Archive for July, 2005
Globalization has brought with it challenges that make much of our previous work [as designers] appear very simplistic – consequently there are skills required by designers that are new and not yet clearly defined.
Many contemporary problems are difficult to define clearly. As designers we need to be strategic in our approach. Synchronization and organization of parallel processing of complex, unstructured problems is becoming increasingly sought after by business, inevitably requiring solutions and innovation from multi-disciplinary teams. We must ask questions about how we work with other professions, and importantly, about how we educate our up and coming designers – the future of our profession.
Training in this kind of process is missing from most design education programs. The point here being that other professions have already realised the trends and directions and are preparing themselves to cope with the inevitable changes. Traditional design problem solving works when one can clearly define the problem. This has led to the evolution of specific ways of thinking applicable within delineated professional boundaries, each possessing their own vocabulary and patterns of practice and thought.
In today’s world, societal and technological change have evolved at increasing pace to the situation today where problems we face are not necessarily clearly recognizable. VanPatter [2004, NextD] argues that many problems can be said to be “unframed”. In this environment, we need flexible, creative open-minded approaches that enable a multi-perspective mode where we examine the issues at hand from multiple viewpoints, redefining the problem through the eyes of a multi-faceted range of inputs. In this kind of approach, we may see real potential for innovation to occur.
Profile Intermedia 8 is coming. The international conference on the crossover in design, art, music and media is a must see event for anyone interested in design and related disciplines. It is an inspirational event…
Tofler’s prediction of the producing consumer, the “prosumer” certainly seems to have become reality. Look at the phenomenal proliferation of bloggers as a pertinent example.
There is an interesting angle here. Although many utilise the medium of the blog to foster business networks, largely, it seems to me, the process is one of non-monetary exchange. The blog is an act of production, and an exchange of views, of information, and of value. It is the creation of the Tofler’s prosumer.
The barter, in this case of information, is of interest in this context because of the obvious potential for innovation to occur out of the linking of concepts from previously unrelated sources. This topic comes up in Bruce Mau’s book
Henderson [p 137, 2004) alludes to such transactions [barter] as being “…the bedrock of all the world’s economies…where we have six billion people sharing the planet, there are still about 2 billion people that will never see the inside of a bank or even get a microloan from the Women’s World Banking or ACCION or the Grameen Bank or any other of these micro lenders. And so, barter is important because it allows communities that are completely sidelined from traditional banking and economic networks to match their own needs and resources, to create sustainable livelihoods outside of the money circuits…” (Massive Change, p137, 2004)
From the above text we can form a nice analogy with the blog I think, and food for thinking about the value of such forums [blogs] within our own communities, be they virtual or real…
As part of some research I’m doing about the fuzzy front-end I’m in the search for businesses that have experience in connecting company strategy with design and innovation processes. Any ideas? Companies that I should know, any CEO’s, R&D-managers, Design-managers that I could ask for their experiences and processes?
An interesting article from the website of Danish Design Center points out that designers have special capabilities. The article states:
…but why the focus on design processes? For several good reasons: First, and mostly, because designers in light of their educational background, methodic approach to problem-solving and ability to innovate and visualize possibilities are apt at defining the context in which solutions – i.e. answers – appear.
Designers are also comfortable considering solutions that aren’t based upon ‘technocratic’ adaptations of existing scenario. They are namely able to relate to innovative and radical models – designers pose, in other words, ‘strange’ questions that can lead to a better understanding of an issue’s complexity and potential. The designer acts, in this regard, as catalyst.
And there is yet another fundamental trait – designers are to a great degree familiar with the idea of solving problems based upon underlying values, such as economics, feasibility, sustainability, production conditions, user experience…and ethics…
I think the article articulates and old-fasioned view on what a designer is and capable to. When giving a picture of the designer as a gift from God to mankind you close down other perspectives in problemsolving. And in fact - you are not helping the designer.
Designers as we now them today, as we know they are educated, are for sure an important element when asking the right questions to find the real problems. But giving a picture that they should be – are – the only ones creating the right solutions, is not the picture that I’ll – as a managing consultant at DDC – will give the world.
How do you see the future role of design – who will be the designers of tomorrow? Any perspectives?
First, I want to thank Hans and the guys for inviting me to blog here. Little do they know that I only know a little about design and even less about innovation!
One of the things that struck me though is how they describe themselves - “Our team consists designers, MBAs, dot-com entrepreneurs and all the other folks you would never expect to be on this kind of blog” (my emphasis). Then on their “Join us” page, they write “we sincere hope that you want to be a part of the dialogue…” and “If you are passionate about your craft and feel you can make a difference to others out there - Please let us know”.
I point this out because I feel it reveals an openness that seems to be a key quality in the thinking around innovation nowadays. More and more we hear ideas such as user-innovation, co-creation, etc. related to the idea that people who aren’t necessarily experts want to and can contribute as well.
A little more than a week ago the guys here asked for some feedback on how they might improve and develop this blog - and to do that we might look at the “what” and the “how”. For the “what”, I took some time to review the archives to try to get a sense of the “whole”, and came up with the following list of some questions that past entries seemed to raise about innovation and design:
What is innovation?
Why do we innovate?
When do we innovate?
Where do we innovate?
How do we innovate?
What do we innovate?
Who innovates?
What skills are needed for innovation?
What knowledge is needed for innovation?
What resources are needed for innovation?
What infrastructures, contexts, cultures are needed for innovation?
What technologies enable innovation?
How is innovation done collaboratively?
How is innovation restricted or limited?
How is innovation continually maintained?
How is innovation lead? How is it managed?
How do we justify innovation?
What are the costs of innovation? What are the costs of no innovation?
What are the economics of innovation?
How is innovation localized? How is it outsourced?
How are sources of innovation shared or protected?
What results from innovation?
What are examples of innovations? Who are examples of innovators?
How do we measure the success of an innovation?
What are the roles of designers in innovation?
How does design thinking differ from business thinking?
How does the design process differ from the innovation process?
What are the processes, techniques and methods of design that can be used for innovation?
What is needed for design to be involved in business innovation?
This is of course by absolutely no means a complete or refined list - but maybe it might serve as an example of a way to begin exploring and understanding innovation and design as a whole…
How do you go about understanding innovation and design as a whole?