I want to create products that are visually refined, understandable, and relevant to the people they are designed for, while remaining technically feasible and responsible throughout their lifecycle.

Sustainability is one of the main principles guiding this vision. I believe it is most effective when it is embedded into the structure and logic of a product rather than added later as a feature or marketing claim. Products should be designed from the beginning with durability, repairability, recyclability, modularity, and disassembly in mind. This means considering how components can be accessed, replaced, separated, upgraded, maintained, and eventually recovered or recycled (Bakker et al., 2014; Bocken et al., 2016).

For me, repairability means more than making a product technically possible to repair. The product architecture should allow relevant components to be reached without unnecessary disassembly, use removable fasteners where appropriate, and account for the availability of tools, replacement parts, and repair information (De Fazio et al., 2021). Designing in this way can help products remain functional and relevant for longer.

Modularity is also relevant to this approach because the way functions are allocated to components and interfaces affects whether parts can be independently replaced, upgraded, reused, or adapted (Ulrich, 1995). However, I do not view modularity as automatically sustainable; it must be applied where it meaningfully improves maintenance, adaptability, or end-of-life recovery.

I also want to design for a broad range of users. Accessibility should not be treated as an additional feature, but as part of the product’s basic usability. My aim is to create products whose purpose and operation can be understood without unnecessary cognitive effort and whose use does not depend on a narrow set of physical, sensory, or technical abilities (Clarkson et al., 2003).

I am particularly interested in rich, physical interaction that goes beyond screen-based interfaces. I want products to communicate their purpose through form, tactility, material behaviour, physical feedback, and feedforward (Djajadiningrat et al., 2004; Wensveen et al., 2004). A product should provide indications of what can be done, communicate the results of an action, and allow users to understand its state. Digital interfaces can support this experience, but they should not automatically replace physical interaction when a tactile or mechanical solution is clearer.

Visually, I aim to create designs that are refined and recognisable without depending excessively on short-lived trends. I value trend research and forecasting as ways of understanding cultural and market developments, but I prefer to use that knowledge to create products with their own identity and long-term relevance.

In the long term, I want to work at the intersection of design, engineering, and product development. My goal is to bring a bridging perspective to design-led companies: helping designers understand feasibility, usability, production, and technical constraints, while helping engineers recognise that technically effective solutions can also be visually coherent, intuitive, and expressive.

I also want to contribute to more efficient development processes. By bringing design and engineering perspectives together earlier, decisions can be tested sooner, unnecessary iterations can be reduced, and production considerations can inform design without eliminating creative ambition. I believe that when these disciplines genuinely inform one another, products become more attractive, usable, efficient, repairable, and meaningful.

Ultimately, I want to develop products that justify their production and continued use. They should provide clear functional value, create a considered user experience, and remain maintainable and relevant for as long as possible.