Abstract
I. Relationship Between the Two Projects
This portfolio brings together two projects completed during Spring 2026: a technical capstone comparing design methodologies applied to makerspace systems, and an STS research paper examining how surveillance technology shapes user behavior in those same kinds of spaces. Though operating in different registers—one technical, one with a more ethical perspective—both are concerned with how people experience makerspaces and what design choices can support or undermine that experience. The connection is not incidental: both projects look at what conditions allow makerspace users to participate fully and creatively, approaching that question from various viewpoints. The technical project examines how systems are built to serve users; the STS project examines what happens to users once those systems are in place.
II. Summary of the Technical Capstone
"Using Student Projects to Compare Model-Based Systems Engineering and Human-Centered Design" presents a case study comparing two design methodologies through two semester-long makerspace projects. In the first semester, the team applied MBSE—using SysML diagrams and rigid upfront modeling—to design a resource management system for an industrial makerspace, addressing problems in consumable tracking, device usage, and capacity management, which are all real-world problems that are faced in current makerspaces throughout. In the second semester, the team applied HCD to a continuation of designing a resource management system at UVA's architecture makerspace, engaging directly with staff and students through interviews and iterative prototype testing.
The findings align with established trends: MBSE proved better suited to large, complex systems requiring formal documentation and low error tolerance, while HCD did better in smaller projects with accessible users and evolving requirements. One major thing to highlight is that the two methodologies are not strictly competing—MBSE incorporates client-facing review gates which are similar to HCD's iterative testing, and the most sophisticated practice may draw on both. The team concluded that choosing between them depends on project scope, stakeholder availability, and the consequences of error.
III. Summary of the STS Research Paper
"How Surveillance Technology Shapes User Behavior in Makerspaces" investigates a tension often overlooked in makerspace design: cameras and monitoring systems installed for safety may quietly undermine the psychological conditions on which creative learning depends. Drawing on research in surveillance studies, makerspace culture, and behavioral psychology, the paper argues that awareness of potential observation produces more self-conscious, risk-averse behavior like shifting users' focus from their work to how they appear while doing it.
Primary data came from semi-structured interviews with four UVA engineering students with makerspace experience. Participants consistently reported that cameras would make them more hesitant to experiment, more likely to second-guess decisions, and less comfortable working freely. The paper also found some essential impacts: more experienced users reported being less affected, while newer or less confident users described stronger effects, meaning surveillance may constrain those who would benefit most from a low-pressure environment.
IV. Reflection on Doing Both Projects Together
Working on these projects simultaneously produced insights that neither would have been created if generated alone. The technical capstone demonstrated that good system design requires understanding users—their workflows, frustrations, and goals. But the STS paper introduced a more deep and interesting insight: users are not only people with functional needs. They are also people with social anxieties and psychological vulnerabilities that are shaped by the environments around them. A makerspace system that efficiently tracks printer availability can coexist with a surveillance environment that quietly discourages the very behaviors the space exists to support.
Each project also informed the other in concrete ways. The HCD process—observing users, running interviews, watching who asked questions freely and who hung back—gave the STS theory more validity. The argument that the awareness of observation functions as self-regulation, or findings about first-time users feeling like outsiders, explained the balanced dynamics the team had witnessed firsthand. In the other direction, having actually designed monitoring components during the MBSE semester made the STS paper's concerns more grounded: it is easy to add tracking capabilities to a system without deliberately planning for their human consequences. The STS paper's warning about surveillance systems being less visible than cameras resonated directly with that experience.
This paper highlights the complex tension between human-centered design (HCD) principles and the realities of surveillance embedded in the digital environments being created. It raises critical questions about how to genuinely center users when those users are under observation, and how designers can reconcile the need for transparency and trust with the presence of monitoring systems. The key insight is that these challenges require not just technical solutions but a combined approach, integrating systems engineering with social analysis. Together, these perspectives help create spaces where people feel safe and empowered to do their best work, emphasizing that engineering and social considerations are overlapping aspects of design rather than separate domains.
