Product Design Internship · Recycled Plastic Homeware — 2021

Origin
Plastics

12 weeks. 100+ survey respondents. Two full CAD rounds. One manufacturing pivot. The watering can failed tooling. The lamp didn't.

Company

Origin Plastics — Aberdeen

Duration

12 weeks — remote (COVID-19)

Tools

Rhino · KeyShot · Online Survey

Year

2021

Problem

Recycled plastic has a
perception problem

Origin Plastics produce homeware from recycled injection-moulded plastic — a material with real properties and genuine potential that consumers consistently undervalue. The association with single-use packaging runs deep. The word "recycled" reads as inferior rather than responsible. That's not a material problem. It's a design problem. The placement was about finding out whether design could close the gap.

Insight

Form and finish have to
do the reframing

Survey research with 100+ respondents confirmed the perception gap was bigger than the material gap. Recycled plastic isn't low quality — it's low status. The way to reframe it isn't explanation. It's form: objects with enough presence, tactility, and considered proportion that the material reads as deliberate rather than default. The brief became about designing objects where the plastic was the right choice, not the only one available.

Design Intent

Handled with care,
worth keeping

The design intent across both concepts was the same: recycled plastic handled with enough consideration becomes worth keeping. Continuous curvature. Generous proportions. Surfaces that emphasise material flow. The goal was homeware that a consumer would choose for its quality — and then, if they chose to, be pleased about its sustainability. Not sustainability first. Quality first. The argument follows the object.

Outcome

Full digital concept.
No physical prototype.

Remote working meant no workshop access. The placement never reached tooling. What exists is a complete design process — survey research, two rounds of ideation and CAD development, a manufacturing-informed pivot between typologies, and final KeyShot renders of the lamp concept. A portion of the work was retained internally by Origin. The process holds up even without a physical end point.

100+

Survey respondents

Consumer perception of recycled plastic in homeware — the brief's foundation

2

Full CAD concepts

Watering can → manufacturing review → lamp. Both rounds taken to KeyShot

12wk

Fully remote placement

COVID-19 restrictions throughout — no workshop, no physical prototyping

The Constraints

Hard manufacturing limits — shaped every decision from typology selection onward

Material Recycled plastic only — brand mandate, non-negotiable
Shot weight 100g maximum — machine-specific limit, rules out large or thick-walled forms entirely
Tooling Simple draft angles, minimal undercuts — tooling cost had to be recoverable at realistic batch sizes
Parts Minimum part count preferred — assembly adds cost and complexity Origin couldn't absorb at micro-business scale
Origin Plastics — early sketch ideation pages, domestic typology exploration Early ideation sketches
Origin Plastics — typology exploration sketches across product categories Typology exploration
Origin Plastics — early CAD exploration in Rhino, form-finding for the recycled-plastic brief Early CAD — Rhino
Origin Plastics — sketch page, watering can profile studies Sketch — watering can profile
Origin Plastics — sketch page, lamp form ideation after pivot Sketch — lamp ideation
Origin Plastics — CAD development, surface curvature studies CAD — surface curvature

Ideation

Early exploration covered a wide range of domestic typologies — the question was where form, tactility, and surface continuity could do the most persuasive work. Sketching ran alongside CAD rather than sequentially: testing whether what looked interesting in line would hold up as a solid, and whether what read well as a render had any chance of coming out of a mould at 100g.

100g maximum shot weight rules out a lot. Thick walls, large forms, complex multi-part assemblies — gone early. The brief was already narrowing the field before the first form decision was made. That constraint was visible in every ideation session.

The goal at this stage was range rather than resolution. Mapping how far the material could be pushed visually before it stopped making sense to produce it.

Concept Direction

The watering can landed as the primary concept. Clear functional requirements, enough formal freedom to push the material, and a recognisable typology that would let surface quality read against something familiar. The forms leaned into curvature — sweeping transitions, continuous surfaces, visual weight distributed through the body. The intention was to make recycled plastic look considered. Something produced with the same care as cast iron or blown glass.

In CAD it looked right. The curves emphasised material flow. The proportions were generous without being heavy. It passed the visual test.

Origin Plastics watering can concept — KeyShot render front three-quarter view Watering can — KeyShot render
Origin Plastics watering can concept — KeyShot render side profile Watering can — alternate angle
Origin Plastics watering can concept — final environment render, full body
×

The watering can passed the visual test.
It failed the tooling one.

Manufacturing review flagged the problem. The continuous curvature that made the form compelling was exactly what made it expensive to tool. Complex geometry, difficult draft angles, part separation that didn't resolve cleanly — the watering can was producible in theory and unviable in practice at the batch sizes Origin operated at.

The instinct was right. The object chosen to carry the argument was wrong. Form and surface to reframe the material — that logic was sound. A typology that manufacturing couldn't afford was not. The pivot happened with limited time left on the placement.

The Pivot — Lamp

The constraints pointed clearly after the watering can: simpler geometry, cleaner draft angles, fewer undercuts. Surfaces that could still carry the same material quality — just without the tooling complexity that killed the first concept.

The lamp emerged from those conditions. A typology with cleaner part separation, more forgiving geometry, and surfaces that reward the same curved, continuous treatment the watering can was designed around. The form was resolved in CAD and taken through to KeyShot for final visualisation. The material logic stayed consistent throughout: recycled plastic handled with enough care becomes worth keeping. The object changed. The argument didn't.

Origin Plastics lamp concept — KeyShot render, rear three-quarter view
Origin Plastics lamp — final KeyShot render hero view Final lamp render — KeyShot
Origin Plastics lamp — detail render showing surface and curvature Lamp — surface & curvature detail
Origin Plastics lamp — Rhino CAD construction lines and surface logic Lamp — CAD construction
Origin Plastics lamp — alternate render with circular base detail Lamp — circle base variant
The instinct was right. The object chosen to carry it was one manufacturing couldn't afford. — Reflection, Origin Plastics Placement, 2021

In Retrospect

01

Manufacturing review belongs at the typology stage

The watering can survived ideation and most of CAD before tooling constraints killed it. That feedback should have arrived at typology selection — before any resolve happened. Running manufacturing checks earlier would have either saved the concept or redirected it before time ran out.

02

Choosing a typology is choosing a set of constraints

The watering can looked like a formal decision. It was also a tooling decision that hadn't been fully examined. Those two conversations happen at the same time or the second one arrives too late. That sequence has been consistent in every project since.

03

Physical prototypes catch things CAD misses

Even rough foam models would have made the tooling issues visible sooner. Remote working removed that option throughout the placement. The lesson transfers regardless: as soon as it's possible to make something physical, make something physical.

04

Run more directions before committing to one

The watering can was selected earlier than it should have been. Keeping two or three typologies live further into development would have provided a fallback when manufacturing killed the primary concept — rather than a pivot with limited time remaining.

Specification

CompanyOrigin Plastics — sustainability-led micro-business producing homeware from recycled injection-moulded plastic.
Duration12 weeks, fully remote. COVID-19 restrictions throughout — no workshop access.
ResearchOnline survey, 100+ respondents. Consumer perception of recycled plastic in homeware. Core finding: perception gap larger than material gap.
Concept 1Watering can — resolved to advanced CAD and KeyShot renders. Failed manufacturing review due to tooling complexity and draft angle issues.
Concept 2Lamp — pivoted from watering can after manufacturing review. Resolved to final CAD and KeyShot renders. Material logic consistent throughout.
ToolsRhino (CAD), KeyShot (visualisation), online survey tools.
OutputSurvey research documentation, ideation sketches, CAD development across two concepts, KeyShot visualisations. No physical prototype. Portion of work retained by Origin.

Next

Cycle Arts Festival
→