So we were given the Breville Kettle Quiet Boil Ikon to take apart, analysed and redesigned with a focus on the environmental impacts of the product throughout its lifecycle using greenflyonline.org as our guide to green design. What we've found was that this particular electric kettle was assembled in such a way that it was practically impossible to take apart without the right tools and a huge amount of effort put into it. The worse part being, the heating elements, so the block of steel at the bottom of the kettle was glued and soldered to the main housing body and therefore the whole thing (which makes up 90% of the whole product) have to be thrown away to landfill.
The problem with the Breville kettle was we thought, after spending about 2 hrs prying it apart and looking at all the different parts, all the stuff that ended up in landfill and that goes for pretty much nearly the whole thing which is crazy cos you know, Breville being Breville with all those birds singing praises of how good they are as a design company and all, I thought would've designed the product better so they don't actually all end up as waste. But nooo, this exercise just proved to me that most design companies don't actually care, possibly because the competition is so tough, really there's just no room to add environmental cost to the product otherwise... who'd buy it?
So this is the report that came from greenfly compared to the product that we redesigned. We focused on reducing the weight by utilising less material in the housing and the base, less unnecessary parts such as the pyrex on top of the lid, making parts such as the handle as two separate moulds with the polyporpylene handle and a clip on santoprene cover rather than an overmould of 5mm thick santoprene that can't be separated. We redesigned the way it fits together so everything is a snap fit system that don't require fasteners. We also specified the manufacturing location. All the Polypropylene parts will be made in China and all the heavy weight parts such as the housing and the heating elements will be made here, thereby reducing the cost of transport and also the environmental impact of importing products from overseas.
So the product that we redesigned didn't change too much in terms of looks but manage to reduce the overall weight of the product by 20%. We also reduced the transport tonnes per kilometres from guangzhou to sydney from 10.11 t/km to 3.12 t/km. In our end of life, all parts of our product were all recyclable as compared to the almost nothing of the original product.
Ahh, Annie Leonard's videos are always so persuasive backed up with facts and figures it makes a very very convincing campaign against bottled water. Not that I’m disputing it or anything, I’m totally supporting the idea of not drinking bottled water. Makes it kinda hard though since we, nearly the whole of the IDES class, have to do 2 different assignments for 2 different other subjects, both to promote bottled water. Well that’s my rant, back to the video, it’s definitely another eye-opener, maybe not as heart stopping as 11th Hour, read previous posts, but definitely as interesting, especially when she gets to the part that shows where all the supposedly “recycled” bottles go… to the poor people of India... to build another landfill. I thought I would be doing something good if I at least recycle my bottles if I buy them for convenience, but obviously all that effort isn’t even worth it considering most of them are “down cycled to turn them to lower quality products that we’re gonna chuck later” anyway.
Then there’s the thing with the “80% end up in landfill or in incinerators where they release toxic chemicals”.EIGHTY PERCENT??? 8 friking 0percent????????? Actually I’m not too surprised considering when I walked past the UNSW rubbish bin near the bus stops on Anzac Parade, I saw this huge metal bin like the one that is ¾ my height, and 4 times my body size, overfilled with just empty plastic bottles from Nestle’s Ice Tea, lots and lots and lots of Mount Franklins, Evian, Pump, Powerade in abundance and a whole lot more. The surprising thing was, I never noticed it until I watched this video. And I’m sure it’s not like a one off phenomenon that only happened to be the day I happen to notice it. Plus before they told me it all goes to landfill, I thought at least, there’ll be someone who’ll go through the rubbish and pick up whatever can be recycled. So that misconception was definitely cleared up. Apparently there’s no one… And considering Ms Leonard said “People in the US buy half a billion of bottled water a week, that is enough to circle the globe 5 times”, eighty percent is a lot of bottles to fill the land with.
And you know what’s more ridiculous, she said, “Each year the oil and energy that goes to the bottles produced in Amercia is enough to fuel a million cars, even more to ship across the world and it takes only 2 minutes to drink it”. That’s f****** ridiculous. That’s why my petrol bill is so high. Why are we spending so much resources for something that’s only good for only 2 minutes? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY????? The more I think about it, the more I wonder why anyone would buy them in the first place? Why did I buy them? Whyyyyyyy???????? So definitely personally, from today, I’m never buying another bottle of water UNLESS!! I have no access to tap water and I’m in serious danger of collapsing from dehydration or (which just happened today) stupid marketing subject force me to buy a bottle of PUMP water so I can do an ad for it for an assignment… (This is why I’m not majoring in marketing… they’re evil people who “manufacture demand” for stuff that we don’t really need).
But that’s personally, so what can we do as a community of designers, even noob as we are? We can plan for recycling drop off points for bottles of water and give them back to the producer. So those companies like COCA COLA who owns like 30% of the water bottled market share, would take responsibility of the waste they produce in this world. But more importantly? We can use a system of bottles of water (with the help of government legislation) that has be reused, and reused and reused again so people can use those bottles for refills and not buying a completely new bottle of water. Sorta like that shampoo bottles from Body Shop and you get discounts for refilling too. More access for public water would also definitely help. So Kevin Rudd… take some actions too!
Mother Fu**** that was a scary video. It was like a compilation of just destruction after destruction after destruction… If I have to watch that again I think I’m gonna get a vasectomy. Wow, I knew the world was in a bad shape but I didn’t think it was on the verge of annihilating itself. Plus, the way they showed it, I feel like everything we’re doing is wrong and I mean everything… including just breathing. But I watched this video like 3 days ago, since then, everything I do makes me feel so damn guilty. I even watched the news today and they had a story about the government or the Forest department who’s planning to cut down trees for logging where the koalas lived. Their argument were like “oh no we’re only gonna start cutting on the western side of the forest where no Koalas were found” and I thought that was such a load of crap and they’re doing it to support the local industries apparently.
Then I remembered what the people in the 11th hour said, they said how “Our attitude is based on selfishness, economics, and politics” and “today, ecosystems, rivers, streams, lakes, forests, they have no rights, they’re property, can be bought, sold, traded, carved or destroyed” and it’s soooo true, how come I didn’t realise this before? It was like 0_o. Who are these people to cut down the trees that have been there for longer than we have? Who are WE to kill a tree, whose life is probably worth more because it is doing MORE for the planet in its lifetime compared to us who are just sucking the planet dry of its resources just for being alive? Then they also calculated that it’ll cost us “35 trillion dollars a year to do what nature is doing for us for nothing, when all the economies of the world only total to 18 trillion dollars. So nature is doing twice as much as the economy is doing for us.” This is craziness. And what’s even more depressing is the fact that one of guy said 99.9999% (he even emphasised the 4 digits decimals) of all species which have ever existed on earth is extinct. Meaning, the way we’re going in this “death based cycle” we’re not only going to extinct ourselves, but also ALL life on earth. That’s pretty terrifying isn’t it?
So more importantly, why are we facing this problem? One of the points emphasised throughout the video is the problem lies with the way we think, it’s not a “waste problem, it’s not a global warming problem, it’s not a pollution problem…” It’s fundamentally a culture problem where we think ourselves as superior and separate from nature, like we’re “King of Nature” as if we’ve been given dominion over nature and every other living being like they have no worth other than being a resource for us. Well, that was pretty much true, we do think that way and that’s why we can buy food from supermarkets and throw out plastic packaging to the waste bin without feeling any guilt or even thinking that we’re putting toxic chemicals of that plastic bags that’s eventually going to kill our crops and we’re all gonna starve to death.
Then the second problem, we’re relying WAY too much on fossil fuel dubbed as “ancient sunlight” which I thought was a pretty apt description of it now that I think about it. Sub-problem, it’s gonna run out… meaning we’re gonna be scrambling for new energy to feed the 6 billion people we’ve reproduced ourselves to when in reality, the sun itself, can only feed and support 1 to 2 billion people at the most. So what’s gonna happen? Well 2/3 of us are gonna die a slow painful death if we don’t change NOW and that’s only, did I mention only?, if the Earth can recover from all the desertification that’s going rampage at the moment. Another sub-problem, all the digging up and the burning of those fossil fuel is leading to global warming that’s holy crap warming the earth by a few degrees. That’s going to throw us into something like the planet of Mars with no water because those few degrees is going to stop the ocean recycling its water with fresh ones from the water on the bottom of the ocean and the surface is going to turn stagnant. Then we’re ALL going to die, not just 2/3 of us.
So what’s the solution to all these other than we should all die and leave the planet in peace? Well the designers said, we should design with a philosophy of “cradle to cradle” design, meaning all the products we used is 100 percent reused and no resources should be wasted unlike the current situation where “For every truckload of products that we use, 32 truckloads of waste are produced.” So we definitely have to get rid of this “waste making system” and replace it with and if not zero then almost zero waste system just like it was millions of years ago before humans over run this place.
The other important thing designers can contribute to is design using clean, renewable energy. This will definitely reduce our carbon footprint, by reducing pollution, reducing our use of limited resources so we can share those resources with other living systems that are currently in decline. Our obligation is then to make sure what we design are also produced in a manner that is no destructive to those philosophies, e.g. using a huge amount of energy in manufacturing for products that supposedly offset carbon footprint in use. That’s not going to help cos it’s overall life cycle is still going to be shit.
One other thing, I think it’s pretty cool when the woman mentioned how spiders can develop string 5 times stronger than steel in room temperature, without using petroleum. So part of the solution to all this should be pursuing designs by biomimicry since nature do everything the best way anyway, why not learn those things that’s been developed since the evolution with the Big Bang. Maybe, just maybe, if we do all those things right, there’ll be a chance that less than 99.9999% of the species including us in the next 100 years or so, won’t be extinct, except maybe cockroaches, they can survive anything anyway so I don’t think we need to worry about them too much.
Ikea Instructions for Constructing the Stefan Chair.
MindMap of Why the Product is Disposable and Hard to Attach Emotionally
Design for Prolonged Product Use in relation to Issues in the MindMap
Children chair that can be adapted to an adult stool for years of usage
The space chair for funky/unique design that would allow for emotional attachment
Chair that turns into a Lounge chair for added function with rotations legs and back
Design for Physiological Pleasure after Market Attachments
Added shock absorbers in between the hard ridges for the back for added comfort and the seat
The Simpson's Idea with added back legs with hinge attachments to achieve the thinking posture and maximise creativity, including arm rests.
Attachments for 2 or more chair to create a long bench that can extend either concave or convexly and can be used in a group situation indoor or outdoor with added cushion for seat surfaces and back.
Design for Psycho/Socio Attachment after Market Products
The couple chair has arms rests and back and seat cushion that attach to the other chair with flexible connection to change angle of chairs to allow hand holding while doing everyday activities e.g. eating or watching TV
Child seat attachment to 2 adult chairs for party functions allow adults to keep a close eye on the child for comfort of mind. Plastic bag cushion to put old memorable clothing articles such as wedding dresses or baby clothing to be ziplocked and form seat cushion that people can personalised with coloured themes or type of clothing.
Final Group Project
The kids toys attachment allow the kids to play with this chair as if it was their own world, they can play around the chair and with the chair as part of their learning phase when they're younger. As they get older, they'd be able to use the chair in a more appropriate way e.g. learning how to eat from a proper dining table, adding those attachments to the back of the chair as part of their storage space as well as adding additional backing comfort support. Thus as a furniture that a child grows up with, it'll always be a product that they'll remember with great fondness and be unwilling to part with due to the history that is embeded in it. In the future, those attachments can be removed, and the chair can be used for adults as normal. Hopefully, if they're so attached to it, they'll keep it for they're own kids to use and play with as well.
Polyurethane Foam used in kids puzzle mats that are flexible enough to slot on to the chair legs and will stay on it. It's soft enough it won't hurt the children, soft enough to kick out of the way for the adults when walking around the chair, sturdy enough to last being roughed on by the kids as chewing toys and not hazardous or things to throw to each other at.
The kids will use it as learning toys to spell things out or just building blocks on the chair legs. They can also play around with the cars to slide across the bridge of the legs, improving their creativity, creating their own world of imaginations. As they get older, as was mentioned above, they can fill up the back of the chair ridges for back cushioning. Parents can then leave them to play around the furniture safely and withing their reach and not worry about them exploring the electrical sockets or any other dangerous household items. They also don't need to buy more toys that comes separately and find storage space for them to put away when they finish playing with it. With these blocks, they can just slot onto the chair legs and leave it there.
For people to buy these attachments for the Stefan chair, they would have a change of family status as in they have young kids now and need a more kids friendly chair without buying new furnitures for families with low income and up.
Reflection
This task has challenged the way I think about product's endurance in a user's life with the main focus on why they would dispose of it and rectifying those issues as before I thought this product is fine the way it was, people would use it and keep it as they need it. I honestly didn't think we'll find so many reasons why they wouldn't be wanted anymore.
A new idea for me is adding product attachments to another product that already been designed. Firstly because most of the time we've been taught to design for products that are wholesome and self sufficient. But there are already so many products out there, why not design to improve the existing one without redesigning the whole thing, thereby reducing the use of material for new products and the amount of products being disposed due to changing trends or lack of extra functions.It's a much more eco-friendly way of approaching design than designing from scratch.
The group project was a really good way to figure out problems because people feed off each other's ideas and we came up with lots of things and different people have different opinions about issues like what shape would suit the target market's age and therefore what kind products will eventually come out as this aftermarket attachment. The discussions were stimulating and I think it helps bring out the best outcome that would suit a whole range of people than if one person was designing the product.
If the product was designed from scratch, one of the things I would design differently is the aesthetic of it, adding curves to make it more user friendly, perhaps creating quirky characteristics in the object that would enable it to become a conversation topic and therefore create enjoyments for the user and thus developing emotional attachment. One of the major important essential feature of a product that is required today due to the flood of mass produced items in the market is individuality, so creating unique features that make it, not so much a one off creation but more something that can be called a "designer" item would generate extra value for this chair and prolong its life use.
Since the book by Donald Norman "The Design of Everyday Things" was published, the concept of user-centred design has been prevalent then and with even more emphasis today than ever. This video showed us that combined with the need by society for products that can be mass produced to reduce cost in the most competitive period of time in industrial design, we’ve learnt has results in the changing philosophies of designers. Therefore, good design should be “innovative, useful, understandable … environmentally friendly and with as little design as possible” as asserted by Dieter Rams and consider how “you (the users) connect with the product” maintained by Jonathan Ive from Apple.
Society today, illustrated in this video, with the help of growing product advertisements in everyday media, has grown to love contributing to the “Golden Star” of consumerism so to speak, euphemised by Annie Leonard in “The Story of Stuff”. Thus the products which they chooses from the hundreds of mass bombardment of products shoved in their faces have become personal things that are “like avatars… a representation of who you (the users) are” quoted by Chris Bangle, ex-director of BMW Design. For example, Bangle elaborate on the fact that people would buy a car based on their “face” to express their individuality, a car that in the user’s perception will be seen by other people in a highway, when really, quote “no one really cares”. So the main point driven by this video has mainly been about the need for designers to really focus to “understand what people need better than they do.”
Another idea that is reiterated by most of the designers interviewed was the need for objects that users surround themselves with to “improve their (the users) daily life without them ever thinking about it”. This mean the future of our design are veering towards the iPod’s approach where no longer does form follows function but the object has to not only “feel undersigned” quoted by Ive but more importantly, products that a person chooses to obtain to fill their home with also “becomes part of your family” quoted by Hella Jongerius. Thus, we’ve learnt that manufactured objects, shaped by society today is first and foremost about “creating an appropriate environment where people feel good” quoted by Erwan and Ronan Bouroullec.
The problem with the Breville kettle was we thought, after spending about 2 hrs prying it apart and looking at all the different parts, all the stuff that ended up in landfill and that goes for pretty much nearly the whole thing which is crazy cos you know, Breville being Breville with all those birds singing praises of how good they are as a design company and all, I thought would've designed the product better so they don't actually all end up as waste. But nooo, this exercise just proved to me that most design companies don't actually care, possibly because the competition is so tough, really there's just no room to add environmental cost to the product otherwise... who'd buy it?
