Table 36 - Case 3 overview
Case Project brief Designers Result
3 The design of a solution to allow wheelchair users, and the visually impaired, to engage in small-scale chicken farming
Workshop 1: D2, D11 Workshop 2: D2, D11 Workshop 3: D2, D11 Workshop 4: NA
Project stopped after Workshop 3
5.13.1 Generative Design
The generative design stage started with the team completing the local precedents activity. Conversely, to case 2, the activity yielded insights into the specific challenges of PwD raising chickens in the community, such as:
1. They have the ability to raise chicken but not the money or skill to make chicken coop 2. Difficult to know if all chickens are there
3. Difficult to know if all chickens are healthy 4. Difficult to give medicine if chickens are sick
5. Difficult to travel to the coop to feed the chickens
6. Difficult to weight the chickens to see if they are ready to sell
It also highlighted the wealth of knowledge and skill about chicken farming in the general community. While the original brief was to focus on both vison-impaired individuals and wheelchair users, the team seemed to focus on vision-impairment and most of the insights came from the one young male participant (a young male landmine victim who was blind and missing an arm), as well as other partially blind individuals. The project aimed to create a solution that would allow individuals with visual impairment to engage in chicken farming. This was driven by the young male participant and his aspiration to help his family look after their large number of chickens. The project became focused on either designing a new chicken coop or designing ways of modifying existing structures to be more accessible. All participants were engaged in the project, but also realised the final solution would not be as relevant to them as the other teams projects were (given the vision-impairment focus). The team completed the materials activity as planned (Figure 74) and began brainstorming.
Figure 74 - Completed materials activity with case 3 participants
The ideas generated all focused on modifications or design requirements for a full sized chicken coop. These included modifications such as adding handrails, an electric water pump and bamboo pipes (to allow water to be supplied from outside the coop). They also included specific design requirements such as building food containers out of concrete, making the door at least 1.5m tall and having two areas in the coop (for chicklets and large chickens). The ideas were not very broad, nor did they extend past the design of the chicken coop structure. However, participants seemed enthusiastic and chose a combination of these ideas to make as a model at the end of Workshop 2 (Figure 75).
Figure 75 - Model of chicken coop made during model-making in case 3
After Workshop 2, the design team (lead by D11) reviewed the activities undertaken and synthesised a set of functional requirements. This information was captured by creating a design-requirements board (Figure 76). The requirements were driven by community needs as well as the universal design principles (Story, 1998). This requirements board was used to guide design work in Workshop 3.
Similar to case 1, D11 generated a range of new ideas for novel chicken coops that would allow PwD to engage in chicken farming. These were meant to help participants think more divergently in Workshop 3. These are presented in Appendix D.
Workshop 3 begun with the team reviewing a range of existing chicken coops and discussing the pros and cons of each design. The activity engaged most participants; however, given its visual nature, the vision-impaired participants were not well included, relying on verbal descriptions from others. The team completed the construction techniques activity and revisited brainstorming. This yielded some new ideas and participants were very engaged. However, during the screening activity the team struggled to decide on a meaningful way of addressing the project brief. At the end of the first day, they decided to build some small woven cages to hold chickens. When the design team probed, as to why this was the chosen idea the participants replied that it was “easy to make in one day”. It was clear that the participants did not grasp the impact that this project could have on the vision-impaired boy’s life and that they still viewed the project as a structured activity with the design team. Furthermore, on investigation that evening we found that the boy’s household already had the exact woven cages that were proposed. This poorly aligned solution may have been due to the participants not truly engaging in the process, as the solution was not for them, or due to the fact that idea generation was occurring away from the actual user environment (at the community pagoda). In an effort to address the latter, the case 3 team spent the next morning generating new ideas at the young male participant’s house. This yielded much more focused ideas and lead to the final idea that his family’s current chicken coop could be made more accessible by modifying it in the following ways:
1. Raising the door frame height
2. Moving the chicken perch away from the entrance
3. Adding hand rails to improve navigation between the house and chicken coop This marked the end of generative design
5.13.2 Evaluative Design
The participants were eager to start the modifications; however, care needed to be taken to ensure the young male participant’s family were in agreement with the proposed changes (as they were not present in the workshop) and to ensure the construction process was safe. Therefore, for the remainder of Workshop 3, the team developed a plan for raising the doorframe (Figure 77) as well as prototyped several new door designs that could be used in the final installation (Figure 78). This marked the end of Workshop 3.
Figure 77 - Case 3 team planning the process of raising the chicken coop doorframe
Figure 78 - Case 3 team testing chicken coop door designs
Between Workshop 3 and Workshop 4, the design team reviewed the planned modifications and performed a risk assessment. This was to ensure the plan was safe for the team members and would result in a safe, usable structure. This review resulted in a finalized step-by-step plan which was to be presented back to team 3 for feedback (Figure 79).
Figure 79 - Step-by-step instructions for chicken coop modifications
A day before the beginning of Workshop 4, the design team visited the young male participant and his family to discuss the planned modifications to the chicken coop. The design team explained the steps they planned to undertake, the risks at each step and the risk control measures already considered to lower the risk of an issue arising. The participant’s mother seemed worried that the structure may end up broken and non-functional. This would have big consequences as part of her income was generated from raising and selling chickens at the local market. After a long conversation between the mother and D9, she agreed for the project to continue and consented to the small risks associated with the modifications. However, when the boy arrived at Workshop 4 the next morning, he explained that his estranged father had heard about the planned modifications and was not happy about it. This dis- pleasure seemed to stem from three main reasons:
1. Risk associated with the modifications. Probability of issue was very low but the severity of impact, if the chicken coop was not functional, was high
2. Lack of involvement of father in consultation and design process. This was due to the design team not being aware of his existence or role as a key decision maker
3. Lack of understanding of the importance of disability inclusion and the aspirations of the boy. This aligned with previous research about disability in Cambodia (Gartrell & Hoban, 2013) The design team discussed this issue and decided it was best to stop this project. While there was support in the design team and in the community to continue with the modifications, there was potential that the process could result in the young male participant being punished by his family.
as much more serious than before. This project was therefore terminated, and the project and factors resulting in its failure were communicated to the local DPO and LFTW. The remaining team members were told their project would not continue. They were given two choices:
1. Leave workshop straight away and continue with their normal days activities 2. Join one of the other two teams and contribute to their projects for Workshop 4
All participants chose to stay in the workshop and spread themselves across the two remaining teams. The universality of the projects of case 1 and case 2 meant participants were very engaged as all participants could benefit from the final outputs.
5.13.3 Technology Evaluation
The design team undertook a technology evaluation after exit interviews were complete. See Appendix E for the technology evaluation of the chicken coop modification conceptual design. Note, the evaluation for case 3 is based on the conceptual design that was intended to be implemented, hence many of the requirements are evaluated as achieved. However, as no technology was actually implemented the adoption of the technology is evaluated as unsuccessful.