Transferring of Digital DIY Potentialities through a Co-Design Tool
Digital Do It Yourself (DIY) is a contemporary socio-technological phenomenon, enabled by technological tools. The nature and potential long-term effects of this phenomenon have been widely studied within the framework of the EU funded project ‘Digital Do It Yourself’, in which the authors have created and experimented a specific Digital Do It Yourself (DiDIY) co-design process. The phenomenon was first studied through a literature research to understand its multiple dimensions and complexity. Therefore, co-design workshops were used to investigate the phenomenon by involving people to achieve a complete understanding of the DiDIY practices and its enabling factors. These analyses allowed the definition of the DiDIY fundamental factors that were then translated into a design tool. The objective of the tool is to shape design concepts by transferring these factors into different environments to achieve innovation. The aim of this paper is to present the ‘DiDIY Factor Stimuli’ tool, describing the research path and the findings behind it.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3461966Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 181
 S. Kuznetsov, E. Paulos, “Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures”, Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, 2010, pp. 295-304.
 C. Edwards, “Home is Where the Art is’: Women, Handicrafts and Home Improvements 1750–1900”, Journal of design history, 2006, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 11-21.
 P. Atkinson, E. Unver, J. Marshall, & L. T. Dean, “Post Industrial Manufacturing Systems: the undisciplined nature of generative design”, Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference, Sheffield Hallam University, 2008, 194/1-194/17.
 C. Leadbeater, “We-Think: Mass innovation, not mass production”, Profile Books, London, 2008.
 N. Franke, E. Von Hippel & M. Schreier, “Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead‐user theory”, Journal of product innovation management, 2006, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 301-315.
 E. Von Hippel, “Democratizing Innovation”, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005.
 C. Mota, “The Rise of Personal Fabrication”, Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 2011, pp. 279–288.
 E. Manzini, “Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation”, MA: The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2015.
 M. Watson, E. Shove, “Product, Competence, Project and Practice: DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption”, Journal of Consumer Culture, 2008, Vol. 8 No.1, pp. 69–89.
 Y. Benkler, H. Nissenbaum, “Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue”, Journal of Political Philosophy, 2006, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 394–419.
 P. Atkinson, “Do It Yourself: Democracy and Design”, Journal of Design History, 2006, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1–10.
 I. Woodward, “Divergent narratives in the imagining of the home amongst middle-class consumers: Aesthetics, comfort and the symbolic boundaries of self and home”, Journal of Sociology, 2003, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 391-412.
 C. Campbell, “The Craft Consumer: Culture, craft and consumption in a postmodern society”, Journal of Consumer Culture, 2005, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23–42.
 F. Hackney, “Use Your Hands for Happiness: Home Craft and Make-do-and-Mend in British Women’s Magazines in the 1920s and 1930s”, Journal of Design History, 2006, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23–38.
 C.C. Williams, “A lifestyle choice? Evaluating the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 2004, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 270-8.
 IDEActivity, Codesign in the Digital DIY scenario. Toolkit and guidelines, 2017. Available at http://www.ideactivity.polimi.it/toolkits/ (accessed 14/09/2018)