Waste cycle design

Similar to Piet Hein Eek is the designer Tord Boontje. His "Rough and Ready" collection and in particular the chair in this series is well publicised and it is noted that since 1998, over 30,000 of the chair's manufacture instructions have been distributed. The concept of the rough and ready chair is for individuals to build their own unique chair out of salvaged or scrap material with the free instructions from Boontje's studio.

Boontje's philosophy behind his designs are also similar to those of Piet Hein Eek: "They have a feeling of incompleteness, a feeling that things might change. They are utilitarian works, which acknowledge the beauty of imperfection and offers an alternative to slick objects" (Tord Boontje)

A second year student in my university has built his own Boontje chair out of scrap material found in our workshop. It is reasonably comfortable, depending on the material used or cushions placed on the chair, and it also has the added value of being completely free as all the material was waste anyway.

A fourth year student from last year had a final idea similar to the Rough and Ready chair - the consumer bought the main seat component and then found items that could be substituted for the chair legs and the backrest.

I am making note of the fourth year students design because although my project is focused around the waste use concept, I do not want to design anything too similar as I feel there are many versions of this type of product and mine would only devalue the ones before me.

One of my favourite examples of the use of waste material is by the dutch designer Piet Hein Eek. His use of basic manufacture waste material - wood, steel, etc. - is not for the climate change fight, i.e. to try to lower the amount of material going to landfill, but his goal is to be as different from what 'design' has become today.

"The scrapwood cupboard from 1990 was my reaction against the prevalent craving for flawlessness. I wanted to show that products that aren't perfect still can appeal to our sense of aestetic and functionality" (Piet Hein Eek)

What is 'waste'?

For a while now I have been mulling over the idea of what waste is. It seems there are two kinds of waste - waste as a by product of manufacture: offcuts, etc. and waste as the manufactured product itself, once it has become obsolete.

However to better understand the concept of waste, I felt a few simple dictionary definitions would help:


1. to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no
avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

2. to fail or neglect to use: to waste an opportunity.

3. to destroy or consume gradually; wear away: The waves waste the rock of the shore.

4. to destroy, devastate, or ruin: a country wasted by a long and futile war.


These definitions act as a harrowing explanation of our consumption based culture today: "to consume uselessly, to destroy gradually".

One definition that I feel is most important is: "to fail or neglect to use: to waste an opportunity". Many of my ideas have focused around the concept of picking up materials or objects from the waste stream and putting them to good use, i.e. not wasting an opportunity.

From initial secondary research I have found that this concept is not new and some very publicised designers have answered this call.

Efficiency is the key

I have read a great deal on the Toyota Production System for my both essay and project and I believe this system could be the key to going GREEN.

Back in the 70's, after the oil crisis, a man named Taiichi Ohno began developing a production system that would be both efficient and profitable in a slow-growth economy.
The previous production system, based largely on Fordism,had to be changed if Toyota were to reach their goal: "catch up with America", as Ford's system did not work during these slow-growth economy periods.

Taiichi Ohno focused on how to achieve efficiency in the production system, the emphasis being on the system rather than the workers (Fordism focused more on the workers - division of labour). He believed that if the system was the most efficient it could be, then the productivity of the workers would then increase.

The ultimate goal of the Toyota Production System is "the absolute elimination of waste". Taiichi Ohno proved that by removing all the waste previously produced in the production of automobiles, that the system was more efficient and the productivity of the workers using the system increased also.

The "Just-In-Time" theory was one of the major measures developed to increase efficiency of the system. The idea was if all the components required in the production arrived where they were needed in the assembly at the time they were needed and in the quantity they were needed then Toyota would not require to store all the waiting components in store rooms, saving space and money.

Another system development was "Autonomation", or "Automation, with a human touch". This essentially meant that all production machines were fitted or redesigned to include the ability to stop production if a fault occured. For example if a foreign piece of material fell into a stamping machine, the unrequired object would be detected and the machine would stop until a worker could clear the obstruction. This would prevent any imperfect units, i.e. waste, being produced.

Both these systems allowed one worker to attend to several machines at the same time, thus increasing the productivity of the workforce, all achieved by the increased efficiency of the production system.



The Toyota Production System has today been developed for use in the office. 'Systems thinking' is a discipline that aims to increase the efficiency of the company. Like Toyota's system, this is achieved not by changing the workers or by focusing on the workers alone, but by placing emphasis on the system the workers are subject to. Develop the system to be most efficient and the productivity of the workers will follow.

Sneaky sneaky council... well done!

I have found that the lack of adoption of green products and technology (or at least, the slow rate of adoption) is because it is so easy not to adopt. Individuals, and even businesses and governments want to go green, but just need someone to give them a detailed, step-by-step plan of how to do so.

After watching a tedtalk with Seth Godin, I noted that people are for more likely to do an activity if they DONT have to OPT IN to do it, but to not do it they have to actively OPT OUT. This could well be the key to having the whole planet's population going green!

Incidentally, a couple of months after the tedtalk, the council delivered to my door a food waste recycling bin and a leaflet explaining the councils weekly pick-up service, etc. I first thought to myself great! People dont want to have to go out and buy a recycling bin, they want the council to deliver it and pick up the waste every week, simple! However, due to experience and conversations ive had with some individuals, ive found that even solutions like these can be a pain for SOME individuals as they cant really be bothered to put the (recyclable or food, etc) waste in a seperate bin.

But I kept reading, and I found an ingenious solution to the sheer laziness of those individuals. The council might well have seen the same tedtalk as me because on the second page was a declaration form stating that if you did not want the bin or for the council to pick up the food waste, you had to tick the box stating that you DIDNT WANT TO USE THE SERVICE, and then you had to send this form off the council!

Some sceptics may say that this is an abuse of free will, or that it is playing on peoples weaknesses but I say screw them. It is the planet were trying to save here, and ourselves and if ths is the kick up the arse some individuals need then I really dont care about their weaknesses, in fact you cant even call laziness a weakness, as I feel it is an attribute that should have been rid of years ago!

Rather than designing a high-tech solution to try to combat climate change, a decision that would simply pollute the market with another idea that will not be adopted by individuals, I aim to solve the system in which information and these technologies are given to the public in an attempt to get them on board.

The constant barrage of bad news and statistics about our global consumption levels can disillusion some individuals. However, this information must be made available to the public as otherwise they mistrust government and again, their efforts are decreased.

There are hundreds of overwhelming intuitive solutions that if all used together, have a reasonably good chance of helping our struggle against climate change, ranging from technological products such as clear, film-like solar panels to low tech ideas like fertilizing crops with human excrement and urine.

However, whilst scientists, technologists and designers are producing a flourish of new and exciting approaches to our existing habits, the main problem is now not climate change but our own prevention of accepting these solutions with open arms, which if we would simply adopt, could potentially solve the global crisis.

After fully researching the causes for our current climate change crisis, I am now trying to understand why we as individuals, businesses and governments are not doing as much as we could to help combat the crisis. Is there a problem with the way in which information is received by the public, do the media need to change their approach, is legislation the answer? I will first find out why people are not adopting, and then try to solve it.

Governments and the public

Information exchange between governments and the public seems to be of great importance. It has been said that if the public feel that their government is not giving them all the facts, or the facts that were given were untrue, then mistrust would form and peoples effort to reduce carbon emissions would decrease.

However, it has also been said that if individuals are subject to a constant barrage of bad news and negativity, they will become disillusioned and feel they cannot simply help, which in turn decreases their effort.

So it seems that government's most important role, besides pushing for worldwide agreements to lower carbon emissions, is to keep its public in the loop, providing information in a way that feels we can fight climate change, and win.

Negativity breeds disillusionment, Positivity breeds enlightenment