2.10 A Multilevel Design Model Clarifying the Mutual Relationship between New Products and Societal Change Processes
2.10.1 Introduction
Designers working on the development of sustainable and energy-efficient products inevitably run into issues such as user acceptance, infrastructural integration, or governmental regulations. Although such topics may not be part of their specific expertise, these issues cannot be ignored during the design process. First, this is because societal issues largely determine the development of many energy-efficient products, for instance through public awareness regarding the depleting resources of fossil fuels and the availability of sustainable energy technologies. Secondly, these issues cannot be neglected because the successful implementation of many energy-efficient products is largely determined by existing frameworks such as infrastructures and legal regulations, as well as other aspects that cannot be directly influenced by an individual designer. This means that the broader context in which new products will be functioning has to be considered during the design process (Joore, 2008, 2010). To support designers and to demarcate their efforts, it is necessary to structure the design process and the role of designers in such a way that the mutual relationship between new products and the sociotechnical or societal context in which these products function is taken into account in a systematic manner.
2.10.2 A Multilevel Design Model
In 2010 a new multilevel design model (MDM) was published (Joore, 2010) that may help to clarify this relationship between physical artifacts, on the one hand, and more intangible societal topics, on the other. The MDM combines two types of models that will be described in this section. The first group of models originates from the field of industrial design engineering and systems engineering, for instance the V-Model that is often used during the development of complex technological and software systems (KBST, 2004). Although these models may offer sufficient insight into the technological aspects of a design process, they are often formulated around the development of one single product or system, such that the broader sociotechnical and societal aspects are not sufficiently addressed.
The second group of models originates from the area of sustainable systems innovations and transition management. Here we refer to a dynamic multilevel model developed by Geels (2005) and methods like constructive technology assessment (CTA) and the innovation journey, which are described in detail in elsewhere in this section. These models offer a detailed insight into the interrelationships between innovations and their sociotechnical and societal contexts, However, these models often are based on qualitative and descriptive research and a high abstraction level, whereas the embedding of the model's outcomes toward the practice of industrial product development has not yet been formalized by a standardized design method.
Combining both groups of models leads to the MDM, which can be considered a descriptive multilevel systemic approach combined with a prescriptive design process. The design process consists of four phases: (1) experience, (2) reflection, (3) analysis, and (4) synthesis. This process is applied to four aggregation or system levels, being described as the (1) product–technology system (indexed by P), (2) the product–service system (indexed by Q), (3) the sociotechnical system (indexed by R), and (4) the societal system (indexed by S). Figure 2.10.1 shows a scheme with these four design steps in relation to the system levels and the multilevel design model. This figure also shows for each system level the envisioned transformation processes (TS, TR, TQ, and TP) between objectives at each system level (S2′, R2′, Q2′, and P2′) toward new situations, systems, and products and services (S2, R2, Q2, and P2). The objectives are based on the experience of and reflection on existing problems at each level (S1∗, R1∗, Q1∗, and P1∗). The meaning of the symbols used in the MDM is further explained in Table 2.10.1.
Table 2.10.1 Explanation of the multilevel design model.
Figure 2.10.1 Multilevel design model (Joore, 2010, 88)
To emphasize the difference in size or dimension of the system at the various levels, the model resembles a V-shape. Arrows in this V-shape indicate the relations that occur at and between various levels. At each level an identical process is presented. Only the width of the various layers differs, creating the characteristic V-shape. The main difference compared to the V-model used in systems engineering is the fact that sociotechnical and societal issues are explicitly part of the MDM.
2.10.3 Example Based on the Development of an Electrical Transport System
The MDM can be clarified by comparing the design of an electric transport vehicle, a transport service, and a regional transport system. The choice to use examples from this domain is made because the field of transport is complex enough to visualize the various aspects of the MDM, while the area of transportation also covers many energy issues. The example is visually represented in Figure 2.10.2.
Figure 2.10.2 Multilevel representation of the electric transport case
Level P: The Product–Technology System
Products form the basic level of the MDM. These can be defined as “physical objects that originate from a human action or a machine process.” As these objects are made up of technical components, the term product–technology system is being used. However, to improve readability we will generally refer to these as products. Products refer to tangible, inextricably linked technical systems, physically present in place and time. With most of these artifacts, you could “drop them on your toes.” Product–technology systems generally fulfill one clearly distinguishable function. A system dysfunction occurs as soon as one or more technical components are missing.
An electric vehicle or a battery-charging station is an example of a product–technology system. The vehicle is discernible in place and time and fulfills a clearly defined primary function aimed at transporting people or things. As soon as certain technical components are missing, the product ceases to function as such, for example with a flat tire or an engine that is out of order. The direct relationship with the vehicle as a product–technology system is limited to individual persons, such as the driver, passengers, and maintenance mechanic.
Level Q: The Product–Service System
The second level of the MDM is formed by product–service systems. These can be defined as “a mix of tangible products and intangible service designed and combined so that they jointly are capable of fulfilling final customer needs” (Tukker and Tischner, 2006, p. 24). A product–service system is built up of physical as well as organizational components, which form a united and cohesive whole that together fulfills a specific function, usually definable in time and place. The system fulfills one or more clearly defined functions that can no longer be performed if one of the technical or organizational components is missing. The product–service system can indeed be compatible with certain policy, legal, social, cultural, or infrastructural elements, but these do not form an inextricable part of the product–service system.
An example of a product–service system is an electric transport service, which is made up of technical as well as organizational components. If, for example, the truck driver is missing or business problems occur, the transport service may no longer work. The product–technology system “electric vehicle” may still be able to function perfectly well, but the product–service system “transport service” no longer works. To function properly, good roads and corresponding traffic regulations are necessary. When using electric vehicles, battery-charging units may be essential. However, these do not form an inseparable component of the product or the service itself, but they are part of the even larger “sociotechnical system.”
Level R: The Sociotechnical System
The third level of the multilevel design model is the sociotechnical system. This can be defined as “a cluster of aligned elements, including artifacts, technology, knowledge, user practices and markets, regulation, cultural meaning, infrastructure, maintenance networks and supply networks, that together fulfill a specific societal function” (Geels, 2005). Changes that take place at this level are often referred to as a system innovation, which can be defined as “a large scale transformation in the way societal functions are fulfilled. A change from one socio-technical system to another” (Elzen, Geels, and Green, 2004, p. 19). At this level a large number of components are combined that are not necessarily formally related to each other. Several elements together form a joint system that fulfills a combination of functions that have a narrow, joint relationship with each other. Product–service systems, accompanying infrastructure, government legislation, and cultural as well as social aspects may form a mutually interdependent whole. In contrast to the first two levels, the sociotechnical system continues to function if one or more elements are missing, and elements may even assume each other's function.
In this way, road transport can be considered a sociotechnical system, where transport vehicles, rental trucks, freight trains, and other means of transport meet each other on public roads. They are joined there by buses, pedestrians, and cyclists. Other elements that are part of this system are the traffic rules, the insurance and licenses that a company must have, the fuel stations, the price that is paid for that fuel, the availability of parking places, and the attitude of citizens toward the various forms of transportation. In case of the introduction of electric transport, electric battery-charging points may need to be introduced as new parts of the sociotechnical system.
In case one of these subsystems fails, its function can be taken over by another subsystem. If the buses stop running, people will take the bicycle. If diesel becomes too expensive, people will buy a car that runs on gasoline. However, switching to electric transport may not be so easy, as battery-charging points are currently hardly available. Even so, the current position of fuel stations is not suitable to place these battery-charging points, as they are often located in rather remote areas. While this is no problem when filling up a tank of gasoline in a few minutes, these remote areas are not very attractive when waiting several hours for a battery to be charged. Here, government may play an intermediary role, for instance when deciding to support the placement of battery-charging points in inner-city areas. However, even when supported by policy regulations it will still take a substantial amount of time until these battery-charging stations are as readily available as regular fuel stations. This example shows that changes at the sociotechnical level often take more time and have a greater societal impact than changes at the level of individual product–service systems.
Level S: The Societal System
The highest level of the MDM is being defined as the societal system, being “the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations” (Oxford Dictionary). This is, just like the previous level, built up from a combination of material, organizational, policy, legal, social, cultural, or infrastructural elements. Changes that take place at this level are often referred to as a transition, which can be considered “a gradual, continuous process of societal change, where the character of society (or of one of its complex subsystems) undergoes structural change” (Rotmans et al., 2000, p. 11).
Whereas the sociotechnical system can more or less be defined and demarcated, at the societal system level a complete summary can no longer be made of which elements do or do not make up the components of the system. It extends over several influence spheres and domains, and the boundary between these areas cannot easily be determined. Also the societal system does not fulfill one distinct function, but is made up of functions that are not necessarily related.
An example of development on the society level is the influence of the sociotechnical system “road transport” on other sectors. Noise pollution and toxic emissions as a consequence of road transport affect the health of people, including when these people are not part of the transport system. The transport system can function perfectly even when everybody who lives along highways becomes ill. This indicates that this problem is apparently located at the societal system level and can no longer be resolved within the boundaries of one delimited sociotechnical system.
2.10.4 Benefits for the Design Process
The examples given in this section show that the development of new energy-efficient products, for example a new electric transport vehicle, is very much interwoven with development in the broader system context in which the new product will be functioning. If no battery-charging points are available, the acceptance of electric vehicles will be hindered. At the same time, companies will invest in the development and placement of battery-charging points only when a substantial amount of electric vehicle owners are willing to pay for their use. In other words, especially at the higher system levels there may often arise a “chicken–egg” situation that may hinder the introduction of new sustainable and energy-efficient products.
The use of the MDM may not solve these chicken–egg dilemmas. However, they may help the designer to demarcate the scope of a specific design process in which he or she is involved. Consciously distinguishing between the various system levels may help designers to determine what projects may suit their specific expertise. For instance, the designer of a new electric vehicle must know everything about engineering, materials, production processes, draft angles, and other technological details. The designer of a transport service doesn't necessarily need to bother about the design of the physical artifact. Here it is more about business model generation and developing innovations in which the vehicle has become part of a broad “transport solution.” At a still higher level it can then be about the development of a future vision of the way mobility will develop in a wider sense during the next 10 years, and the way that policy measures may influence this development. It seems obvious that the designer who is skilled in designing the technical details of a new vehicle does not necessarily require the same qualities as the designer who is skilled in the development of a “transport solution” or a future vision aimed at what mobility will look like in the year 2020.
Secondly, distinguishing between the various system levels may help designers to determine the design methods that are most suitable for a specific project. The manner in which the design process progresses at the level of the product–technology system appears to be mostly in keeping with the various models in the areas of industrial design engineering and system engineering. At the product–service level, the way in which the design process progresses appears to be mostly in keeping with the various models in the areas of sustainable product development, as these models have a rather strong focus on the organizational aspect. Change processes that take place on the sociotechnical level appear to be mostly in keeping with the various models in the field of sustainable system innovations and transitions. Here it is usually a matter of slowly progressing, difficult-to-direct developments. At the societal level, it is also usually a matter of progressing, difficult-to-direct developments, so the question is of course if it is at all possible to speak about a “design process” at all.
Thirdly, distinguishing between the various system levels may help designers to determine the way that a certain design should be tested. Testing a new technological product can often be done in a laboratory setting, with users commenting on the design in a protected environment. Trying a new transport service probably needs a broader setting, perhaps introducing the service for several weeks or months in a small-scale experiment in a dedicated environment. Finding out the effect of certain sociotechnical or societal system changes would need even more time, so that the impact of specific interventions (like the introduction of a certain policy regulation) can be measured over a longer period of time. Here the concept of a strategic niche experiment of bounded sociotechnical experiment (Brown et al., 2003) may be useful.
Fourthly, distinguishing between the various system levels may help to determine which actors to involve during the design process. As for the involvement of actors and designer, at the product–technology level it is generally a matter of a limited group of actors who are in direct contact with the product. In most cases, one organization can be identified that delivers the product. At the product–service level, the relationship with actors is mostly restricted to a limited number of parties that are usually in a formal or legal relationship, for example as consumer-suppliers or as formally cooperating partners. At the sociotechnical level, agreements between actors are less tightly defined, although they can be formalized collectively, for example in the form of legislation, regulation, or collective standardization. At the societal level, the influence of the system extends to all sorts of parties that do not maintain any deliberate relationship with each other, but become implicitly related as developments touch several sectors of society.
2.10.5 Conclusions
In this section the MDM has been described, and I have clarified the design specified process by distinguishing four separate system or aggregation levels. Distinguishing between these levels may help designers of sustainable and energy-efficient products to execute the design process more effectively. Firstly, it may help them to determine the specific skills that may be required for a certain design project, asking themselves if a certain project indeed matches their specific expertise. Secondly, it may help them to determine the design methods that are most suitable for a specific project. Thirdly, it may help them to determine the way that a new design should be tested, choosing for instance between short-term in-house laboratory experiments or long-term sociotechnical experiments. Fourthly, it may help them to determine which actors to involve during the design process.
Notes
1. Since the early days of TA, experts have uttered a dedicated design ambition; see, for example, Coates (1975); Bimber and Guston (1997); Rip, Misa, and Schot (1995); and Smits, Leyten, and den Hertog (1995). This holds even more for most recent TA works such as Robinson (2010) or Te Kulve (2011).
2. The text draws partially on Kuhlmann (2007, 2010) and Rip (2008).
3. See also Kuhlmann (2007) and Smits and Kuhlmann (2004). The dancing metaphor was used earlier by Arie Rip (1992) with respect to the relation of science and technology, inspired by Derek de Solla Price's discussion of this relation (1963).
4. For an overview, see Silbey (2006), Hackett et al.(2007), and Fagerberg et al.(2006). Scientific journals such as Research Policy (rather economics oriented) and Science, Technology, and Human Values (rather sociologically oriented) enjoy a high reputation.
5. See, for a more detailed discussion, Section 2.7, “Constructive Technology Assessment.”
6. The text of this paragraph draws on http://www.xsens.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xsens (accessed January 9, 2012).
7. See http://www.xsens.com/en/general/mvn (accessed January 9, 2012).