CPH127

Although not a new topic the principles of design are often taken for granted as being largely aesthetic considerations. This is particularly so for people like myself who are from a 2D background.

It is important however to recognise how such principles extend beyond the visual organisation of design elements into the realm of experience design.

In 1997 NC State University, The Center for Universal Design, developed a set of Universal Design principles compiled by advocates of universal design, [listed in alphabetical
order: Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir
Mullick, Elaine Ostroff, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly Story, and
Gregg Vanderheiden.]

The seven principles are listed as:

principle one: equitable use
principle two: flexibilty in use
principle three: simple and intuitive
principle four: perceptible information
principle five: tolerance for error
principle six: low physical effort
principle seven: size and space for approach and use

A recent posting at the lovely site UIGarden provides more detail. It’s a great site and I think you will enjoy browsing this and other articles.

Mark links to an interesting article about different kinds of designers in different points of time. I just looked it through very briefly and what stocked me at the most was the way that “we” - once again - retrospectively describe an evolution. It’s SO easy to see the movement – afterwards.

When being in that very point in time where every thing happens it’s fairly difficult to say what is, what will be.

Niti has described that before – Kairos and Limnos. And I agree with Niti when saying that it sometimes can be frustrating to be in that very point in time where you feel something happen, but it IS in the liminarity that you will turn out wiser.

Many designers of to day, haven’t moved them into Kairos yet; experienced
Kairos - they struggle very hard trying to.

Being in the future describing what happens today is the easiest thing, but trying to find the right path in this very moment is a completely different ballgame.

How to you see your self. Are you a designer? Do you need to be a designer to make design happen. What will be the future role be of the typical designer of today?

Arthur Cropley has done a marvellous paper on divergence vs. convergence thinking– “In praise of convergent thinking", where he has some interesting observations.

Convergent thinking is oriented towards deriving the single best (or correct) answer to a clearly defined question. It emphasizes speed, accuracy, logic, and the like, and focuses on accumulating information, recognizing the familiar, reapplying set techniques, and preserving the already known. It is based on familiarity with what is already known (i.e., knowledge), and is most effective in situations where a ready-made answer exists and needs simply to be recalled from stored information, or worked out from what is already known by applying conventional and logical search, recognition and decision-making strategies.

One of the most important aspects of convergent thinking is that it leads to a single “best” answer, and thus leaves no room for ambiguity: Answers are either right or wrong. IQ tests are frequently regarded as epitomizing convergent thinking. Divergent thinking, by contrast, involves producing multiple or alternative answers from available information. It requires making unexpected combinations, recognizing links among remote associates, transforming information into unexpected forms, and the like. Answers to the same question arrived at via divergent thinking may vary substantially from person to person but be of equal value. They may never have existed before, and are often thus novel, unusual or “surprising”. Sometimes this is true merely in the experience of the person producing the variability in question, or for the particular setting, but it may also be true in an absolute sense.

Which kind of thinking do you practice, do you motivate in your organization? When do you see it is nessesary to be divergent/convergent?

However, contrary to what is sometimes assumed, both convergent and divergent thinking lead to production of ideas. None the less, there is a major qualitative difference: Convergent thinking usually generates orthodoxy, whereas divergent thinking always generates variability; otherwise it would not be divergent.

Read more……

I have been done some thinking on how design, as it is discussed here and across the global business media today, fits into the corporate world of today. How the discussion on "new design" or "design thinking" sounds in the ears of a CEO who knows nothing of design - to whom design is something you see in some smart shops or at a museum. These are the guys I talk to and I try to convince that design can make a difference in their business. On the other hand, events like Index has opened up for a new definition of design which again opens up for new questions; does design have to look good? Does the design has to be designed in a traditional sense?

I need some way to structure the different business related views on design today. One thought I dwelled with lately is that design is like Abraham Maslow´s "the hierarchy of needs", often presented as a pyramid. Basically, a human has to fullfil his or hers needs from the bottom and up. If you want to build a pyramid you need to start with a base. You can´t jump into the middle of it. While Maslow´s pyramid has 5 levels the one I think of related to design has 3.

At the base you have "design practise". Related to the business use of design, "Design practise" represents the basic use of design: the definition of a design brief, the identification, selection and contractual engagement with a  designer (if the business does not have internal designers) etc. A company needs - at least - understand the most basic use of design, if even to start thinking about how design can apply to their corporation. The work is most likely not focused on user-centered design but rather on styling.

In the middle you have "design process". Related to the business use of design, "Design process", represent an organizational and structured use of design. Typically, it is focused on the use of an explicit process which can include cross-functional competencies. However, it is focused on the organization and leadership of design in the design and/or development department where other departments are looked upon as "clients" to the solution. The work is most likely focused on user-centered design.

At the top of the pyramid you have "design thinking". Related to the business use of design, "Design thinking", represent an top-level, cross-organizational use of design. Typically, it is also focused on the use of an explicit process which should include cross-functional competencies. It is focused on the use of the design process as an problem solving/opportunity realizing tool on a corporate strategy level where all departments are involved in the process. The work is most likely focused on user-centered design.

Again - from a design perspective - a company cannot start at the top. They need to establish and master the other levels before they can persue the level above.
The middle part, "design process" could have been called design management but I choose not to because of the need for management or leadership across all parts of the pyramid. Much the same could be said of "design process" since all design activities (like all other activities) follow a process. However, in the "design practise" level the process can be totally internal in the given designer and not involve the company (client) at all.

Hmm…what do you think? Does it make sense? These thoughts are by no means concluded - they are just thoughts - so I would love some comments on them!

Five tips for agencies and companies that aim to develop their competencies in strategic design.

STRATEGIC DESIGN AGENCIES MUST BE
PREPARED TO:

1. Separate content from process. WHAT and HOW are two different questions.
2. Develop a habit of evaluating design processes and learn from the conclusions. Make the learning your intellectual property.
3. Recruit people with different competencies and backgrounds and learn from them.
4. Encourage curiosity and collaboration. Have your employees stretch beyond their own discipline specific boundaries.
5. Develop the ability to teach and transferskills to the clients.

COMPANIES HIRING STRATEGIC DESIGN
AGENCIES MUST BE PREPARED TO:

1. Separate content from process. WHAT and HOW are two different questions.
2. Ask the agency to walk you through their approach – HOW they work.
3. Be ready to invest the human resources necessary to be part in the design process.
4. Expect design processes to be learning journeys.
5. Changes, new insights and opportunities will occur. Be ready to act on them.

I think I need to have a chat with Silje Kamille Friis - she is doing a Ph.D. on the new understanding of design methods and processes at the forefront of strategic design agencies. The article is part of her Ph.D.-project.

Got it from Mark

10 years back I founded my third company – it was before the newspapers could spell the word “Internet”. It turned out to be a Internet-consultancy company, and when I left it in 2000 the unit I founded was grown to around 60 people. We merged the company into one of those big players at the time – and over night we turned out being aprox. 2000 people in the same company.

Those where the days….;-)

Since then I wished to learn something about what happened – creating a language for it. So I took a Master in Management Development, which part wise consisted of studies on personal leadership, business development and a lot of psychological stuff…..dealing with people, leading them – and your self – through massive change.

The past 3-4-5 months a lot of buzz has been created in the blogsophere around the term “Design Thinking”.

Why?

I also find it interesting and maybe it’s THE term for creating sense around what design can add to doing meaningful business - in the broadest sense.

As I see it there is nothing new under the sun – the new thing is though that “Design Thinking” encapsulate many different disciplines, Management, Design, HRM, Strategy, Innovation, Ethnography and a lot of others…..

Then again – looking back to the “old” days it came down to being openminded - again in the broadest sense - agile and alert on change. So is “Design Thinking” = “Change Management” in every aspect? Product/Service, Processes, Culture/identity?

Something like that – I think But I’m also sure that I missed something – please tell me what.

Interesting times we live in and I’ll look forward being part of the discussion – maybe a topic for the CPH127-Summit next Spring?

It was when I threw out a reference to the movie, Rashomon, by Kurosawa, while talking to a young designer at work, only to have him blink at me in response, that I was moved to write this ‘rant’ or ‘view’ or, in my case, ‘informed opinion’. ‘The Rashomon Effect‘, has become a reference for contextual truth or subjective reality, i.e. shared experiences may be interpreted uniquely by each member of the group or team, and for a practicing professional designer, one who deals in the world of interpretation, to be unaware of this seminal piece of creative work, appalled me.

When I asked him what his educational background was, he said it was a BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) in Visual Communications from a better known school in the USA. This is a four year degree on a university campus, where one assumes, one is exposed to the great works of film, literature and the arts in near human history. How then, can one be ignorant of the influence of Francois Truffaut, Peter Brooks’ 10 hour long epic, The Mahabharata or even Leonardo’s use of The Golden Ratio?

My intention here, today, is to begin a conversation on design education, and to ask all you, a global audience, to share your own experiences in education. Is this issue one that is only faced in the United States, where I’ve met and interviewed hundreds of designers seeking graduate design education, or is it prevalent in Europe, Asia and Oceania? Ian, as an educator based out of Australia with significant Chinese experience, what is your opinion?

In my own experience, I’ve been educated in the British system until the O levels, followed by a year in an american high school, then undergraduate degree in Bangalore and of course, a year at the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad. From an early age, my schooling was such that I was exposed to world literature and culture, culminating in an intense experience at NID. In the 10 months I was there, I was exposed to Bharata Natyam through the AISEC, French filmography, the Battleship Potemkin, The Caucasian Chalk Circle et al. Every weekend, there was a film festival or a dance recital or an art exhibition. All of these influences, states the philosophy of the design school, written by Charles and Ray Eames, converge to create design professionals who are able to manifest in tangible form, their enhanced aethestic sensibilities.

During this spring – when starting the CPH127 community – and early summer when skyping Niti and Ralf -  thoughts emerged on how design could apply to how companies organize, develop and survive. How managers turn in to leaders, how marketing research turns into ethnographical user studies, how design is too important to leave to designers…….

I think it was Ralf who first mentioned Design Thinking Institute and today the thought’s came to live through the launch of a sparkling new weblog.

Congrats Ralf – I’m sure the rest of the CPH127 community will looooove to join the conversation here as well