The whys behind my project started with my love for functionality and modularity. Heavily influenced by my Year placement with Huf Haus, (www.huf-haus.com - An Architectural house building company featured on Channel 4’s Grand Designs Show) this company’s contemporary and modular styles fused fluently with my own and helped me to take very systematic approaches to any issues that arose during my project.

I wanted to initially develop a furniture piece to tackle functionality within the home, but quickly realised that the design direction that needed to be taken was within avenues of experience and interaction design relating to the user.

My dissertation…

[The proposition of Delayed Consumer Customisation to impact on product life cycles: Through the use of Prefab and Modular methodologies and emotional attachment techniques.] – Click to Download

helped no end to push forward my theories of modularity and mass customisation and the realisation that consumer choice is paramount. So to put these thoughts and theories into practise, I began to develop ideas of interchangeable products that would change function to suit choice, whilst tackling and enhancing the involvement and creation process.

Selecting areas to impact on was a challenging task, after researching into emotional attachment, I decided to challenge the areas of pleasure outlined by Norman and then Jordan with his hierarchy of user needs.

My aim was to turn functionality into a pleasurable experience through hands on interaction with the product.

So to suffice my ‘modular’ desires, the unit was spawned from the development of several interlocking/semi-permanent joints, enabling the “breaking” of the product, to then be reconstructed.

After some direct observation of peers and friends during the construction of furniture I had bought for them, I realised it was the dehumanised, repetitive and frustrating construction methods that would tire the user both physically and mentally.

My decision to use magnets came abruptly from a small toy, and in some way I took that same ‘toy’ ethic to work with me. I knew that magnets would provide the right kind of engagement and feedback that the user would require to satisfy their wants needs. However the technical feasibility was another issue.

Developing the breakable joint was a great challenge. I wanted to manufacture the product myself and as close to industry standards as possible, so it led me to constrain myself in some areas such as materials but explore avenues of ergonomics, product handling and manufacturing optimisation.

The joint only went through a couple of development stages within terms of its structure, but it went through many stages during manufacture, i.e. cutting depths and speeds, tolerances etc.

Also finding suitable ‘Neodymium’ magnets for the joint was an investigation in it self.

The issue was, to get enough physical feedback from the magnets/joints connection to provide a positive reinforcement to the user that the joint is aligned and the magnets are connected.

The problems arose from, the thickness of the wood and its weight.

The thicker the wood, the bigger the magnets I could recess into it, but then the heavier the unit top would be and so the stronger the magnets needed to be. Vicious circle!

Need it be said, a happy medium was found!

I currently have a Patent Application processing for the joint. and the Design is Registered.