-ucts to activities with higher value such as design to survive the high competi-tion in shrinking export markets, to cope with increasing human and physical capital costs, and to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the growing domestic market (Andrew and Yali 2012; Breu et al. 2012). To increase their market share in local and export markets, Vietnamese SMEs have to improve many design aspects of their products including: aesthetics, function, quality, and branding. They can no longer rely on the country’s low-wage, abundant labor model of production. Producers have to add sustainable value to their products in order to remain competitive. The need to support design activities in practice is recognized by international organizations in Vietnam (Brandth et al. 2011); examples are the CBI project, WWF Rattan project, and the establishment of the Design Center Hanoi.
Design, branding, or marketing are new areas of competence for SME producers. Though producers are training their sights on local markets, they have limited experience accessing those channels. Many local producers have been exposed to global trends through their experience producing for export markets, but do not know how to target domestic markets because, in the past, exporters or buyers have dictated design ideas. Producers who manufacture traditional handicrafts cannot access the globalizing local market with which they lack familiarity, while local consumers are not attracted to “traditional” or “old fashioned” products or local materials. Among barriers are the producers’ unwillingness to change from their business as usual attitude and their unwillingness to invest in design due to the prevalent copy culture (Kovacevic 2010).
The environmental benefits for increasing the capacity for sustainable product development for the local market are severalfold. For sustainability,
local production and consumption systems (PCSs) are preferable to global production and consumption systems; local products allow for savings on transportation costs for distribution that are linked to emissions. Local PCSs also contribute positively to local autonomy and economy. Especially regard-ing access to local markets, Vietnamese SMEs are well-situated to understand and design for the needs and cultural trends of their home markets.
1.2.3. Local product designers
As of now, the design discipline is emerging, and there are still relatively few product designers in Vietnam. As of 2015, there are only two schools in the South of Vietnam offering dedicated product design programs. In the North of Vietnam, product designers come from adjacent disciplines like architecture, interior design, fine arts, or mechanical engineering. Designers working in production companies tend to see a small part of the design process; they make 3D drawings, on very fast time schedules, with minimal strategic influ-ence, and with no time for reflection in the process (Simane 2012). For the designers who work in design, rather than production settings, there is a burgeoning design scene for local use or in the hospitality industry, that caters to expats, tourists, and local trend setters (e.g. Metiseko, L’usine, District8, Bosua). This scene is stimulated by exchanges with visiting and local design-ers, some of whom have studied abroad, as well as exchanges with adjacent fields such as fashion, graphic design or art. However, the focus of much activity is on aesthetic design.
There are several broad challenges for product designers working in Vietnam: 1) understanding of the importance of the value of design and product innovation by stakeholders within the value chain is limited, 2) design-ers lack power within the value chain, and 3) strategic thinking and sustainabil-ity thinking are not part of designers’ skill set. Findings from the pre-studies show the mismatch between designers’ education and the actual production context; local design informants cited lack of material and production knowl-edge that is needed in practice. Several company directors echoed this sentiment; they explained that designers entering the workforce, “are very good at making 3d visualizations, but lack technical skills”. The result is that designers working in production companies have relatively low power and confidence which is magnified by hierarchical distance (to management and customers) and often physical distance (to production staff) to other key stakeholders in the value chain. Employees such as designers do not tradition-ally take part in the decision making process within the Vietnamese leadership structure (Quang and Vuong 2002:8). During interactions with management, designers face the disadvantage that all the information about customers and market is held at the top and not translated downward in the organization; this is a characteristic of hierarchical societies, and can be an obstacle to innova-tion. Additional cultural traits such as fear of making mistakes and losing face lower designers’ confidence in the work place.
The nascent community of local product designers could make the link between producers, consumers, and sustainability. Design is viewed as a key
activity and leverage point for adding value and international competitiveness (Diehl 2012). And process knowledge about design is linked to creativity (Christiaans and Venselaar 2005). Other Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines have invested in developing design institutes and education to improve the competitiveness of their indus-tries (Amir 2004). Designers can connect to the emerging arts and design scene and capitalize off of customization potential because production centers are still fairly near. However, local designers need more knowledge on how to make the shift from aesthetic designers to strategic designers in order to tackle sustainability holistically in the product development process.
Empirical work was conducted within the SPIN project from 2010-2011, and my roles were:
> as a trainer at Train the Trainer (ToT) workshops teaching modules on strategic design, marketing and branding
> as a coach/mentor for Master’s students conducting their thesis research in the Vietnamese context
> as a design consultant leading work within companies such as developing branding strategies for handicrafts (see figures 1.1 and 1.2).
> as a researcher shadowing consultant work with Dutch design experts within companies and interviewing companies, designers, and support organizations. The work conducted in the pre-study could be classified as observational studies or action oriented studies to expose sustainable and strategic design thinking to local parties. These experiences gave me a sense of the state of design in Vietnam including the current position of Vietnamese designers and producers, opportunity areas to foster sustainable design practices in Vietnam, and how to work within the Vietnamese context as an outsider.
The work within SPIN helped me understand the opportunities to leverage project and local resources to eventually develop the Future Living Studios. I learned things such as, who key gatekeepers were in the local context for enabling or blocking work (upper management), motivations of different stakeholders in the value chain, and how to communicate and collaborate with them. I started to form my own assumptions through working in SPIN in these various roles:
> Local designers should be the key people to target as cultural brokers for sustainability throughout the whole value chain. They need more input to overcome cultural (hierarchy) or knowledge barriers to take a strategic role in the design process and influence sustainability of the process and results. > Local producers, while critical to involve in the change process, should not
be the key focus of interventions because are not likely to communicate knowledge gained across the value chain. Producers are in survival mode. > Emerging, local user groups are potential groups to target, which would not
be adverse to supporting local firms. There is little market penetration by local firms and segments are quickly diversifying.
> Support organizations tend to go for numbers and import consultants to bridge the gap between design, production, and market but local capacity toward filling that gap is not guaranteed.
> Strategic design facilitation could enable collaboration on sustainability between diverse stakeholders.
BOX 2:
Figure 1.1. shows pictures from a series of workshops designed to explore holistic sustainable thinking through the development of a logo and branding strategy for a ceramic crafts village producer Vietnam. The goal of the workshops was to sensitize participants both company or present tense and local consultants to design thinking methods, strategic
thinking, while co-creating logo and branding directions for the producer. The workshops involved company representatives, local green office consultants, and others in analyzing and co-creating a new vision for Thuy Phu Lang company.
Figure 1.1.
An example of workshops conducted in the SPIN Green Office, designed to expose strategic thinking on sustainable
design through logo and branding development through workshops with Thuy Phu Lang ceramics company in August 2010.
Figure 1.2 shows the collaborative development of the logo. 100+ concepts were generated within a workshop and then narrowed down to three con-cepts. The company took the results back to develop refined logo ideas with feedback from me, the consultant. I developed a morphological chart to show themes that emerged from an analysis of the ideas. The company developed the final concepts combining the artisans signature with an image represent-ing proficient that could double as a seal two brands physical products.
Figure 1.2.
Example of logo development consultation with Thuy Phu Lang ceramics company: workshop results, iterations by the producer, and feedback consultant (in italics)
1.3. Visions and actions toward a sustainable future
The field notes at the beginning of the chapter reveals the complex dynamic between the old and the new in Vietnam; the perseverance of an agricultural past despite the transition to middle-income country, and producer for global markets. New systems have grown out of old systems, and are still part of them. As Vietnam continues to attain economic growth, more prosperity and connection to the global mainstream it will also continue to adopt and adapt models representing development and prosperity whether those examples are from the West or from other “prospering” Asian neighbors (e.g. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan), as exemplified by the popularity of Korean soaps and fashion. This eagerness is enhanced by the country’s inclusion process into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and current negotiations for the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement both premised on further opening up Vietnam to global markets.
From a global perspective, visions and actions at a local scale impact, and are impacted by global developments. Competing visions show the complexity of negotiating the present in relation to the past and the future and in relation to all local scales. Who should be involved in imagining and bringing about de-sired, sustainable futures; and how should those actors go about actuating those visions? In this thesis, sustainability is viewed as a moving target rather than a fixed goal (Hjorth and Bagheri 2006). In this approach, the values of stakeholders evolve and change in a learning-by-doing process; this is an inherently more equitable approach than a goal oriented definition of sustain-ability, which is especially relevant for exploring sustainability in cross cultural contexts. In this approach, goals and values evolve throughout the process.
Here, the definition of sustainability is taken as, “the possibility that human and other life will flourish on the planet forever” (Ehrenfeld 2008:6). This definition challenges a core assumption of sustainable development that addressing unsustainability will create sustainability. Though ideas of reduc-tion and efficiency are important, such as those espoused by the Eco-design approaches used by the SWITCH-SPIN project, past experience has shown that these approaches are only partial solutions, demonstrated by the unin-tended consequences or rebound effects that cancel out gains and ultimately increase unsustainability.
How to make the switch to creating sustainability rather than reducing unsustainability? Though the stakes are high, a long term perspective and openness to challenging core values are key factors in avoiding global collapse (Diamond 2005). Ehrenfeld (2008) proposes that design can create fundamen-tal change toward realizing sustainability by creating new visions, realities, paradigms and cultural structures. As a cultural phenomenon, sustainability must be addressed in relation to the larger cultural context (Ehrenfeld
2008:79). This will entail a change process that will take a shift from an attitude of problem solving to nurturing possibility to recognize that sustainability is both an outcome and an emergent property of systems (Ehrenfeld 2008:5).
A potential approach is to mobilize both global and local knowledge to address global unsustainability. The interconnectedness of the world makes it
possible to learn from examples throughout the world and throughout history (Diamond 2005:522). Global sustainability and design knowledge, perspec-tives, and approaches have been built up over the last decades can be com-bined with knowledge and approaches from emerging locales for sustainability as both a preventative and a parallel track to address the issue of over- and hyper-consumption in industrialized countries. Diverse knowledge on sustain-ability, developed in the last decades, could be used to leapfrog unsustainable production and consumption scenarios in emerging economies. However, there are no one-size fits all solutions for sustainability. Complementary local knowledge is needed to adapt and embed diverse sustainability knowledge in a learning-by-doing process in the cultural contexts in which they are launched.
1.4. Two expert-consultant approaches
The potential to use global knowledge on sustainability that has been developed in the last decades to leapfrog unsustainable production and consumption scenarios has not yet adequately been addressed (Hart and Millstein 1999; Tukker et al. 2008). The rhythm of the introduction of new sustainability con-cepts has been too fast or not suitable to the context and has created the opposite of what was intended, for example fostering uncertainty, dependency, and unforeseen impacts.
Sustainability and sustainable product development are traditionally approached from the top-down where international expert-consultants develop local “solutions” for local stakeholders or transfer knowledge to build up local capacity. There is often a mismatch between imported sustainability goals and the cultural context. This can be partially attributed to the fact that those importing one model often fail to recognize or value existing local methods during the exchange. Applying one-size-fits all, Procrustean bed solutions fail to recognize the existence of local knowledge and context factors, and are characteristic of aid and sustainable development approaches (Ramalingam 2013). The assumption that interventions are necessary or “good” is rarely questioned.
1.4.1. Product transfer approaches
Many dominant approaches rely on bringing in design knowledge from the outside. Expert approaches can foster dependency on outside expertise and encourage passive participation by local actors (Thomas 2006). Product trans-fer approaches that involve participation by cultural insiders, such as examples from design for development, humanitarian design, bottom of the pyramid (BOP), or appropriate technology (Basu and Weil 1996; Kandachar and Halme 2008). These approaches often rely on bringing in external design experts with a focus on designing products for local users as output. There is no guarantee that the products developed will be used, and there are many examples of inappro-priate technology solutions that failed to consider cultural fit to local practices or to the local context (Malik et al. 2012; Romeiro Filho 2013; Thomas 2006).
Product or design transfer from outside consultants to local companies can result in products brought to export markets, but process knowledge is not necessarily transferred (Thomas 2006; Romeiro Filho 2014). This is the favored approach of many organizations in Vietnam, and it is important as a parallel track to build up the awareness of the value of design. However, this approach is limiting; knowledge built up during interventions often cannot be replicated or built upon by local stakeholders afterward, which maintains dependency on outside design input.
1.4.2. Knowledge transfer approaches
Knowledge transfer approaches that aim to build up local capacity can be problematic in their framing and application. They cannot be reassigned ‘as is’
to local consultants, designers and producers but have to be adapted to country specific, socio-economic conditions (Diehl 2012); local partners cannot necessarily replicate the sustainable product development process beyond the bounds of the project (Thomas 2006). Importing sustainability knowledge can be inappropriate, senseless or lead to unintended effects such as the destruction of vernacular design knowledge or homogenization of design practices (Faulconbridge 2012). Additionally, production technology transfer in the traditional handicrafts sector can unwittingly cause local peo-ple to lose, or prejudice them against, valuable traditional skills that can be more sustainable than their replacements (Romeiro Filho 2013). A pre-study conducted in SPIN with Ngoc Dong Company (from the first quotation) brought dilemmas to light — “efficient” designs developed to simplify the handicraft process and increase production capacity could result in the loss of valuable local handicraft knowledge and skill.
1.5. Positioning the research project
Synthesizing the limitations of the approaches discussed above shows that there is an opportunity to foster local capacity for action and problem solving by connecting global approaches to local approaches. New university collabo-rations with organizations and industry can support “research-teaching-com-munity-enagement” interventions (Ryan 2013). The product transfer approaches provide the opportunity to work toward replacing outside, international consul-tants in the future. On the other hand, the knowledge transfer approach clearly indicates that more local, context specific input is needed to adapt outside knowledge. Furthermore, knowledge transfer can be reframed to knowledge exchange to shift actors from passive to active participation. From a long-term point of view the success of interventions depends on whether enough capacity is developed for local actors to independently take over processes after inter-ventions are over. This requires an open and engaged approach to considering how to bring in transnational influences in local contexts.
The SPIN project has the ambition to create self-sufficiency but needs more focused efforts to target local designers. A two-week training workshop on D4S can introduce Vietnamese producers and consultants to design and sustainability concepts, but a second step is needed to bring theory to prac-tice. Attendees of the trainings, e.g. a director of a production SME, cannot implement the methodology as a non-designer, but can play a crucial role in supporting the implementation. Assuming that designers can be trained in D4S within a one-week training workshop, it is another step to address the lack of power of designers in the hierarchical, Vietnamese firm, which would be a major barrier to implementing the methodology. International designers can be imported to lead projects to demonstrate that design can lead to market success, but how much knowledge stays behind after they leave? How much specifically on sustainability? These examples illustrate the difficulty in connecting short-term interventions, such as trainings or demonstration projects, to the long-term goal of building sustainable practices in Vietnam.
1.5.1. A focus on local designers
Early experiences in SPIN showed that a parallel focus was needed on engag-ing local designers in sustainable product development processes, in addition to engaging environmental consultants, engineers and producers (see box 2). Product development cannot be sustainable in the long term if sustainable design competence is not developed “in- house” in Vietnam. Thus, this proj-ect attempts to bridge the gap between local designers and other stakehold-ers in the value chain by cross-pollinating theories and methods on sustain-able design with local knowledge and expertise. The questions are then, how to provide Vietnamese designers with tools necessary on the one hand, and how to incorporate traditional or local methods, processes and knowledge from producers on the other hand, to address sustainable design in increas-ingly hybrid local-global markets. This change process requires mobilization of the entire value chain involving designers, producers, and potential users.
1.5.2. A knowledge exchange approach
A second starting point of this research is that knowledge exchange through collaboration, instead of conventional knowledge transfer, can foster sustain-able product development practices in Vietnam. Focusing on the processes of collaboration, exchange, and learning can provide long-term orientation for short-term projects. This approach recognizes that local actors are the long-term stakeholders in initiating the paradigm shift needed toward sustainability on a local level. Collaboration activates all stakeholders to take ownership for their areas of expertise so that fruitful knowledge exchange can be recom-bined into embedded, local solutions and simultaneously support local inde-pendence and capacity building. Knowledge exchange means that localized sustainability visions can be built from the bottom-up to engage both local as well as the global sustainability discourses.
1.5.3. The research question guiding the study
This research assumes that developing a framework to combine existing methods and theory from design and sustainability with local knowledge can act as a starting point to leapfrog past unsustainable trajectories. Thus, the main research question guiding this study is:
What is the potential for design to leverage global and local knowledge exchanges in emergent contexts to foster sustainable product development practices?
This question is principally explored by developing the Future Living Studios (FLS), experimental cross-cultural design studios that aim to invest in local designers, who are currently under-represented in local production systems, as future change agents to connect sustainability, design, production, and consumption locally, and invite them into the discussion on sustainable design in Vietnam alongside other stakeholders in the value chain (see box 3). The studios attempt to bridge the methods and materials used by Vietnamese producers and artisans with global frameworks and methods to address local market segments that demonstrate increasingly globalized consumption patterns. Bringing the global discourse on sustainability to Vietnam via these interventions is not an attempt to “Westernize the Vietnamese market” but to address the gap in an already globalizing (hence by default also partially self-westernizing) market.
The research project is situated between research-through-design and practice-based design research. Research-through-design uses design as a tool to integrate diverse inputs and generate “knowledge, know-how and tools for problem solving”. Practice-based design research extracts generaliz-able knowledge through reflexivity in the design process in real contexts (Horvath 2004).
In this thesis, design is both the context and the operational tool of the iterative research process. Design is used to develop and adapt interventions
by using tools from design, e.g. facilitation and training, in action research cycles. The interventions feedback into both practical project development and theory development. Research-through- design and action research approaches are blended to develop the Future Living Studio concept within the SPIN project in Vietnam. For the analysis, the studios are analyzed as real design contexts for creating generalizable knowledge.
The Future Living Studios (FLS) are sub-projects within the SPIN Project that aim to develop a parallel track to focus on supporting local designers. These studios aim to take a small step in promoting the adoption of sustainable practices and know-how that are appropriate to the local context when designing and produc-ing for globalizproduc-ing local markets so that the process can be independent-ly continued in the future. The studios are cross-cultural, collaborative platforms for learning-by-doing exploration on sustainable design in Vietnam connecting designers, local furniture and handicraft producers, support organizations, and the greater community. The studios address both the Vietnamese’s desire to better understand and cater to foreign markets and the need to address a growing local consumer base in a way that conforms to global sustainability processes by develop-ing sustainable product collections and connected visions. Products, designs, and visions serve as tangi-ble touch points to start a conversa-tion on sustainability in Vietnam. Chapters 4 and 5 will give more information on the design and imple-mentations of the studios in Vietnam. (see www.futurelivingstudio.com for more information about the project). The relationship between FLS and SPIN are explained in table 3.1.
Participants:
Three local designers, three visiting designers, 2-5 participating
producers, and a management team.
Support/Partners:
greater SPIN project, 1st client, ADS Design Institute (FLS 1 and 2), Vietnam Handicraft and Wood Asso-ciation (HAWA) (FLS 2), GIZ Sustain-able Timber Project (FLS 2), Goethe Institut (FLS 3). The contributions of the various partners and stakeholder groups are elaborated in table 3.2.
When/Where:
> FLS 1 (2011 HCMC, VN); > FLS 2 (2012 HCMC, VN); > FLS 3 (2012 Hanoi, VN);
> FLS 4 (2013 Phnom Penh, KH) *the process and results of this studio are not discussed in this thesis.
Budget:
15,000-35,000 USD per studio from the SPIN project
Countries:
Vietnam (3), Cambodia (1)
Sectors: Furniture and handicraft sectors.
Key activities:
Explore sustainable innovation potentials with designers and Viet-namese furniture and handicraft producers. Disseminate process and results of the studios to SPIN and the greater network.
Goals:
Train 3 Vietnamese designers and sensitize 2-5 producers in sustainable product development per studio.
BOX 3:
The participants collaborate to develop 3+ prototypes for each producer demonstrating
1) product-line thinking,
2) collection thinking unifying all designs developed by each studio, and
3) an overarching sustainability vision for the intended market.
Methodology:
1) Diverse sustainability and design frameworks and tools including: D4S methodology, the Delft Design Guide (DDG), and 2) cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary collaboration on new product development.
Evaluation tools:
Company project evaluation reports, UNIDO Holistic Sustainability As-sessment (HSA), Eco-cost Value Ratio (EVR) assessment, this PhD.
1.6. Thesis outline
Chapter 2 unpacks the research question further to develop a research design that will guide the research process from designing interventions to analyzing data. A framework and associated propositions are developed that inform the intervention design, implementation, and analysis. This chapter also attempts to make transparent aspects of the research such as how the perspective of the researcher informed the research process, the theoretical underpinnings of research strategies chosen, and issues of validity dealt with in the research design (see figure 1.3).
Chapter 3 operationalizes the research framework into the design and adapta-tion of Future Living Studio, a temporary studio concept developed within and for the SPIN project and Vietnamese context. The design draws from assump-tions and proposiassump-tions embedded in the research framework and opportuni-ties presented by the practical context. Learning from the initial design is further refined into mechanisms to support desired processes and outcomes in the studio adaptation.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the empirical case study conducted from 2011 to 2013 in the Vietnamese product design industries. Three editions of Future Living Studio aimed to foster sustainable product development practic-es through collaborative learning-by-doing procpractic-esspractic-es. Following the imple-mentation of the base case project in Ho Chi Minh City, the studio was itera-tively adapted and replicated in the South of Vietnam and the North of Vietnam. In sequence, the studios serve as a holistic case study with embedded units (individual studios) showing learning and adaptation in the local context. Chapter 5 introduces three high-potential theories that can shed additional light on mechanisms and processes within the studios in Vietnam. Two tem-plates representing the projects’ goals were selected a priori: socio-technical experimentation and insider outsider templates. Bricolage theory was select-ed basselect-ed on its close fit to the adaptive process followselect-ed in the studios. Chapter 6 analyzes the process of the three studios qualitatively using the three theoretical lenses introduced in chapter 5 as a basis. The findings elaborate processes and outcomes within the research framework and shed light on specific mechanisms that deepen understanding of each studio, and the processes observed within the studios.
Chapter 7 analyzes selected products of the Future Living Studios quantita-tively to evaluate the sustainability of the product outcomes. The analysis gives insight into how sustainable the product outcomes of the studios have been. Two sustainability evaluation methods give different perspectives on how to evaluate and interpret sustainability findings.
Chapter 8 answers the main research question by reflecting and concluding on the findings from the previous chapters in relation to the original aims and objectives of the research project. The strengths and limitations of these studies are discussed by critically examining the structure of the interventions, as well as the unintended consequences and blind spots inherent in the
approach. The chapter closes off the discussion with practical recommenda-tions and some closing thoughts.
Figure 1.3. Thesis outline 1. Introduction 2. Research design 5. Theoretical templates 7. Product evaluation 6. Process and outcome analysis 8. Conclusions 4. Future Living Studio in Vietnam 3. Studio design and
Wo Ba m b o o
Wa t e r h y a c i nt h a n
2. Research desgin
“The imagination is now central to all forms of
agency, is itself a social fact, and is the key
component of the new global order”.
Arjun Appadurai, “Disjuncture and Difference”,
Modernity at Large, pp. 31
The previous chapter introduced the challenge and the opportunity to recom-bine global and local knowledge on product development to foster sustain-ability in emergent contexts such as the Vietnamese furniture and handicraft sectors. An approach to answering the main research question is needed as a next step. This chapter presents a research design that will be implemented to answer the research question.
The research question is unpacked in section 2.1 to develop a series of guiding propositions. Section 2.2 presents an initial research framework that is developed to guide the research process. Following, section 2.3 modifies the initial research question based on the previous discussion, breaks the question down into sub-questions, and explains how the thesis sets off to answer them; the approach takes elements from existing research methods to fulfill both the theoretical and practical aims of the project. Then, I (“the researcher”) position myself in relation to the context and attempt to decon-struct my subjectivity to identify possible biases in my approach to the re-search and design in box 4. The chapter closes with a discussion in section 2.4 on how to ensure the quality of the research process and results.
2.1. Unpacking the research question
The main research question is unpacked in this section to develop a series of propositions and an initial research framework. These tentative propositions guide the theoretical and empirical exploration, and will be developed and challenged throughout the rest of the thesis. Referring back to the main research question:
What is the potential for design to leverage global and local knowledge exchanges in emergent contexts to foster sustainable product development practices?
As discussed in the introduction, exchanging global and local knowledge (hereafter “international knowledge”) has the potential to foster sustainable product development practices in Vietnam. Deconstructing the research question requires clarification on what is meant by: 1) design’s role in leverag-ing international exchanges to foster sustainability, 2) international knowledge exchanges, 3) emergent contexts, and 4) fostering sustainable product development practices. These components of the central question are dis-cussed and refined in the following sections.
2.1.1. Design as a leverage
Implied in the approach is that design can be a tool for leveraging knowledge exchange to foster sustainable product development practices. Indeed, design has grown from its humble beginnings to, “a new liberal art of techno-logical culture,” a discipline that integrates diverse knowledge from fields including the arts and sciences to address problems and concerns of today “for new productive purposes” (Buchanan 1992). Design’s domain has ex-panded to several places of intervention from designing objects and services to complex systems and “environments for living, working, playing, and learning” (Buchanan 1992). This means that design thinking, the application of a designer’s creative, generative, and analytic skills and methods to problem-solving, is now being applied to all problem solving domains.
This shift from artifact to organizational or social transformation design means that design thinking can contribute to addressing societal-level prob-lems such as sustainability in emergent contexts (Thorpe 2010; Manzini 2008). Designers are accustomed to working in complex environments where the outcomes may be unknown, with multiple, overlapping, or conflicting inter-ests, and with a complex, and perhaps contested understanding of who the client is. Both theorists and practitioners agree that design is a powerful tool with which to view and address complex societal problems; problems that are traditionally outside the scope of the design discipline (Humantific 2013; Manzini 2008; Buchanan 1992). According to Buchanan (2001), “design is... one of the practical disciplines of responsible action for bringing the high values of a country or a culture into concrete reality”. Buchanan’s statement talks about design as a transformational agent for realizing higher societal
goals. Along the same lines, Thorpe (2010) proposes that “culturally sustainable design” can generate meaning between individuals and their communities, using alternative economic frameworks for design activities rather than business as usual to play a role in non-profit and social enterprise sectors.
To achieve societal transformation through design a systematic approach is needed, where design and designers act as brokers to negotiating collabo-ration. Many designers call for a “new design discipline” to achieve societal transformation toward a sustainable society that incorporates systemic think-ing as a part of design thinkthink-ing and practice (Burns, et al. 2006; Manzini 2008).
Systematic and visionary
Designers engage in both systematic and visionary thinking that is applicable to complex, dynamic problems (Stappers 2007). According to Diamond (2005), a long term perspective and openness to challenging core values are key factors in addressing sustainability. Challenging core values necessarily takes a visionary approach different from purely analytic approaches. Negoti-ating sustainability is a social change process and the site of conflict and opportunity for visions of the good life. In the words of Christopher Alexander (1964) “scientists try to identify the components of existing structures, de-signers try to shape the components of new structures”. This visionary ability connects to the initial quote that imagination is needed to envision and bring about desired futures. Designers deliberately treat problems as ill- defined and look for new forms of integration in an approach that is both generative (divergent) and evaluative (convergent); this approach takes simultaneous development of problem-framing and solution on many different levels (Dym et al. 2005; Stappers 2007). Other salient characteristics of designers are their ability to use creative inquiry to navigate uncertainty and ambiguity in the face of incomplete information while keeping strategic overview, their ability to make decisions in an “and-and” decision style as opposed to an “either-or” decision making style, and their ability to think and communicate in different languages of design via drawings, mockups, or prototypes (Stappers 2007).
Design as a broker
Designers can act as brokers to bridge different stakeholders and democra-tize collaboration processes; methods used by designers have the potential to stage, coordinate, manage, justify, and communicate design (Daalhuizen 2014). In these situations, designers can act as brokers between stakeholders to communicate and bridge knowledge gaps by developing boundary objects (e.g. personas, road mapping, scenarios, or models) and boundary spanning processes (e.g. context mapping or creative facilitation) to start a shared dialogue and synchronize collective visioning amongst stakeholders (Stappers 2007). As coordinators and managers, designers can act as agents to lead teamwork and incite change in stakeholders who aren’t necessarily educated in design (Smulders and Subrahmanian 2010). From the above discussion it is clear that the role of the designer has expanded from pure artifact design to, “user research, facilitation, visualizing structures and systems, and inventing a shared language for problem solving” (Thorpe 2010:12). Bonsiepe (2006)
states that design can be a purposeful and democratic activity.
Some examples of sub-fields and approaches that show design in its new role are creative facilitation, co- design and user centered design (UCD). The practical, up and coming field of creative facilitation gives insights into how to design and lead creative problem solving processes in teams, an approach that integrates thinking from relevant fields including systems thinking (Tassoul 2009:3). Similarly, co-design focuses on process to bring diverse stakeholders together as constructive participants in innovation processes; the diversity of perspectives raises the quality of the design solution (Albinsson et al. 2007). Co-design approaches recognize that groups that benefit from the design may not be those using the design (Norman and Draper 1986). UCD puts the user at the center of the design process by involving users as as informants or as participants within the design process.
Design interventions and mechanisms
Van der Lugt (2008), Crul (2010), and Mestre (2014) introduce interventions as a way to conduct practice-based research with industries to address sustainable design and production. Building on the same foundation, interven-tion design is defined here as project design and framing to stage and man-age design and collaboration processes between research and business. Mechanisms are defined as methods or processes that are designed and used within interventions to manage activities such as: visioning, bridging knowledge gaps, and facilitating collaboration. Mechanisms make use of creative facilitation (Tassoul 2009). Finally, methods/tools can be shared and used to create contextual understanding, to enable collaboration, to enable creativity and idea generation, to develop concepts, and to evaluate designs (Mestre 2014: 36). In the interventions, the methods/tools are selected pri-marily from the SPIN Guide (Jansen and Crul 2012) and the Delft Design Guide (Boeijen and Daalhuizen 2009).
These examples have shown the potential for design to act as a systematic broker for inter-disciplinary problem solving on sustainability leading to the first proposition:
Proposition 1:
Design can systematically broker knowledge exchanges to foster sustainable product development practices.
This proposition asserts that the design discipline is well equipped to address complex issues around sustainability and certainly in its own domain, product development. The research framework and propositions are explored through intervention and mechanism design.
2.1.2. International knowledge exchanges
International knowledge exchange is defined here as, the process by which local and external knowledge, approaches, and perspectives are interchanged
through dialogue and collaboration. This definition stresses flows in multiple directions compared to a knowledge transfer that is uni-directional. The premise of this research project is that international knowledge exchanges can acceler-ate and foster the adoption of sustainable product development practices in emergent contexts. But, what knowledge needs to be exchanged and why?
Global and local knowledge bring in complementary inputs for sustain-able product development. Global knowledge on sustainability has much to offer with respect to perspectives, frameworks, and methods both in general and specific to product development. Local knowledge has much to contribute in the way examples that demonstrate aspects of sustainability. For example, Vietnamese handicraft has a strong heritage that shows cultural sustainability. A further connection between craft and social sustainability is found in the distributed micro-production of handicrafts in village homes provide extra income to supplement agricultural activities, especially in Northern Vietnam. Local knowledge can also contribute to understanding leverage points coming from the context and culture for addressing sustainable product development. These inputs bring in complementary inputs to pluralize approaches and increase problem solving potential. Local knowledge ensures the legitimacy of local process and results; outside knowledge brings in global legitimacy connected to global-societal level developments (van der Poel 2000).It is widely acknowledged by the innovation and sustainable development literature that the ability to create and use knowledge plays a key role increasing the competitiveness of products, companies, and nations (Nonaka 1994; Duarte 2004). Regional innovation systems can exploit local, place specific knowl-edge as well as national and global knowlknowl-edge as drivers for innovation (Asheim and Isaksen 2002). Knowledge plays a key role in the innovation process (Bertola 2003), and new product development is a knowledge inten-sive activity (Ramesh and Tiwana 1999). This is not to assume that innovation practices around product development do not already occur without external intervention. Voeten et al. (2009) showed that craft village clusters in the North of Vietnam already undergo profit-driven innovation activities building off of their strengths and their own initiatives; innovation activities are strengthened through informal exchanges with buyers or clients but without direct outside input or intervention. This finding challenges the common assumption that external interventions are necessary to support innovation.
Sustainability theorists agree that addressing sustainability requires collaboration between diverse stakeholders that bring in complementary knowledge inputs (Tukker et al. 2008; Brown 2008). Fostering sustainability and sustainable product development practices means looking opportunisti-cally to build off of what is already available, first, and then to develop con-nections between local knowledge, infrastructure, and expertise linked to global discourse and sustainability best practices. The SPIN project, re-search, and funding background emphasize cross-cultural and disciplinary components. In this research project that means engaging the nascent local design discipline, local producers, and inside-outside expertise. Fruitful knowledge exchange between local and external actors can bring in diverse inputs to address the state of local sustainability from multiple perspectives.
