CPH127

FORA just finished a report on "Userdriven Innovation" - The report recommends that better research and education in knowledge
and skills related to user-driven innovation be implemented.
Furthermore, the report recommends the establishment of dedicated
knowledge centres that can facilitate co-operative efforts with
companies in analysing customer demands.

How do you do that in your country? As part of a centralised institution? Other? Please share - would definitly be interesting to share opinions on….

Btw. Please take a look at the interview with Mr. Jorgen Rosted during INDEX: here in Copenhagen during September - he works as a Director at FORA.

A few companies got it already, and depending on how you look at design as a designer I’m sure you got it too.

Sometimes it’s a good thing to de-frame the frame though, step outside and from there look on what is happening within the particular frame. Sometimes you are the system, think and act like it.

That was what I felt when I recently saw an article about management schools newest advice to their customers. (I did of course knew about d-school already )

The article praises design as the new mantra – “think and act like a designer” it states.

But is that really it?

As a designer you maybe agree – sure you do – but what if I say it’s just a new stunt to earn new money at the B-schools? Years back we have had Just-in-time, CRM, HRM, TQM and what-do-I-know, so is everything really about design?

Step outside and take a look. You will see – I hope – that it’s also about a lot of other different things…..apparently

The iterative transfer of knowledge, between four industrial cases and
academia, has successfully culminated in new academic understanding of
disruptive innovation and guidance for practitioners. It was found that
funding decisions are mainly constrained by mental not physical
processes. Organisations wishing to pursue disruptive innovations can
challenge psychological attachments to incrementalism, and overcome the
funding barrier, with a holistic understanding delivered through
graphical portfolio tools.

Sounds almost TOO interesting - read more.

Bruce asks for help.

We’ve already have had a GREAT discussion on what makes the difference in doing the business of tomorrow.

Bruce – though – struggles with the questions raised at the Davos2006-meeting:

1) How can companies measure the effectiveness of creativity and design strategies?
2) How can a design strategy be a tool for organizational change?
3) As innovation cycles shorten, what strategies will companies adopt in order to compete?

Any new ideas?

After I wrote my post titled "Innovation Lessons from the BoP" it struck me that it would be far more appropriate a post for CPH127’s global focus on design and innovation. It’s a very long article, so I’ll repost an excerpt below for context. I look forward to discussions on  what we can do to assist those at the bottom of the pyramid with their efforts in innovation and design.

Prahalad states, in the introduction to his book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, that:

If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden
and start recognizing them as resilient and creative entrepreneurs and
value-conscious consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open
up.

IMHO,
the focus of the world, however, has been on the products and services
that can be designed for the BoP, they have been recognized as
"value-conscious consumers", which is but one aspect of Prahalad’s
assertion. The other side of the story, less visible in the public eye,
is the opportunity to co-create with those he recognizes as "resilient and creative entreprenuers".

The question, that arose in my mind, after reading this recent article, is "Where
is the venture capital, the product development support and the
marketing opportunity for the innovations that rise UP from the bottom?" It seemed to me, that all I ever read about were products FOR the BoP.

Now there is an opportunity to really make a difference. As Prahalad says, four billion* poor can be the engine of the next
round of global trade and prosperity, and can be a source of
innovations.

Continued.

I’m throwing this provocative question out to our global audience on CPH127, whether establishing a national design council, creating a national design policy, or in general, bringing government support to the design industry has any benefit?

My reason for doing so is not out of any particular opinion on my part, instead, two recent issues in the news impelled this question out of curiousity. Especially since I know that our esteemed founders are closely connected to the Danish Design Council :).

The first article, from The Hindu, announces India’s imminent ratification of a National Design Policy, creation of an Indian Design Council, and most interesting, their intention to create a "mark" to qualify good design. This article states,

"The National Design Policy will be announced in January. Merely
coming out with a policy statement will not suffice, as it will have to
be followed up with implementation. Among other things, the `Designed
in India’ label will have to be linked with a certain quality
specification," Mr N.N. Prasad, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, said.

The attempt would be to position `Designed in India’ as a
label that assures quality and utility. This could be in conjunction
with other labels - `Made in India’ and `Served from India’.

A mechanism will be worked out for creating a brand image for
Indian designs through the award of an `India Design Mark’ that satisfy
certain criteria such as appeal, centricity, ergonomic features, safety
and environment findings.

The EETimes, on the other hand, has an article titled "The politicization of Innovation" and covers the recently proposed bill submitted to the United States Congress, the "National Innovation Policy 2005" [.doc link] While I will not enter into the "is design equal to innovation" debate, an overly battered dead horse, methinks, I do however wonder if a national design policy or design council, along the lines of those established in Europe, (notably the UK, the DDC of course :), ANZAC and Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Korea - all leaders in consumer electronics) would benefit American industry. Indeed, this Innovation Policy, and it’s intention to create a President’s Council on Innovation, could possibly be the equivalent of a design council/policy, as per the other nations, I doubt though, that it is. These are it’s three key initiatives,

increasing investment in basic research;

improving science and technology talent;

and developing a robust innovation infrastructure.

and their terminology implies a) that innovation is inherently technology led and that b) design is not innovation.  On the other hand, for argument’s sake, if this were a design policy and the intention was to create a national design council, do you think that it would be of greater benefit? If so, how and why? While on this topic, I’d like to throw out a few more questions on design policies in general, are they useful to nations? Actually, what I’m asking is, Hans, do you do anything over at that Design Council? [just kidding]  Here’s a link to Ars Technica, which has a pessimistic view of this initiative by the US to give balance, and perhaps add fuel to this discussion.

More podcasts - interesting. Almost like being there

The Prepared Mind has some interesting podcasts on designrelated issues. Our “own” pilot Niti Bhan is also featured

If you know of other interesting podscasts – please share.

• designnoteswiki | DesignSites
  Looking for sites about design - dinner is served
  (tags: design wiki hanshenrik links)

Back in September we had an intense coverage of the INDEX:Views Summit here in Copenhagen. It was a GREAT event with a lot of interesting people around the table. Some of the "findings" are great - check it out your self, and maybe you want to share your thoughts after the first read? We hope