My G.UTS exhibition was inspired by the reading “The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action” by Donald Schon. Centred around Schon’s second step of reflective Practice: Framing, I used this exhibition as a host for our class full of varying views, backgrounds and creative practices to come together, and ask two framing questions. Firstly, “what does this cohort of people think about the problem presented with the Wearable Cool Infuser?” and secondly, “what do they think about the proposed solution?” 

I developed two objectives that would allow me to use the G.UTS exhibition as a means to reframe my perspective. Firstly, I wanted to present my work as though it were an industry project, and the class were key stakeholders in its funding, and outcome. I treated this as a rehearsal for my final presentation with Health Collab later this year. Secondly, in order to ask people to criticise the solutions I have come to, the thought behind them, and what might be missing, I had to develop an activity. Schon’s theory emphasis’s constant reframing to gain a deeper, or different understanding of a problem. He describes this process as “learning your way to a solution”. My ‘G.UTS Exhibition Toolkit’ was a series of open ended questions that asked the class to respond to the physical prototypes in front of them. I gave the activity a certain start point, and wasn't sure where the results were going to end up. The G.UTS exhibition and activity was designed for me to gain a different perspective on the wearable cool infuser project in order to be able to reframe my perspective. 

Whilst developing my prototypes for the G.UTS exhibition, I faced significant challenges in improving the wearable cool infuser. I started to question whether the project was on a path to a viable solution, or if my reflection-in-action had guided the right choices. Schon’s reading introduces the ‘Problem of the Problem’ concept. This is extremely relevant to the Wearable Cool Infuser problem space. Where recognising that the real problem is not the cool storage of meropenem, but improving the quality of life for patients. In order to effectively solve this, I first need to fully understand the complexity of the situation, and constantly reframe my approach or goals as new insights emerge. Based on this theory, my current roadblocks were a result of not appropriately reframing. I decided to utilise the collective experience of our class in order to allow me to reframe my direction leading into the develop portfolio.

Step One: Figure out what the underlying problem is that I am trying to solve?

Using Schon’s reading as a framework to reflect on my current prototypes, PDS, and last semester's work, I found myself circling back to the initial semester one challenge of the 'wicked problem'. Am I getting anywhere? Can this even be solved? What should I be doing differently? However, through the introspective process of Reflecting-On-Action, I realised this exhibition was not about trying to find a solution, but instead prompting the class into how I might create an interesting and original entry into the problem, and in turn allow myself to discover good solutions that are based in new thinking.

Step Two: Demonstrate to the class the rationale behind the design decisions to date.

The Health Collab has taught me that success in professional design practice goes beyond understanding product complexity. It's equally, if not more important, to have the ability to present these intricacies and decisions effectively to a wide range of audiences.

When I looked at my pile of prototypes stacked up in my room, it was a big mess of plastic and fabric, and some of it even burnt. Yet to ask the class to criticise my pile of plastic, I needed to present these prototypes in a rationalised and progressively developed manner. However, although informed by each other, they weren’t developed in a linear model. Although Schon challenges the linear, rational or ‘Robbie’ model of product development, this was the first time I truly understood its power. The ‘Phase Model’ naming convention doesn’t just show prototypes, but instead presents to stakeholders, or clients, that what you are doing is not just a mess, but a number of activities one after another that combine to solve the problem. The ‘Beta’ model is informed by the lessons learnt from ‘Alpha’ and so on. This is a very clear way to present the learnings that inform the rationale behind the product decisions. And, although these lessons may not have been that straightforward, the simplicity of the phase model naming convention is very impactful.

I leveraged this phase model naming convention to present to the class my prototypes to date, and the series of subconcise, and rationalised thoughts that have led me to develop the most recent ‘Alpha II’ prototype. By using the class as acting stakeholders, I was able to practise my presentation skills in a professional manner, and get my head around the terminology used in industry. This was a good test, and set up the exhibition up nicely for the third step. 

Step Three: Ask our class to comment on if what I have designed is the ‘right’ thing. 

I developed a ‘G.UTS Exhibition Toolkit’ that prompted the class to critically analyse the products in front of them. I presented two different scenarios of use, and asked the class to imagine themselves in one of the two scenarios when responding to the prompts. These scenarios were designed to give the audience a deeper understanding of the lethargic, or emotionally drained state a HITH patient would be in when actually being treated with the Wearable Cool Infuser. I chose to present my current prototype, alongside the professionally manufactured and mass produced Bellroy Cooler Caddy in order to try and spark harsh criticism around the quality of my product. 

The Wearable Cool Infuser is a very messy problem area with government stakeholders, technology boundaries, human factor boundaries, and an overall aspiration to improve quality of life for people who are currently suffering. Through the process of developing my presentation to represent phase models, I began to understand a way to come from all that complexity to a certain simplicity. And, I can see how with the continued development of this phase model family, I might be able to create a fairly simple product that encapsulates all of those things, and creates great value for the patient.

I developed my PDS alongside preparing for the G.UTS exhibition. The structured approach of the PDS activity challenged Schon’s theory of reflective practice, which champions the unplanned learning of design. Schon says that this unplanned learning (the thoughts that happen in the shower etc) is what allows designers to develop the fascinating, original, and creative solutions to problems. Suggesting that the design planning of a PDS is too linear and does not accommodate for this learning. 

I attempted to plan for learning in my G.UTS exhibition. The ‘G.UTS Toolkit’ had a structured start point, yet directed participants to write their own thoughts in response and subsequently build out my capacity to reframe. However, this was still too structured and I did not allow enough space for my own learning. I continued to speak and guide the class through the cards. I viewed this as ‘time planning’. It wasn't until Dion actually told me to stop speaking and said “let them write” that I realised I was unintentionally ruining the results of the activity. By continuing to speak over the cards, I was casting my view of the problem on the class and potentially changing their opinions. This was a pivotal moment of realisation for me, as I was going to be faced with the same thought paradox when sorting their answers. The activity had asked the class their view on how to solve this problem. However, the next step in the process was to cluster these concepts and select which solutions to develop. But, much like how I tried to talk the class through the cards, I was using that old view of the problem as the filter, innately leaning towards ideas with that original thought or frame hindering my creativity. Because I haven't actually thought about the problem in any new way yet, I was still unable to reframe. Through reflecting on this process, I have been able to allow myself to step back and look at the problem through the insights of the class. However, I am still faced with the challenge of figuring out what that leads to ideas wise.

Schon’s theory demonstrated to me that as a designer you are always in a frame. The Creative Sketching course I did on Lemanoosh in semester one, steers creativity away from the ‘big idea’, and instead focuses on the minute details of buttons, vents, or surface treatment. Through this exhibition I have been able to see that I am no longer trying to create the big idea, but instead the class was more focused on the ‘wearability’ of the bag. Most of the comments were around the softness of the strap, or the strength of the magnetic ice packs. Neither of these components had once crossed my mind as the important next step in development. This highlights the importance of the reflective reframing process in relation to my PDS. My requirements of this PDS have come from breaking down the problem space over semester one, and then translating those learnings into a list of requirements. However, looking at the PDS ‘Needs’ through the problem of the problem lens, they are specific to one type of problem. When addressing these needs through future design work, it is important to step back and constantly reframe. And reflect on the reasons behind my choices, understand the underlying issue these needs aim to address, and consider other potential outcomes from those reasons. 

The G.UTS exhibition, and toolkit activity made me realise I have a very strong, and certain idea of how I am looking at the knowledge around the Wearable Cool Infuser project. However, this process of actively reframing has taught me that trying to understand this knowledge through a single frame, is hindering my ability to make sense of that knowledge. The G.UTS activity was designed with the goal of reframing in mind. However, it was the surprise of Dion’s interruption that made me realise the exhibition had not gone how I thought it would. It was this surprise that generated my new learning from the activity, and highlighted why I was unable to reframe. The G.UTS exhibition was an invaluable experience allowing me to practise my professional presentation skills and language, as well as develop a design activity. The insights and learning gained from this activity have steered the development of the Wearable Cool Infuser in a new and positive direction.