Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:21:38.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STUDYING THE DESIGN PROCESS IN CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT: AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH TO ANALYZING INFORMAL METAL WORKING ENTERPRISES IN TANZANIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Sonal Keshwani ,
Santosh Jagtap  and
Eliab Z. Opiyo
Sonal Keshwani*
Affiliation:
Dayananda Sagar University, Bengaluru India;
Santosh Jagtap
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India;
Eliab Z. Opiyo
Affiliation:
St. Joseph University, Tanzania
*
Keshwani, Sonal, Dayananda Sagar University, India, sonalkeshwani@gmail.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Product design is one of the key features of intellectual and creative abilities of humans. Activities of product design have attracted not only experts, but also those without any design training. Many people - working in metalworking microenterprises in the informal sector of developing countries - engage in the activities of designing and manufacturing products. However, since extant design research is mainly undertaken in developed countries, there is scarce knowledge about design activities in informal metalworking microenterprises in developing countries. This paper aims to address this issue by uncovering some aspects of design processes in such microenterprises. In particular, we explored: various product attributes that these microenterprises consider in designing products, the process steps they follow in requirements identification and solution generation, and resources (e.g., design methods, training, etc.) available to them. To explore these aspects, we conducted semi-structured interviews in 24 informal metalworking microenterprises in Tanzania. The findings have important implications for supporting their design activities.

Keywords

Conceptual designDesign practiceSustainabilityDesign processDeveloping Countries
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3215 - 3224
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Breakwell, G. M. 2006. “Interviewing Methods.” In Research Methods in Psychology, edited by Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S., Fife-Schaw, C., and Smith, J. A., 232–253. 3rd ed. London, UK: SAGE.Google Scholar
Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chulvi, V.; Mulet, E.; Chakrabarti, A.; López-Mesa, B.; González-Cruz, C. (2012). Comparison of the Degree of Creativity in the Design Outcomes Using Different Design Methods. J. Eng. Des. 23(4): 241–269. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.624501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzens, S.; Sutz, J. (2012). Innovation in informal settings: a research agenda. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing: Springer.Google Scholar
Dieter, G. E, and Schmidt, L. C (2009) Engineering design McGraw-Hill, 4th ed.Google Scholar
Donaldson, K. M. Product design in less industrialised economies: constraints and opportunities in Kenya. Research in Engineering Design, 2006, 17(3), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K.; Cross, N. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Des. Stud., 2001, 22(5), 425e437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, D. E. 2013. Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Jagtap, S., Larsson, A., &Kandachar, P. (2013). Design and development of products and services at the base of the pyramid: A review of issues and solutions. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 5(3), 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagtap, S. (2018). Intentions and inspiration in shaping visual appearance of products: the practice of professional industrial designers in india.The Design Journal, 21(1), 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagtap, S. Design and poverty: a review of contexts, roles of poor people, and methods. Research in Engineering Design, 2019, 30(1), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagtap (2022) Co-design with marginalised people: designers’ perceptions of barriers and enablers, CoDesign, 18:3, 279–302, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.1883065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabecha, W. Technological capability of the micro-enterprises in Kenya's informal sector. Technovation, 1998, 19(2), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, C. A. (2012). Reflections on diversity in design research. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(8), 563e576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J.; (2010). Befit for change: Social construction of endogenous technology in the South. Paper presented at the FAU Conference-Workshop 4 on Community Entrepreneurs and Local Economic Development.Google Scholar
Nichter, S.; Goldmark, L. Small firm growth in developing countries. World Dev, 2009, 37(9), 1453–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opiyo, E.; Jagtap, S.; and Keshwani, S. (2022) “Conceptual Design in Metalworking Microenterprises: An Empirical Study in Tanzania’, International Design Conference – Design 2022, pp. 2493–2502, https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.252.Google Scholar
Opiyo, E., Jagtap, S., & Keshwani, S. (2023). Conceptual Design in Informal Metalworking Microenterprises of Tanzania. Sustainability, 15(2), 986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opiyo, E. Z.; Facilitating the Development of Design Support Software by Abstract Prototyping, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, ISBN 90-6734-136-3, 2003.Google Scholar
Papalambros, P. Y. Design Science: Why, What and How. Design Science, 2015, 1(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakowski, C. A. (1994). Contrapunto: The informal sector debate in Latin America: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, F., Enste, D.H. (2013) The shadow economy: an international survey: Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanian, E, Reich, Y, Krishnan, S (2020) I are not users: dialogues, diversity, and design: MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. T.; Eppinger, S. D. (2007). Product design and development: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Webb, J.W.; Bruton, G.D.; Tihanyi, L, Ireland RD Research on entrepreneurship in the informal economy: framing a research agenda. J Bus Ventur 2013, 28(5):598–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C.C.; Shahid, MS, Martínez, A (2015) Determinants of the level of informality of informal micro-enterprises: some evidence from the city of Lahore, Pakistan. World Dev. 84:312–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar