During the last day of the Seminar Workshop we had a joint evaluation session. The aim for the evaluation was to learn the lessons of the first workshop so as to improve the next 4 workshops. The evaluation focussed on a series of key question:
– How was the running of the workshop?
– How was the preparation of the workshop? (asked to Paul Nicolas and Martin Tamke)
We divided the 16 workshop participants up into groups that reflected on each of these questions. After a 40 min session the group reflections were presented and discussed in forum. Each group was asked to separate positive and negative feedback so as to give a clear indication of how we can improve the sessions.
The evaluation was very fruitful. It gave a good picture of what had been successful and what was needed to be amended for the upcoming research workshop/seminars.
These are the results of the evaluation.
Running the workshop
Subject and tool
The subject was seen as well chosen and relevant for the entirety of the network. Understood as a way of creating a basis for discussion for the rest of the workshops the subject: Parametric Design and the focus on material fabrication allowed the group to create a shared framework for discussion.
The subject was also seen as tying in well with the first seminar run in December 2009.
Schedule and material
The tight schedule and extensively prepared material was seen as a key part establishing the success of the workshop. Martin and Paul’s work was tightly packed and the programme was well described giving us all a good overview of the two day workshop. Their material allowed concepts and technologies to be discussed and learnt but also included “prepared leaps” by which the group could fast forward through the process of parametric design.
Lectures and presentations during the workshop
The workshop was intersected by a series of presentations by workshop leaders guest Paul Nicolas and network participant Martin Tamke. These were seen as strong presentations allowing the group to understand the wider framework of the research question addressed by the workshop.
The first exercise was seen as particularly positive. This exercise “nailed the theme” allowing every one a direct understanding of what was at stake within the given research question.
The practical experiments were seen as positive. Working directly with material as well as software allowed a hand-on engagement with the technologies at stake. The practical experiments were seen as ways of creating “a common platform”, “an anchor point” and “setting the scope” for the workshop.
The workshop was structured so that all work sessions happened in groups. The groups remained the same during the whole workshop allowing a shared language to emerge as well as letting members evolve their conversations and research sharing. The groups were seen as a good foundation for the workshop. It was seen as positive that the groups mixed the different institutions letting people from engineering; architecture and design work together and exchange concepts and material practices.
Amount of participants
In all we were 16 participants in the workshop. This is seen as a good number allowing for real collaboration and exchange while still maintaining diversity and “groups within groups”.
The workshop holders were given very positive feedback in the way the workshop was run and their presence. It was seen as positive to have a workshop guest coming from outside the network to introduce new concepts and technologies.
The network participants
The network is a very dynamic structure. Participation has been dynamic meaning that different people have entered the network since its first up start. This is seen as positive dynamism. The network also supports the research students from the involved institutions. As many of the environments have emergent research environments we have also supported some involvement of masters students from DTU and Kolding Design School. Again this has been seen as positive supporting diversity in the expertise of the network participants. The network also has a strong international participation with both foreign researcher and research students working in Denmark as well as international participants. This is probably occurring because of the English language that the international collaborations ensure and is again seen as positive supporting diversity of experience and broadening discussion.
The seminar presentations and discussion
The workshop is succeeded by a seminar session. In the Parametric Design workshop/seminar presentations were done by Paul Nicolas, Hauke Jungjohan from Knippers Helbig Engineering Office in Stuttgart and Mette Ramsgard Thomsen, CITA. The presentations were highly varied showing work from practice and research and of extreme different scales and design traditions. Bringing together the mega scales of airport design in Shenzhen and the micro scaled of parametrically steered textile designs the seminar allowed a discussion across disciplines, scales and materials.
This breadth was seen as positive for the network allowing very different experiences to be discussed within a shared framework of technological understanding. It allowed ideas to “zoom out to the big scales of production” and understand how the discussed technologies have consequence on architecture design culture when implemented.
Because the first exercise was seen as excellent many of the participants wanted to have been given the chance to continue working with this experiment. The first exercise gave the groups the opportunity to work directly with the material developing their own structures. Many wanted to have continued to do so.
The reason this was not planned was so as to make sure to take the groups through the entirety of the process. The balance between the individual experiment and the process was therefore discussed as a key consideration in the planning of further research workshops.
Developing the demonstrator was seen as negative. The workshop was structure in a way that would allow the groups to build a shared final element at the end of the two days. The production was how ever badly organised and the final product was marred by over production of some elements, bad detailing and poor execution.
It was therefore discussed whether we need to focus on the production of a demonstrator and whether it is feasible to develop something of quality in such short time frames.
The lessons learnt were that the materials must be fully tested before hand. We had bought materials for the workshop and some had arrived a bit thicker than anticipated. This proved a big difficulty.
The network expressed the need to document the work along the workshop so as to allow for reflection and developing shared understanding.
The documentation could be in form of accumulating power point presentations shared in structured sessions through out the workshop. The workshop ended in a final review of the material given which led to the choosing of the demonstrator to be developed. However, this sense of conclusion could be more articulate and present in the process.
To do so it is important to make time for this.
The tools and technology
The group found that it would be good to send our the programme of the workshop a bit before hand as well as the introduction to the tools that will be addressed giving participants the possibility to prepare and learn the tools in advance.
Expectations and outcomes
Some participants were unsure what was expected of the participants. We need to develop a clearer image of what the participants’ role is during the workshop. Even if the key anticipation is sharing and exchange then we need to be explicit about this intension.
In the same vain as in the negative feedback about the demonstrator it is important that the anticipation for the outcome of the workshop is better declared. What do we think a result is for the workshop? How do we know it is a success?
Preparation of the workshop
The key positive feedback in the preparation of the workshop was that Martin and Paul had had the chance to do the workshop before with students at KARCH. This allowed them in depth understanding to eh process and the question as well as the means by which these tools and technologies can be introduced.
This was a unique situation happening because of the cancellation by the intended guest Marc Fornes. We therefore realise that we will not be able to run the workshop with as much insight into the process in the future. We therefore need other ways of preparing the workshop and leaning on the expertise of the workshop holders.
The time scheduling was seen as key to the success of the workshop.
Materials and technologies
The workshop holders were very positive about the mix between digital and physical tools. They said that this duality creates particular means by which the questions can be understood.
Preparing hand outs and tutorials
The workshop holders had prepared extensive hand outs by which the tutorials for the exercises could be explained. This was seen as a slight waste of time as they were hardly referenced and teaching was done in person instead.
Group design periods
The group design periods were seen as particularly successful.
The sourcing of the material was harder than anticipated and led to the buying of material that was slightly too thick. This led to the failure of the demonstrator. It is therefore recommended that all materials as extensively tested and sourced in as good time as possible.
The workshop holders found that the software presentations were perhaps a bit too detailed and that the groups did not actually have a chance to learn all of the material prepared.
The workshop holder found that we need better instructions in the production of the final demonstrator.
The preparation time is about 5:1 meaning that even counting the fact that the workshop had been run before with students they needed 10 days to prepare a 2 day workshop. This is an important part to take into account.
Suggestions for future activities
The evaluation leads to a series of suggestions:
Developing a pamphlet
The group was interested in the idea of “what the guest brings home”. It was suggested that the network would make a pamphlet with the work of the members to give to the guests to bring back with them.
What is the output?
The output should be the development of new research questions emerging from the varied experiences and expertises of the research network
Could the exercises be structured around multiple “products” rather than one overriding demonstrator? Could the focus be on tests rather than the demonstrator?
Modes of reflecting
The workshop-seminar constellation is a means of reflecting. Could there be other ways of extending the models of reflection in the network:
– Could we have mixed modes of hands-on and analytic reflection?
– Could we address different scales of technological implementation?
– How can the blog become part of the reflection?