Design has historically assumed to be an offshoot of visual art and sure there are commonality in thinking and tools, but this is a overly simplified way to looking at design. Many designers use visual metaphor and take inspiration from sketching raw ideas. But does this have to be the case.
If design is abut critical thinking and problem solving, then there are plenty of other tools; designers can look to technology, nature or even everyday object for inspiration. Or should design school start using Legos and Playdough? Amazingly with a few basic tools -- just craft materials -- people could actually start to think about things from different points of view and be creative. My personal toolkit includes dozens of Playmobil soldiers. I used that for my competitive strategy simulation.
What is a designer? Is that someone who went through applied art training in Pratt or Arts Center or St. Martin on someone who is trained as an architect and decide to apply his or her skills in problem solving? There is the requirements that designer works are both objective and subjective. The objective requirements are easy to understand. They are technical and business requirements that allow for measurement and direct comparison. What the best way to build this? What is balance between form and function and performance?
Then there the subjective, creative side of design that’s hardest to explain and hardest for most people to understand. Some “designers” hide behind the curtain and spin and spin and hoping they will come up with a idea. Others work in a collaborated fashion and bring out the best in others.
The aesthetic (sexy) side of design relates to fashion, human behavior, emotion and cultural influences such as the cultural meaning of symbols. Designers are immersed in the visual (and increasing audio) language of their culture and industry specialization. Not only making things look pretty (that’s important too) but also bring human and cultural values to business problems, humanize a product or services and turn a corporation into a trustable entity.
But many neglect the less sexy side of design, solving very complex problems of the world. Designers are strategist too, although sometimes they don’t know it. In the course of finding solutions, their ideas are shaping business and markets. Or another way to look at it, strategists are designers. They design new business models based on creative re-engineering of value chains. Design has always been an important element and very much neglected by B-Schools. Design as “strategic thinking”, not as “visual thinking”. That's the premise behind the Wharton School’s new executive program -- Design, Innovation & Strategy -- scheduled in Milan and Copenhagen. The course was conceived by a group of senior executives. What’s their rationale? Design is often path to innovation. Strategy is Design.
Design change is a reaction to pressure--and this is true of both evolutionary design and human design. In a completely stable system (which there’s no such things), there is no pressure to make design changes. In today’s chaotic environment, there’s a bigger demand for designer for change. Expect to see more B-school program on design and innovation.
Design is essentially a rational, logical, sequential process intended to solve problems or initiate change in man-made things and nature. The process begins with the identification and analysis of a problem or need and proceeds through a structured sequence in which information is researched and ideas explored and evaluated until the optimum solution to the problem or need is devised. The problem is in the traditional process (many still practice today), the work of expert in the process was often compartmentalized, each having little if any input in matters which fell outside the boundaries of their specific domains. Thus, participants explored their ideas unilaterally, with one or another participant, through virtue of their “expertise”, imposing constraints upon all others. As they pass the buckets, the product designer has a veto on matters to do functionality, the engineer had a veto on technology, and the human factor in usability.
Look back at the years of the Bauhaus movement when they attempted to knit the design process into a coherent whole in that students were encouraged to study design in a way that was both total and detailed. That is, designers were expected to balance all the considerations that came to bear upon the design of particular artefacts, systems and overall environments. In this way, though, design quickly evolved into a closed activity - an activity in which all but the designers themselves has little if any valid input to make on questions of base materials etc. That was the birth of the multi-disciplinary designer.
So what is good design? This week in London there’s "The Good Design Manifesto", created by Richard Shed. Which is a collection of 100 brief responses from industry experts to the question "What is good design?" Here you can find video clips of interview with Sam Hecht, Jamie Hayon, Libby Sellers, Thorsten van Elten and others.
Good design...
...makes ordinary people's life more meaningful. (Lavrans Lovrie, Livework)
...brings the intelligence of nature together with man's production capabilities. (Jonathan Prestwich)
...is finding new places where what we can dream meets what we can make happen. (John Miller and Anna Hart, Mark)
...is no longer about 20th century debates around form or function. Good design will ensure we got a future on this planet.
...is sooo boring. We need GREAT design: Vision. Humanity. Sex. Death. Art. Love. (Richard Eisermann)
Have a great weekend!
