RP or not RP, that is the co-creation question.

Abstract

Rapid prototyping has been growing in complexity, capability and user-friendliness. 3D printers have been dropping in price as rapidly as modern mobile devices with touch screens. From schools to consultancies, local businesses to global manufacturers, everybody recognises the unique contribution of RP in the design development process and the savings in time and money it can deliver. This demand has been fuelling the phenomenal growth in investment in the technology and its uses. Many academic institutions like Bournemouth University are conducting research into the uses and developments of RP technology. However, as the cost of the technology has dropped a whole new conversation about the effects of RP in design education has arisen. Just as most technological developments have both positive and negative implications, many questions have been raised, such as: • Can the technology handicap the development of other essential skills required in design and engineering (D&E) • Does RP encourage D&E students to think that simply being able to visualise a product digitally is enough? • Does RP give students unrealistic expectations of the real design and manufacturing environment? • How can RP be used to stimulate creativity without sacrificing design integrity • What view does the design industry take on these questions. Drawing on the experiences of Bournemouth University’s BA/BSc Product Design students and industry professionals, this paper discusses how RP affects the traditional design education approach, and explores the concept of co-creation through the combination of both traditional physical fabrication and rapid prototyping.