maker spaces

fall 2015 – 3 new projects completed

ALCHEMY studio is pleased to announce the opening of three new projects over the summer and early fall, developed and designed by our team. We want to congratulate the staff of these institutions for their community vision, hard work, and creativity.

The LAB, Children’s Science Center, Reston VA – June 2015


 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The LAB is the first public experience opened by the Children’s Science Center, which is the first interactive STEM destination in Northern Virginia.

The Lab is composed of four spaces which include the Experiment Bar programmatic space; a tinkering space known as the Tinker Shop; an exhibition space called the Inspiration Hub; and an early learner area called the Discovery Zone. All spaces are designed for changing exhibitry and are completely flexible while still being separately themed.

Unique project factors: The LAB is located in a family-friendly, upscale suburban mall. This context informed both the design standards as well as the operating planning. The LAB has been a great success since its launch over the summer.

 

 Science Basics and Our Bodies, Konya Science Center, Konya Turkey – July 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Konya Science Center marks Turkey’s first truly large-scale interactive informal learning experience. As the first institution completed under the science center initiative being lead by Turkey’s national science research organization, TUBITAK, the new science center is intended to be a model for other municipalities in the country as they develop their own science centers.

Unique project factors: This science center needed to reflect its local community and regional needs, but, as a national model, it also needed to attract other municipalities to draw from its example. These factors impacted the overall design and led to a project with community-based and national outcomes.

 

CREATE!, Arizona Science Center, Phoenix, AZ – September 2015

CREATE! was designed to support local and regional communities of makers, designers, artists, and engineers. CREATE! provides safe starting points for new participants while also being a resource for established makers and designers who want to explore new ideas and share their knowledge with others.

Unique project factors: CREATE! is housed in an existing building adjacent to the Arizona Science Center, and though there is considerable overlap, CREATE! has its own identity and draws its own audience. In addition, with the space, the design and planning needed to consider the full novice-to-expert spectrum while also partnering deeply with like-minded community resources.

 

 

 

 

Posted in: Experiences and Museums, News

Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment

One of the Five Coolest Things at the New Cooper Hewitt

ALCHEMY studio’s vision for the Process Lab at the re-vamped Cooper Hewitt has drawn attention and sparked praise from publications such as Fast Company and others. Our team is proud to have been part of the creative team behind the renovated and revitalized Smithsonian Design Museum.

 

 

To see the full Fast Company review click here

ALCHEMY studio was hired to work with the staff of the Cooper Hewitt to develop and prototype the experiences in the Process Lab and test how these would work within both the operating parameters of the museum and the overall design architecture. Activities found in the Process Lab were developed from a series of workshops with staff followed by prototyping with potential visitors. Activities were developed for both physical interactives as well as media platforms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Process Lab places visitors in the role of designer by inviting them into the design process itself: observing and identifying design challenges; brainstorming creative solutions; making models and prototypes; and testing new ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities include a central collaborative “lightscape” that lets visitors create shape, shadow, and color effects. Visitors also have the chance to create a design mash-up: making up a new product by combining two items from their bags – or by including a random oject. Visitors also improve existing designs, comment on others’ design choices, and add to a design talkback board.

 

 

 

 

The Process Lab has been drawing attention and praise for the creative, open-ended ways it invites visitors to take on the role of designer, engage with collections objects, and spiral through the design process itself.

 

Posted in: News

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses

3D Modeling

The past 10 working days have been very busy here in the studio. We have some new projects ramping up and several moving creatively forward, but we have had the chance to encounter a couple of very interesting projects that all demonstrate the idea of 3D modeling in new ways.

The first is Lix, the world’s smallest 3D printing pen in the world.

 

 

 

Well, this pen doesn’t exist yet, but it’s currently a Kickstarter project. Certainly, this direction of 3D printing will become increasingly prevalent in the creative fields, and we think it’s easy to see this technology on the museum floor. From art museums to children’s museums, the artistic and creative implications are easy to see. In science museums, while it might be easy to imagine something like this being used in a maker or tinkering space, this idea got us thinking about some new ways it might be used.

How might a 3D pen like this be used to document or record phenomena?

Could it be used instead of a pen for exhibits like pendulum drawing?

This trend of replacing a physical medium with something new is part of the allure of the other project we ran across recently – a piece called  ”36 Ventilators, 4.7m3 Packing Chips” by the Swiss artist Zimoun for the Museo d’Arte di Lugano

 

 

 

The amazing similarity of this piece to ocean waves and flowing water is breathtaking. No doubt, some aspects of size weight and the idea of many particles cause this movement to “flow” almost as a fluid. It reminded us of some of the natural phenomena exhibits seen at many science museums. We’re very intrigued by the idea of experimenting with this behavior in different spaces and different contexts.

What do you think? What other exhibits, installations, or devices do these projects remind you of?

Posted in: Experiences and Museums

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses

maker museum/maker collection

Following last week’s thread about visitors experimenting and tinkering, we thought it would be interesting to discuss the idea of people making their own “exhibits” or even their own museums. This idea was sparked after we came across an interesting project called the MiniMusuem.

 

 

 

There’s something enchanting about this project, and here at the studio, it got us thinking about childhood memories like the little boxed rock collections from places like the Skyline Drive in Virginia

 

 

or old printing typeset drawers filled with well-organized marble collections, seed pods, or fishing lures.

The MiniMuseum also reminded us of the work of Theodore Gray who has developed The “Wooden Periodic Table” Table (yes, two “tables”).

 

 

 

 

An amazing piece of furniture (an actual, physical table) and celebration of chemistry (periodic table) – a homemade exhibit and maker exhibit.

 

 

Theodore Gray (who’s also a co-founder of Wolfram Research) has developed a rather extensive website not associated with his table.

 

These examples suggest another type of activity that could be included in the maker/tinkering spaces than are now springing up in many places. Certainly, there is the possibility of letting visitors “curate” or “categorize” samples, bring in their own collections, or work to find and organize samples.

 

All of these efforts invite visitors to explore and actually do some of the work that scientists and researchers do – as well as our fellow museum professionals.

 

We think this is a rather untapped area that could developed further. What examples like these have you come across? And, by the way, what did you collect when you were a kid?

 

Posted in: Experiences and Museums

Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment

maker music

Recently, ALCHEMY studio was engaged to begin the design and implementation of a new space for an emerging science center in Virginia. As part of the Museum’s plan, they are being offered the opportunity to experiment and test program and exhibit ideas in a small space in a local shopping area. We call it The Lab – a space where visitors will get to experiment, experience and tinker while the emerging science center will do the same through prototypes.

As part of our work, we are exploring all kinds of new and different experiences that offer something unique but also meet the desired experiential and impact goals.  One interesting example that caught our eye is the OTOTO by Dentaku and developed with Near Now. Take a look.

 

;

 

 

 

This experience certainly shows promise as an activity that could be part of many tinkering and making spaces. This is certainly an opportunity to allow visitors to express creativity – one driver for these spaces. But, as importantly for us here at the studio,

it offers the opportunity to explore and provide interpretive scaffolding for visitors to learn about science concepts and technological operations – something sometimes lacking in maker space activities.

Meanwhile, music offers a wonderful way to engage audiences who might be disinclined to explore these subjects.

Another example to explore would be having visitors experiment with sampling and learn musical and sound concepts while creating. This idea came to us through this experience by johnnyrandom who created a musical symphony from bicycle components. Here it is.

 

 

We would love to “hear” your ideas on this (pardon the pun!) and learn about similar experiences you might have seen.

Posted in: Experiences and Museums

Tags: , , , , ,

1 Response

SWOT Analysis for Institutions Who Follow the Maker/Tinkering Experience Trend

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis for Institutions Who Follow the Maker/Tinkering Experience Trend

The analysis below was created by the 200+ audience and session instigators at the ASTC 2013 Conference Session, “Interactive, Touch Tables, Maker Spaces: Trends, Fads, What’s Next?” While we hope to put this on the CAISE website we are cross posting it here.

 

 

The session instigators were as follows:

  • Wayne LaBar – ALCHEMY studio (session leader)
  • Kirsten Ellenbogen – Great Lakes Science Center
  • Hooley McLaughlin – Ontario Science Center
  • Dana Schloss – TELUS Spark
  • Eric Siegel – New York Hall of Science

By way of background, here is a definition of “SWOT analysis” from Wikipedia:

SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT Matrix) is a structured planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or in a business venture. A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieving that objective. The technique is credited to Albert Humphrey, who led a convention at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in the 1960s and 1970s using data from Fortune 500 companies. The degree to which the internal environment of the firm matches with the external environment is expressed by the concept of strategic fit.

Setting the objective should be done after the SWOT analysis has been performed. This would allow achievable goals or objectives to be set for the organization.

  • Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others
  • Weaknesses: characteristics that place the team at a disadvantage relative to others
  • Opportunities: elements the project could exploit to its advantage
  • Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project

The recent ASTC session drew a large crowd and sparked a lot of follow-up discussions. Since the SWOT analysis was done live via computer during the session, participants had immediate access, and many expressed the feeling that it would be great to share this more broadly with the science center community. Both participants and instigators felt that reflecting upon and analyzing our practice was useful and that science centers ought to do more of this type of thinking. A summary/review of the session can be found on the ASTC blog at http://www.astc.org/blog/2013/10/21/interactive-touch-tables-maker-spaces-trends-fads-whats-next/

 

One insight that comes out of the analysis is that, while there are certainly unique aspects to the Making/Tinkering movement, this exercise brought up some “universal” themes as well – good words of analytic wisdom applicable to any strong, impactful experience.

Of course, a possible conflating factor for any “conclusions” one might draw is the self-selection of the group for this particular conference session. We didn’t cross-correlate responses with participants’ museum affiliation, situational context, current programming, or prior experience with Maker/Tinkering spaces. Perhaps there will future opportunities to frame and explore the issues brought up during the discussion.

Without further ado… the SWOT analysis:

 

OPPORTUNITY

  • Funders love it
  • Get to partner with awesome people who are also known to the public
  • Bring in new audiences
  • Outcomes have personal connection
  • Leverage established festivals and event
  • NGSS are full of modeling – ISE is scared to death of this – but abstract representation etc. is strong in maker
  • Media love it
  • Unique opportunity to engage adults
  • It gets people to spend time thinking about something – move this to internal
  • Very easy to communicate
  • Lots of rhetoric around this – even Obama loves it – Silicon Valley believes it needs to create people who have the skills that maker spaces create
  • Opportunity to reuse materials
  • Really helps to build community – not just learning community but also gives people a brand to collect under – brings external communities together
  • Ties into the formal education sector
  • Opportunity to build on others ideas
  • People get it
  • Brings in outside expertise

 

THREATS

  • People may do it without learning how
  • It’s overblown in the media and diluted
  • If it doesn’t fit your mission it can unintentionally change what people think of you
  • Science Centers are not uniquely positioned to do this
  • I can do this at the children’s museum, why is at a science center?
  • A lot of people don’t get it
  • It can be very wasteful of resources
  • Can alienate existing maker communities
  • External funders love it but it may not align with your mission – takes money from other important directions – their vision of making may not be the same as yours
  • Are we increasing inequality because only some people can afford coming to the science center?
  • You have to buy 3D printers
  • Environmental waste
  • Time waste – move this to internal – museum visitor time is precious – we try to create thoughtful things that they may never get to if they are caught up in maker space
  • Because the maker movement feels so new we are still developing a shared understanding – end up being unfocused
  • People feel that they can’t do it
  • Liability
  • Expectation by longtime visitors does not match this new effort

 

STRENGTHS

  • Allow you to bridge gap between education and exhibits
  • Comfortable space for strangers to interact
  • Most science centers bring in 7-14 year olds – a missing group
  • Build internal staff capacity – draw out the internal strengths that you may not have known about it
  • You can integrate hybrid maker into other exhibits and programs
  • Worth it just to give people a chance to slow down and try something in-depth using your hands
  • Gives people facility with tools
  • Super empowering for visitors
  • Shifts mindset of staff to do more prototyping
  • Problems are self-defined
  • Engages families together
  • NGSS talks about STEAM – brings in art
  • Creates meaningful and memorable experience
  • Instigates learning modality conversation
  • Gives laypeople control over production
  • Reinvigorate one’s floor
  • Opens up possibilities
  • I CAN do this
  • Encourages collaboration
  • Changes interpretive modality – for floor staff, not as much about explaining
  • Provides a space that’s not as static
  • Provides opportunity to learn from failure
  • Create a community of regulars – maker groupies
  • Makes your staff feel part of something bigger than your organization
  • IT IS FUN

 

 

WEAKNESSES

  • Staff capacity
  • Potentially lose the wow factor in the science center
  • People fail if there is not enough facilitation
  • Looks messy
  • It is expensive to staff
  • Has to be authentic – this is not for everybody
  • Institutional resistance to change
  • No science center has spare space for this
  • Materials management
  • Ability to engage visitors for repeat visits
  • It can look cheap
  • Should not distract us from doing “science” – potential to be just arts and crafts
  • Easy to become whatever you want making factory
  • It is such a good idea – just get on with it – weaknesses will scare the management
  • Difficult to measure this kind of learning
  • Narrow definitions of making can exclude diverse audiences
  • We are always weakest at the beginnings of these efforts – how to we catapult our learning in the field
  • Not all sciences lend themselves to Maker experiences
  • Requires lots of iteration
  • It is uniquely dependent on the quality of the facilitation – therefore you have a big quality control issue – the cost of making sure that facilitators can participate effectively
  • Because it is hard to measure and articulate the learning outcomes, it is hard to train your facilitators
  • If we use traditional assessments then we will not measure maker learning
  • Investment required means you prioritize this kind of learning over other community engagement
  • If it is really authentic maker experience, there is more opportunity for failure and may decrease motivation to participate
  • If you are doing the Maker space you are not out ahead of the next trend – do we lose innovation?
  • Maker is a tool that can be applied depending on how it fits the topic
  • Maker space is not the point – it is incorporating – we want to make Maker spots or nodes

Posted in: Experiences and Museums, News

Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment