#product evolution

The creation of the first pencil, if it is meaningful to speak of such an event, would have to had involve first, the very concept of marking a piece of paper in a voluntarily and controlled way, then a seek for the material that could allow the execution of such task and then, a conscious or unconscious decision about the size and shape in which this material needs to be prepared. Ideally, such material would be light enough to be lifted and manipulated; strong enough to be pressed down on a piece of paper and pulled along without breaking; stiff enough so as not to change its shape under this action; soft enough so as not to tear the writing surface; and of such a nature as to leave a visible line on the paper. [This key point illustrates how the mere conceptualisation of an artefact conditions it to be used in conjunction with others. Thus artefacts are intrinsically complementary].

While lumps of lead or charcoal could certainly be serviceable as primitive pencils, they were also easily to criticise. Writing or drawing with a lump for an extended period of time can cramp the fingers and cause a diminishment in the quality of what is being written or drawn. Additionally, the relative bulkiness of the lump would hide from the view of users the very things that they are tracing thus making detailed work a difficult task. Finally, while the line made with a lump of lead might not be as dark as one would like, the line made with charcoal might be too dark and smudgy both on the paper and the hands.

There were of course, alternative device that allowed people to write and draw. Reed and quill pens have been available since the 4th century B.C. However, both devices required preparation of their points and repeated dipping in ink (which was at risk of being spilled or smeared). Another alternative was the “stylus” which consisted of a metallic device with a sharp end that was used to incise surfaces of wax. Nonetheless, just as the reed and quill pens, the metallic style exhibited major inconveniences. To begin with, it can only be used to mark surfaces previously prepared so it wouldn’t work on paper. Secondly, it could be used as a weapon and because of this in many places its use was forbidden or restricted.

Beyond the immediate complications the lead and charcoal lumps, the reed and quill pens and the metallic stylus supposed for their users, jointly, these limitations constituted a wealth of knowledge about what a device for writing in paper should look like. If a lump of lead was uncomfortable, the new writing device should be shaped to fit comfortably in the hand. If the bulkiness of the lump of charcoal blocked the users’ view, the new writing device should be made smaller. As far for the darkness of the line, designers of the epoch might try to heat the lead or mix it with other materials to achieve a darker mark. [This key point illustrates how existing artefacts provide a sort of toolkit for conceptualising new solutions].

However, as no other writing material was known, users had to settle with what was available. What finally accelerated the emergence of the pencil as we know it today, was the discovery around the middle 16th century of an easily mined abundance of graphite (also known as black lead) in northwestern England. In 1599 the natural historian Ferrante Imperanti wrote on black lead “it is much more convenient for drawing than pen and ink, because the marks made with it appear not only on a white ground, but, in consequence of their brightness, show themselves also on black; because they can be preserved or rubbed out at pleasure; and because one can retrace them with pen, which drawings made with lead or charcoal will not admit”. [This key point illustrates how the function and symbolic load of a product develops by contrasting its performance with other products].

By 1610, lumps of black lead were sold regularly in the streets of London to be wrapped on paper or fit into wooden, copper, silver or gold tube cases to prevent hand for being stained. As great as were the advantages, offered by cased-black-lead devices, they no doubt had some disadvantages as well. Depending on exactly how the case held the piece of black lead, it might easily work itself out, get loose, slide back into the case or even fall out of it.

In view of this situation and making use of advancements in techniques and tools for wood cabinet making, a Keswick maker developed a manufacturing system that consisted in having rods of black lead glued and enclosed in pieces of pine or cedar. In this way, not only the piece of black lead was firmly hold, it could also be efficiently exposed as the wood was whittled away with a knife. Since users were used to sharpening their reed and quill pens, this represented no inconvenience for them. Additionally, wood casing provided structural strength that allowed the black lead to be slender enough to be formed into a fine point that facilitated fine writing or drawing. [This key point illustrates how users can actively contribute to the enhancement of an artefact. In this case, the expertise of the users with sharpening instruments, made the pencil a more precise instrument. Additionally this key point shows how an artefact can inherit features not only from similar objects (reed and quill pens) but also from objects that belong to different categories of solutions].

This manufacturing process remained the standard until the English black lead became scarce. To address the lack of material, makers tried to make pencils using black lead extracted from other parts of Europe. However, this alternative material had such a level of impurities, that pencils made with it scratched and teared the paper. In an attempt to stretch the available supplies of English black lead, makers mixed dust and powder of it with binding agents such as gum, shellac and wax but the leads produced in this way were too difficult to sharpen and use without breaking and the did not produce a mark of very good quality. [This key point describes a situation in which changes made on an artefact (the pencil) creates areas of opportunity for improving complementary objects. In view of the situation described above, knife and paper makers could have implemented improvements on their products to couple with the features of existing pencils].

Such situation remained until 1794 when Nicolas-Jacques Conte developed a process for manufacturing pencils that consisted of mixing powdered black lead from which impurities were previously removed, with potter’s clay and water and rubbing the wet paste into long rectangular molds. When the leads dry, they were taken from the molds, packed in charcoal, sealed in a ceramic box and fired at high temperature. Since these leads could not easily be planed flat, they were inserted in wooden cases of a modified design. These cases (developed by early German pencil makers) had a groove about twice as deep as the thickness of the rod of black lead. A slat of wood was then glued in over the lead to completely filled the grove and the pencil was ready to be finished as desired.

Even though the technical success of Conte’s process, it was believed that new pencils could not write as nearly as well as these made with English black lead. However, when the choice is between a very good but prohibitively expensive pencil and an affordable good enough one, concessions could be made. [This key point illustrates how materials and artefacts just like users, exhibit limitations. A material can not be exploited perpetually (at least in the same way). Similarly, the behaviour or performance of an artefact is constrained by the materials of which it is made of. Thus, just as artefacts are design to couple with our physical capabilities, there are times in which users have to couple with those of the artefacts and materials].

Reference:

The advent of the office chair

There is no single inventor of the office chair; the elements that define it (movement mechanism, adjustable features and casters), all appeared on different chairs at different times. [This key point illustrates how artefacts from a single category of solutions can exchange or inherit features].

The first movement mechanisms for office chairs were developed in the United States in the 1840s and 50s with steel coils, cast iron components and steel leaf springs. For example, Thomas E. Warren’s Centripetal Spring Armchair of 1849 featured arched steel leaf springs that allowed the chair to flex in any direction. [Although not mentioned here, the author suggests that the interest of endowing chairs with movement capacity was inspired by rock chairs. Again, artefacts from a single category of solutions can exchange or inherit features ].

The earliest known example of a chair on wheels was a William-IV-Style armchair modified by Charles Darwin for his study in Kent, England in the 1840s. He replaced the legs of his chair with cast-iron bed legs mounted on casters so that he could move from specimen to specimen with greater ease. [This key point illustrates how artefacts can exchange or inherit features with or form those that belong to a different category of solutions].  

The exact origin of adjustable features is unknown, but by the 1880s CWS Keighley produced models on which the resistance against the reclining of the chair could be adjusted.

Factors that constrain the design of office chairs

Hierarchical organisation described by Frederick Winslow Taylor in 1911 on his book “The Principles of Scientific Management”, had a long-lasting effect on chair design. From the early twentieth century, up until the 1990s, executives, managers, and secretaries typically sat on chairs that reflected their status. As well as being more robustly constructed, executive chairs tended to be made of costlier materials and sometimes had more sophisticated movement mechanisms. By the late 1980s, it was common for an office chair series to offer at least three hierarchical distinctions and sometimes even four or five. [This key point illustrates how artefacts are made to resemble a system of beliefs. In view of this situation, when attempting to develop a solution that complements the function of an existing product, designers should also make sure that the incoming solution matches or complements the symbolic value of the product with which it will be related].

However, as the personal computer (PC) became common in offices during that same decade (1980), the hierarchical workplace start to dissolve into the collaborative and communal organisations of multifaceted workers that we know today. Back in the 80s, this situation merged with an interest in designing more ergonomic office chairs that in turn emerged during the past two decades after information gathered about the human body during WWII entered the public domain through books such as Henry Dreyfuss’s “Measure of Man” and Diffrient’s “Humanscale”.

Before PCs, files and machines were located throughout the office so employees used to move around far more than they do with their own PC. Thus, while ergonomic design during the 70s and early 80s focused on supporting the body, ergonomic design from the mid 80s focused on supporting the body for eight consecutive hours of seated PC use. [This key point illustrates how the introduction of a new product which apparently has no direct relation with the office chair can en up affecting its design severely].

To couple with the new ergonomic requirements, designers counted with a growing set of materials and manufacturing techniques. While the earliest office chairs were made with wood, cast-iron, and steel bar or sheet that were upholstered with batting and fabric, in the early twentieth century materials such as steel tube, sand-cast aluminum, aluminum and bakelite were already being employed in chair production.

Later on, technologies of WWII allowed the use of die-cast aluminum, moulded fiberglass and plastic resin, rubber mounts, industrial strength glues and compound-moulded plywood for chair fabrication. By the 1960s, transparent thermoplastic and injection moulded plastic were employed in the fabrication of chairs such as the D-49 and the Pollock chair. Since then, plastics have undergone a rapid evolution, with frequent introduction of higher-performance plastics. There isn’t an office chair on the market today that doesn’t employ some form of this material.

The next factor that severely impacted office chair design is the emergence of sustainability as a societal goal. Because of this, manufacturers are now striving to eliminate aspects of the manufacturing process that are harmful for the environment. As a result of this, in 2003 HermanMiller presented the Mirra chair which was 69 percent recyclable by weight, made with 42 percent recycled content, and was design to disassemble easily for recycling or to have its parts replaced.

According to the author of the book, the most recent factor that is conditioning chair design is the mobile device. Today’s smartphone, tables, phablets and laptops, allow people to work just about anywhere and in any position. Because of this, in 2009 three chairs were released that accommodate a broader range of movement: the ON chair, the Generation chair and the 360 chair. [Again this key point illustrates how the introduction of a new product which apparently has no direct relation with the office chair can en up affecting its design severely. Will these affectations propagate to the desk, tableware, cubicles, etc.?].

Reference:

When you build a product you can think of so many things your user will want, or might need, however you don't really know...most likely you are wrong. You have no idea what your users need until they tell you. 

The natural evolution of your products will radicate in often iterations. Release your product the fastest possible, and iterate based on your user's feedback. Collect data, is the only way you will have metrics to guide your decisions. Always iterate based on data, never on what looks better or what you might think will work.

When you plan an iteration, plan for several iterations. Don't try to build everything at once, leave ideas and things for future iterations, once your users confirm you they agree with you in the sense that they also like these ideas or features, then you introduce them to your product, and measure.

Your ultimate goal should always be to be better, to have a better product, happier customers.

THE COKE BOTTLE

When coke release their famous coke bottle, they never thought about how the user would carry or grab their bottle, over time and listening to user's feedback they have morphed their product into a much more organic form bottle, easier to grab, easier to carry and somehow much more approachable for the consumer.

HEINZ KETCHUP BOTTLE