24 Hour Project

Some time has past following participation in a 24 hour project, the clue being within the name. You are given a briefing and 24 hours to develop a response. First mentioned towards the end of the term, this project was rather intriguing from an outside perspective. I had just hoped the brief would be something stimulating.

The briefing for this project was as follows;

Design a piece of wearable technology due to be released in Q1 2019. The product or system must be designed for one of the following uses/user groups:

  • Mother & Baby
  • Pets
  • The Elderly
  • Women’s Health
  • Crime & Punishment

My response to this briefing?…I was a little disappointed, my feelings toward technology, especially wearable technology is quite strenuous, the furthest I am comfortable with is over ear headphones. Why? I believe that technology has many advantages within society, but also a lot of disadvantages. Wearable technology allows for humankind to become lazy, needlessly simplifying tasks.

I believe the group formed was quite strong:

 

I would explain the process of the project but Mathew has already done so,

‘The different user groups/uses did not necessarily excite me all that much. On the surface, it just seemed that there wasn’t anything to them. I was initially drawn to Crime and Punishment as a possible theme but choosing our user group was an important discussion that had to be done as a team. We all initially felt that each user group presented obvious, clear-cut solutions so we needed to see beyond this in order to create a new and exciting idea.

Everyone made their opinions known and it was key that we had these open conversations as this allowed everyone to contribute. Because this was a team project, we had to work as a team and not as 6 individuals.

After some discussion, it was unanimous that there were 2 user groups that felt had the most potential: Mother & Baby and Crime & Punishment.

However, after some research into both of these user groups, we found the ‘Mother & Baby’  market to be incredibly overcrowded.’ (Griffin, 2018).

‘We found ‘Crime & Punishment’ to be seemingly limited to just tracking technology so we felt from this that there was a clear opportunity to do something innovative and meaningful.

We spent a considerable amount of time researching and exploring this topic in more detail but this allowed us to have an in-depth and rational discussion about various creative avenues.

This discussion was vital as everyone contributed their voices to the point where a viable ‘idea’ was formed and by using all of the research that had been gathered, we weaved a strong narrative that justified the existence of our ‘idea’

And so, our key focus was the rehabilitation of prisoners in order for them to become a contributing member of society. The narrative is as follows:

59% of prisoners, whose sentence is less than 12 months, re-offend (Gov.uk, n.d.).

Why is this?

This could be attributed to the following:

  • Poor mental health. 49% and 23% of female and male prisoners respectively suffer from anxiety and depression (Prisoner Resource Trust, 2018)
  • Lack of sensory stimuli. All prisoners can hear is the loud and harsh sounds of their fellow cell mates.
  • Lack of social contact and family interaction. This is part of their ‘punishment’ but how can they reform if they are not readjusting to society?

If there was a way to improve upon the lack of sensory stimuli and social interaction, this could improve the prisoner’s well-being thus increasing their resilience and engagement to reform and to better themselves.

One would argue ‘So what? They’re prisoners, They are there to serve a punishment’.

That is correct. They are there to serve time but that time is wasted if they are not using it to better themselves. If a prisoner fails to readjust to society, they will re-offend and that costs money.

It costs £32,510 to keep one prisoner in prison for one year. Add the £60,000 cost for police and court fees and the approximate cost to get a prisoner into prison costs £90,000 to £100,000.

Therefore, our concept attempts to improve a prisoner’s chance of re-adjusting to society through the increase of sensory stimuli and social contact as not only does this improve their mental well-being. It could also potentially lower the re-offending rate thus decreasing the amount of money the Government has to spend in order to lock up prisoners in the first place.’ (Griffin, 2018).

 

Here is the link to the presentation PDF.

 

Overall, I am quite pleased with how the project developed, I found myself not being stressed as the group worked together to achieve the goal of finishing the project. The presentation went well, I am aware that I still must develop my presenting skills and communication in front of large groups. Nonetheless, I do think we achieved a lot within a short amount of time.

Following this project I decided to revisit it for a further 24 hours. I was not happy with the quality of the concept sketches so the main focus was concept sketching. The extra 24 hours working on the project proved valuable for improving my digital sketching, I am now happy with the outcome of the project even though these updated sketches technically do not count towards the project.

If I were to experience a short project such as this again, I would say that a sufficient time would be 48 hours rather than 24.

24hr - 4 Concepts
Development following the 24 Hours

 

References:

Griffin, M. (2018). 24:00:00. [Blog] Mathew Griffin – Product Design. Available at: https://matsdesignblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/240000/ [Accessed 2 Feb. 2018].

 

%d bloggers like this: