Observations and thoughts – on the plane home. By James Moultrie

Regionality and design: danger of replication
There was a different perspective on design in each of the locations visited. This may well reflect the specific social, political and economic context of each area. At Stanford, the influence of silicon valley has driven an innovation model that is appropriate for rapidly changing mass produced consumer goods. The consultancies and design schools are formed around this context. In Chicago and Boston, the schools and consultancies have a stronger engineering emphasis, which is appropriate given the more mechanically focused industries in these regions. There is a danger therefore in replicating the different approaches, without carefully considering the needs of each region. In the UK, the optimum way of delivering design education and the content of each program might be very different in different regions.



Danger of superficiality
The emergence of easily understood ‘design methods’ raises a potential concern of superficiality. It is evident that with minimal training, senior business people can engage in ethnographic research and post-it driven brainstorming. This is an important breakthrough, in the same way as it is important for the Technical Director to be able to read a balance sheet. However, no sensible business person would assume that they could create the business accounts on their own, without professional help. The subjective nature of design methods perhaps provides a danger that the exec will become a poorly qualified ‘doer’ rather than using this new insight to bring in the real professionals. Thus design education for senior people must not trivialise design. It must instead encourage execs to understand the deep skills that the designers bring, so that their only response is to know that they should employ professionals.



The real value of methods and tools
The emerging collection of design tools, focused on user research, lo-fi prototyping, concept generation and communication play a key role in the design process. They are a design aid and may help the effectiveness or efficiency of the design process. Most importantly however, they enable the intangible elements of the design process to be better communicated to people in business. Thus, when concepts are presented, it no longer appears that they have appeared out of the ether, but as a result of serious consideration.



The design process is different to the ‘new product introduction process’
Companies must manage new product introduction and typically have a process to enable this, often based on some form of stage gate process. By necessity, this process is normally linear and mandates a sequence of decision points, often demanding reliable, qualitative and unambiguous information. The design process in contrast is highly iterative and typically demands the use of highly ambiguous data. The more radical the design, the more ambiguous this data. Designers are able to operate effectively in this ambiguous process. However, it is not easy to align this iterative and ambiguous process with a firm’s need for a linear and unambiguous one.



Design skill vs design thinking
Design thinking is not the same as design skill. Designers take many years to develop their skills in conceiving, creating and communicating a range of artefacts and experiences.



Good designers have always considered more than just the product
Many designers are artefact focused (product, furniture, building etc). This is their bread and butter and often their initial inspiration. However, designers have always considered more than just the product. Dreyfus was instrumental in the development of products as branded objects. Sinel (in the 1920s) wrote about ‘corporate identity’. Good designers instinctively consider their creations in the wider context in which they will be consumed and used. Good designers have also always considered the way in which the artefact may earn money for the organisation – they might just not have called it the business model.



Design is not at the centre, but an equal partner with marketing, engineering etc
There is a danger of thinking about design and designers as the holders of the holy grail. Designers play a key role and where their value isn’t recognised, then efforts need to be taken to raise awareness. However, this should also be true for other key business skills. Great design with poor marketing, poor supply chain management or weak product strategy is also a recipe for failure.



I shaped, T Shaped, Stool shaped
Undergraduate qualifications form the foundation of the ‘I’ in ‘I’ shaped people. At this stage the seeds of horizontal aspects of the T should be sown. Hence, the creation of the ‘engineer in society’ component of engineering degrees, as a requirement for chartership, addressing business and societal aspects of engineering. Marketing, accounting and engineering undergraduates should have an introduction to design. Similarly, design undergraduates should have an introduction to these other disciplines. Work experience develops the ‘T’. Further education later in life might extend the ‘T’ or potentially lengthen the ‘I’. Only in later career might someone be lucky enough to develop multiple legs and be called (slightly worryingly) ‘stool shaped’!