Friday, September 29, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Thoughts on how visit informed Cox. By Ken Newton
Closer Links should be established between Universities and SMEs
Money seems high on the agenda with companies looking to get new insights and associated IPR from the universities. They also look to employ the best graduates and value them sufficiently to increment their salaries heavily. They get better response from universities and their students through high value competitions. Companies effectively sponsor universities so will want to ensure that links are strong to protect their investment. The ways in which students can get experience of a company and its practices seem better developed in terms of internships and co-operatives.
Higher education courses should better prepare students to work with and understand other specialists
There is obviously a strong emphasis on team working and the idea of T shaped people who are better prepared to work in teams. This appears to happen primarily at postgraduate level but a wider analysis would be helpful. The taking of two degrees, simultaneously, in two different disciplines seemed common, rather than degrees that were major / minor. In terms of students getting input from different areas in a structured way, particularly with reference to creative (design in this case) courses was not obvious but closer inspection of curricula may clarify. Most programs that we saw had a class that involved students from different academic backgrounds working as a team. Organising timetables was cited as a problem even for only one class. D School on the other hand is populated by people from different disciplines who are in fact chosen to come on the course, in part, by their background.
A common criterion was that graduates should be able to understand the language of other disciplines so as to be able to understand connections at a planning meeting or similar.
Centres of excellence should be established for multidisciplinary courses combining management studies, engineering and technology and the creative arts
I suppose the best example of this we saw was at North Western in Chicago. The structure allowed the coverage of 23 subjects over two years, with classes geared to the students needs – Turbo Finance was an example of a 5 week class covering the area. They used part time staff to deliver certain elements of the course who themselves had experience of multidisciplinary work through their other work. One wonders how much the creative aspects impact on the other areas, if at all, and whether the program is mainly for potential business leaders who just want a grasp of all areas of New Product Development.
Money seems high on the agenda with companies looking to get new insights and associated IPR from the universities. They also look to employ the best graduates and value them sufficiently to increment their salaries heavily. They get better response from universities and their students through high value competitions. Companies effectively sponsor universities so will want to ensure that links are strong to protect their investment. The ways in which students can get experience of a company and its practices seem better developed in terms of internships and co-operatives.
Higher education courses should better prepare students to work with and understand other specialists
There is obviously a strong emphasis on team working and the idea of T shaped people who are better prepared to work in teams. This appears to happen primarily at postgraduate level but a wider analysis would be helpful. The taking of two degrees, simultaneously, in two different disciplines seemed common, rather than degrees that were major / minor. In terms of students getting input from different areas in a structured way, particularly with reference to creative (design in this case) courses was not obvious but closer inspection of curricula may clarify. Most programs that we saw had a class that involved students from different academic backgrounds working as a team. Organising timetables was cited as a problem even for only one class. D School on the other hand is populated by people from different disciplines who are in fact chosen to come on the course, in part, by their background.
A common criterion was that graduates should be able to understand the language of other disciplines so as to be able to understand connections at a planning meeting or similar.
Centres of excellence should be established for multidisciplinary courses combining management studies, engineering and technology and the creative arts
I suppose the best example of this we saw was at North Western in Chicago. The structure allowed the coverage of 23 subjects over two years, with classes geared to the students needs – Turbo Finance was an example of a 5 week class covering the area. They used part time staff to deliver certain elements of the course who themselves had experience of multidisciplinary work through their other work. One wonders how much the creative aspects impact on the other areas, if at all, and whether the program is mainly for potential business leaders who just want a grasp of all areas of New Product Development.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Summary Report by Professor Penny Sparke, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Arts), Kingston University
Monday September 11th, 9.00 – 13.30
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford University, Palo Alto
Meetings with George Kembel, Executive Director of Stanford d-School and Larry Leifer, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director, Center for Design Research
The d-School has been at least 20 years in the making. Its current aim is to produce ‘leaders’; to teach ‘out of the lecture theatre’; and to use ‘design thinking’ to inspire multi-disciplinary teams to solve problems in ways which do not necessarily result in new products or services but which might produce ‘business plans’, ‘implementation plans’, or ‘strategic plans’, among other things. The emphasis is upon the combination of business issues (viability), technical issues (feasibility), and human issues/values (usability).
The School’s ‘napkin manifesto’ includes the following aims:
• To create the best design school in the US
• To prepare future ‘innovators’, defined as ‘breakthrough thinkers and doers’ (The emphasis on people, rather than on abstract notions of ‘innovation’, provided a theme for the visit)
• To use ‘design thinking’
• To foster radical collaborations
• To tackle big projects
The d-School is not technically a school (but rather an ‘institute’) as it does not have its own students but takes them from a range of existing Stanford masters programmes (this was perceived by several people we spoke to later as a problem). Students are awarded a ‘medal of honour’.
The emphasis is on the creation of multi-disciplinary teams working on projects and on ensuring that thinking is balanced by doing. Discourse/dialogue is only half the equation and important questions, it is believed, arise through ‘doing’. Kembel emphasised the ‘process’ and stressed that all the d-School projects – some of which were ‘invented’ by members of Faculty (although they has to be ‘real world’ in nature – Larry Leifer commented that ‘the topic didn’t matter as it was the process that was important) and others of which were brought to them by industry – had to be ‘process conscious’. Some projects were ‘altruistic’ in nature, e.g., ‘handling emergency aftermaths’. It was emphasised, however, that projects had to be constrained.
The d-School’s primary asset is its students. Kembel explained how industrial collaborators soon came to understand this and that they gradually replaced their black suits with jeans and joined in with the University community.
Faculty staff were seen as ‘collaborators with students’ rather than as ‘sages on stages’. Kembel explained that staff members are subjected to critiques from other staff and students in this process.
Teams are surrounded by both staff and ‘coaches’ – the latter were characterised as ‘veteran design thinkers with teaching/industrial experience’.
The multi-disciplinary teams consist of people with expertise in the areas of business, engineering, design and social science – (the latter importantly includes ethnographers who were mentioned by many other people during the visit, as well as psychologists and artists). (It is important to note also that the d-School was conceived and initiated by product designers). In such a multi-disciplinary team people are not as hierarchically-oriented as they would be in a team of ‘like-minded’ people, Kembel explained. The focus is on the way in which the members of the team make decisions together and the process that underpins that. Team members have to quickly become ‘experts’ in fields outside their own.
The emphasis is upon the use of ‘design thinking’ as a common language to bring together people who speak different languages. The concept of ‘T’ shaped people (vertical = specialist, analytical depth/horizontal = breadth/empathy with other disciplines) is seen as crucial in this context. (This was mentioned at other visits, especially at IDEO).
The optimum size of a team was deemed to be 3 or 4. (this was emphatically reiterated at other visits) (Larry Leifer described 3 as ‘optimum’; 4 as ‘okay’; and 5 as ‘death’).
The class sizes at d-School were 24-30 and they came for around 10 weeks and undertook a number of projects (4/5) during that time.
The process the teams follow begins with quick initial research (including observation of users) followed by prototyping (up to 10 per project). This might involve using a workshop, making a video or doing spread sheets. Kembel described this as a ‘common sense’ process. Leifer re-emphasised that much learning takes place in the prototyping process and that it is the learning rather than the prototype that is important. Like Kembel he stressed that there is no method in the d-School approach to creativity and innovation and that prototyping ‘forces decision-making without reference to quantitative data’. Both stressed the importance of intuition. Each student has to keep a ‘design log’ and there is a ‘wiki website’ on which to record the process. There are no team leaders and the emphasis is on ‘what’s important for the process?’ and ‘how do you select ideas for projects?’. The students have to decide what is important. The main question is ‘what is the problem?’
The space, or ‘habitat’ in which innovation can occur is an important theme for the d-School (as it is for many of the places we visited) as it is seen as ‘governing how people behave’. D. School is working iteratively on a space planning exercise for a building it will occupy in 2009, funded by a $35 million gift by Hasso Plattner. It is housed in temporary space at present. (Leifer added that it is important that the space is ‘not precious or finished’ and that the team members have to be empowered to own and change the space and to have 24/7 access to it). Couches (sofas became a leitmotif on the visit!), coffee tables, large tables, common areas, flexible spaces (walls on wheels) and break out spaces are important. Personal space is limited (These themes were reiterated frequently during the visit). A loft/warehouse is seen as the ideal sort of space.
The difficult question of assessing student teamwork was discussed but not satisfactorily resolved.
Larry Leifer reiterated many of the points made by Kembel adding that his area of expertise is in cognitive science and that he has a group of PhD students who work individually and who ‘study people who study design’ in an ‘observatory’ context. His specialism is teamwork and he uses the notion of Jungian personality types. He is keen on maximum diversity in creative teams and the need for continual ‘unlearning’. He asked why designers don’t consciously ‘steal’ or ‘cite’ other people’s ideas as they do in other disciplines. He discussed the importance of IP in this context and explained that Stanford works mostly with large-scale, global companies (BMW, Daimler, Chrysler, Panasonic and Schick were mentioned) rather than SMEs as the latter don’t feel they have the time to engage in this sort of activity. (The word ‘immersive’ was used frequently here as elsewhere). Companies pay $75k to work with Stanford.
15.00 – 17.00
IDEO, 100 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto
Meeting with Tim Brown, CEO
David Kelley, the founder of IDEO, studied product design at Stanford 26 years ago (a student of Larry Leifer) and IDEO was a ‘spin-out’. Now IDEO thinking is coming back into the d-School.
IDEO is not an ‘industrial design’ company, but rather a ‘design thinking’ company which can tackle a much wider set of problems, although its core is in conventional design. (60% strategic projects/40% design projects). However objects are still seen as important ways of communicating strategies.
IDEO work with companies which desire growth (This was the case with all the design companies we visited). It also works with start-ups.
IDEO’s staff work across around 50 disciplines, focusing around business, technical issues and social science. Its emphasis is on ‘humanising technology’ and it works on service and space relationships (e.g., retail) and urban planning). The constant is ‘human-centred design’ and a ‘holistic’ way of doing things. They continue to ‘chase the interesting problems’. Their work covers the toy industry to medical products. One of their emphases is ‘story-telling’ and to this end they involve film-makers and writers.
IDEO’s starting point is that ‘designers have always had to understand a bit of everything’, therefore ‘design thinking’ is itself a multi-disciplinary process. Empathy for other disciplines is important. User observation is important. People with ‘hooks out to other disciplines’ are crucial in this context, but they must also have ‘knowledge of their core subject’. Tim Brown mentioned that this approach is being developed at Rhode Island School of Design, in Toronto, at Art Center (Pasadena) and at Berkeley.
Brown stressed the importance of ‘figuring out the right problem’ which might not have been the one the client came with. They need to question the brief.
IDEO’s aim is to develop long term relationships with clients. They work with some companies (e.g. Pepsi) which have no in-house designers and others (e.g., Proctor and Gamble) which have lots. It is difficult for them to work with SMEs as they may not have the capital to do something with the solution that IDEO has given them. However they see an eco-system of companies developing with ideas coming from small companies and large companies developing them (the model of small companies selling ideas to GOOGLE and YAHOO was mentioned). They work mostly with global companies. Brown fears that under-investment in British design education might mean that we loose the edge in this area (he is an RCA graduate). Like d-School they stressed that their ‘design thinking’ process was not a methodology. Brainstorming and prototyping are important as is use observation at the outset of a project. Brown talked about a ‘pick’n’mix’ approach and explained that you ‘cannot fix the process because it stifles innovation’. (This was re-iterated many times during the visit). Projects are rigorously managed.
IDEO has a matrix structure which means that all designers work across a range of projects.
There is lots of collaborative space and little personal space. They use a huge warehouse with project rooms down the sides and large collaborative spaces in the middle – large tables etc. A team might live in a project room for 3 months. They bring research material back to them. Lots of Post’it notes were being used (One of the visit’s most dominant themes!).
18.00
Dinner meeting with Jonathan Ive, Vice-President of Industrial Design, Apple Computers, hotel in San Francicso
This meeting was very different from the last two inasmuch as Ive, a highly creative and innovative designer, works in a ‘conventional’ way with a small, specialised, product design team. Unusually, however, he is on the board of Apple and clearly plays a key role within the company. This is undoubtedly due to the far-sightedness of the company’s CEO, Steve Jobs, who returned to the company in 1997 to launch the I-Mac and the I-Pod. The lesson of Apple, where the Cox Review is concerned, is that, as well as educating excellent designers, such as Ive, HE needs to educate industry ‘leaders’ who have an acute understanding of design, its process, and its economic and cultural benefits.
Ive gave us an account of his work experience at Apple. 90% of his time is spent designing. He is adamant that ‘it is a mistake to push designers to become business-people’ and he doesn’t consider himself one but he knows ‘how to make a product’. Having said that, he stated that, ‘you have to be a collection of people to make a product.’ He stressed that Apple’s goal was not to make money but to make the best products. It is, as he reminded us, the only company which deals with both software and hardware. He has Europeans in his design team and, like Brown, is worried that the UK is under-investing in design education. (He was educated at Northumbria University). His view of designers is that they should be ‘fanatical craftspeople’. He emphasised the unique character of Apple, explaining, for example, that it has no corporate guidelines book.
Tuesday September 12th, 12.00 – 14.00
Jump Associates LLC, San Mateo, California
Meeting with Alonzo Canada,
Jump operates rather like IDEO but it is a younger, much smaller (9 years old with 45 people as against 500) company. They specialise in design and innovation and aim to ‘reinvigorate products and services’ and help firms to meet their strategic objectives. They are a multi-disciplinary, highly collaborative practice (including ethnography and organisational psychology as they value social research) which, like IDEO, works with ‘clients who want to grow’. They bring together design (what’s possible, including technology?), business (what’s viable?) with culture (what’s desirable?). Jump’s teams include designers, engineers and marketing people but each individual is multi-disciplinary.
They employ people who have expertise in 2 of these areas and are open to learning about the third) (rather more demanding than d-School and IDEO who look for expertise in one area only. They can only use graduates or people with life/work experience. An ideal employee, for example, would be an anthropologist whose parents are designers!) They call these people their ‘resident schizophrenics’ and say that in the end they have to train their own people.
Examples of projects included, what will come after the SUV? How can a bank re-engage with is customers? How can e-bay express its identity? They try to approach problems in new ways and to look at the world from the consumer’s perspective.
The space in which they work is very important to them. They have created a stairwell at the heart of their building to facilitate chance encounters, conversations and exchanges of ideas. Public and café space is important as is what they call ‘neighbourhood spaces’, which are open plan spaces where people on different projects work closely together, and project rooms (one has cushions on the floor). They talk about ‘fostering random interactions and are interested in ideas ‘just coming up’. If they gain legs they follow them through even if there isn’t a client. Another project room has a gap at the top of the walls to avoid being in total isolation. They see spaces combining both fixed and fluid elements. People move between teams which are made up of 3-5 people. 6 is seen as too many. Post’it notes are everywhere! They don’t know what they are going to end up with when they start out on a project.
Jump, like IDEO, does abstract projects but communicates the solutions visually and concretely (a strong theme of the visit). It finds its ideas in Business journals (e.g. from work emanating from the Harvard Business School and ‘entertainment magazines.’ They have a magpie approach to both academic and popular ideas accessed through the media and put them side by side. They believe in different cultures of innovation – invent/execute/explore/apply - but are most keen to apply ideas rather than just to articulate them. They describe themselves as ‘intellectually curious’. Like IDEO they talk about ‘constructing narratives’ and they involve both narrative and linguistic analysis. Like many other people on the visit they quoted Starbucks as an innovation of significance in terms of the way it has provided a new space for teenagers – not a bar, not a school, not home - and it defines its customers in a new way. They do not attempt to define innovation but, like others, see it, in broad terms, as ‘invention with socio-economic impact’.
Wednesday September 13th, 9.00 – 10.30
Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
Meeting with Patrick Whitney, Director, and V. J. Kumar
The Institute of Design has developed a masters/PhD programme (120 masters students and 10 PhDs) which is design-led but which is directed at the business context. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach bringing together marketing people, engineers and designers. Whitney does not like the term ‘design thinking’ but nonetheless talks about the relevance of the ‘way designers think’ to solving business problems. In particular he isolates analytic thinking, prototyping and the importance of the retention of ambiguity and multiple options up to the end of the project. He says that this is ‘like the core action of the design process’ and claims that it is ‘more relevant to the way people are living’. He sees the application of this approach to the creation of products, services and organisations. He argues that this is the next evolutionary stage for design which started out as an ‘arts and crafts’ concept and he uses the term ‘design planning’.
The approach is based on the British-based Design Methods movement of the 1960s but it has been stretched to become more flexible in order to meet the needs of a new socio-economic and cultural context.
The staff of the I of D are involved with ‘executive level’ short courses focusing on ‘real life’ industry projects and development for designers (e.g., GK Design)
Their bottom line is the belief that ‘designers need a more formalised education’ and that they should no longer be seen as ‘exotics’. (Whitney saw the d-School as a ‘new name for an old product’). His definition of innovation was ‘top line growth’ or ‘new things that are adopted by customers.’(Ethnography was mentioned again, as was the idea of doing user observation exercises with disposable cameras)
V.J. Kumar presented what he describes as an ‘innovation tool kit’ which attempts to formalise Whitney’s approach diagrammatically. He defines innovation as ‘a new idea that is made viable in the market and adds value to users and providers’. He stressed that the design and innovation process ‘is not linear’.
11.00 – 12.30
Stuart Graduate School of Business, IIT, Chicago
Meeting with Zia Hassan, Dean Emeritus and Professor and Harvey Kahalas, Dean
For 4-5 years the School has run a joint/dual programme with the I of D which ends up with the award of two degrees – MBA/Masters in Design. It was stimulated by design students wanting to take business courses and aims to produce CEOs who will lead across design/business with Steve Jobs as the role model. The question was asked as to whether ‘design is a subset of the business discipline’.
There is no strong sense here that real multi-disciplinarity is occurring even though all the usual buzz words are being used. It seemed as the real aim is to inject a level of creativity into business education and practice, and create a niche MBA (there was much discussion about vanilla MBAs) and that the I of D is conveniently situated to provide that. Artists, poets and other ‘pure creatives’ could just as well be introduced if this is the real aim. There did not seem to be any understanding of ‘design thinking’ in a sophisticated way. It was also pointed out that IIT may be offering 2 courses which are in competition with each other rather than really developing synergies across disciplines.
13.30 – 16.00
Meetings with Craig Vogel, Director of Centre for Design Research and Innovation, University of Cincinatti, and Tom Fisher, Dean, College of Design, and Marc Swackhamer, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architecture, University of Minnesota
Craig Vogel presented his work at Cincinatti and outlined the new developments in US design education which are recognising the inherent multi-disciplinarity of design and the need to align it with new areas and use its ‘thinking’ to solve a broader range of problems. He talked about some of the problems of multi-disciplinarity, explaining, for example, that ‘business people and engineers are very uncomfortable if their goals are not clear’. He stressed the important role of human factors, cognitive psychology and ethnography. Apple and Starbucks were cited once again as leading innovators. He made an important point that ‘innovation is not driven by technology but by value’ and stated that the MFA/MDA are the new MBA.
The staff members from the University of Minnesota described their plans for a new, innovatory, product design course. /
17.00
Herbst LaZarBell, Chicago
Meeting with Walter Herbst and Mark Dziersk, Senior Vice President, Design
This is a fairly conventional design consultancy in the sense that it is very product-oriented but it uses much social research (including ethnographers) and multi-disciplinary teams in which individuals are learning from each other during the design process. Like the other companies visited it also works on strategy for its clients, especially in relation to brand languages. It roots its work in the consumer experience, which it sees as primarily emotional in nature, and observational research. The brand solution follows from this. It depends upon brainstorming and cross-functional groups and is interested in product innovation which results in radically newly-conceived products. The idea that nobody wants a drill, they want a hole, was voiced, and the example of a baby’s nail clipper with a magnifying glass in it, which results in fewer injured babies and less fingernail biting, was given.
The firm has a developed notion of the market which is less about market segmentation and more about ‘tribes’ and the fact that one person can belong simultaneously to many. ‘The brand comes from the product not the other way round’ it was explained and it was claimed that ‘good design is not good enough any more’.
Ive’s reluctance to let designers become businesspeople was reinforced by the idea expressed here that ‘ watching a designer give business advice is link watching a cat bark.’
The difficulty of finding ‘cross-over’ people was discussed ((cf. Jump). The anthropologists they employ, for example, ‘have to have an empathy for creativity’.
Teams of 3 – social scientist, designer, engineer – were favoured.
Some designers were trained in interview techniques. Sometimes the anthropologists act as pseudo-clients (they disappear at the engineering stage). Products are created in mock-up spaces, e.g., an iron in a laundry room.
Thursday September 14th, 9.00 – 11.00
Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
Meeting with Walter Herbst, Director, Master of Product Development Programme, School of Engineering and Applied Science
Herbst made a presentation about the Masters of Product Development course at Northwestern which is taught jointly with the Kellogg School of Management. The average age of students on the course is 37 and they attend for one day a week for 2 years. Most are sponsored by their employers. The curriculum aims to balance and blend ‘right and left’ brain activities and the course is team and project based. It aims to develop managers and includes ‘analysis of products and why they were designed the way they were.’ The course has more ‘doing’ in it than its Chicago Business School equivalent and integrates design and business more effectively.
11.30 – 13.30
Ford Engineering Center, Northwestern University
Meeting with Wally Hopp, Joint Masters Programme Director
There is also a ‘Master of Management and Manufacturing Design’ course at Northwestern which is based on an MBA but which includes an engineering programme in it ‘to give it depth’. The aim of the course is to produce team managers. The MBA element is taught at an accelerated rate. The course was developed in response to the US loss of global leadership in manufacturing in the early 1990s. (cf. masters courses in Engineering Management at MIT) Both products and services are embraced and ‘real life’ projects are undertaken (example of body-bags for use after a disaster was discussed). The example of Starbucks was given again.
An executive version of the course also exists.
Friday September 15th, 7.30 – 9.00
Group Meeting, Hotel@MIT
A number of emerging themes from the visit were identified at this point, listed in no particular order. They included:
• spaces for innovation
• dealing with ambiguity
• the conflation of innovation, creativity and design
• ‘design’ being applied to wide range of problems, not just product-oriented ones
• ‘design thinking’
• The importance of multi-disciplinary teams
• Business-led innovation masters courses/design-led innovation masters courses
• The danger of over-formalised design methods
• The need for ‘concreteness’
• The appeal of design in its breadth across the production/consumption cycle
• Design’s self-defining, integral role within manufacturing and business
• The role of design in the next industrial revolution
• The creation of business leaders
• The extension of products to services
• The absence of conversations with clients
• User-focused research (ethnography)
• Design’s essential multi-disciplinarity
10.00 – 12.00
Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass
Meeting with Professor Joel Moses and Daniel Whitney
A presentation was given on a set of masters courses undertaken with the Sloan School of Management at MIT which bring together engineering, management and social science. They aim to produce ‘tomorrow’s leaders’ for manufacturing. They are project based and sometimes lead to real product development (a plastic paint can and a playground set were cited). The student team sizes are 6-7. The word ‘immersion’ was used again. As there is not a product design course at MIT links have been made with the Rhode Island School of Design. They were described as contributing ‘shape, colour and texture’ and as being able to ‘get the awkwardness out of products’. The SDM course is a distance learning course.
We were told that ‘most other business schools don’t want to mix with grubby engineers’ and that the collaboration didn’t work at Stanford.
The reason behind the lack of success of MIT’s link with Cambridge UK was given as the fact that it was a top-down process (directed by Gordon Brown) which was not rooted in a genuine, long-term association. MIT is more hopeful about a planned Portugal collaboration
12.00 – 15.00
MediaLab/DesignLab, MIT
Meeting with Bill Mitchell, Professor of Architecture and Media Arts and Sciences
Mitchell provided an overview of MediaLab’s background. It was formed 20 years ago and aims to provide ‘synthetic work across disciplines.’ Rooted in technological research it takes on projects which are linked to areas such as software and consumer electronics but it also works on concept cars, robotics, prosthetics etc. Work takes place on the ‘atelier’ model and it is based on activity rather than theory. Prototyping plays a very important role. It is multi-disciplinary and project-based. Teams are put together as required. The model of activity is research/theory/concrete realisation and the teams include engineers, artists, architects, computer scientists, physicists and many others. Mitchell mentioned including a brain scientist in a recent project. Currently there is a shift towards the life sciences – bio-technology in particular. Pharmaceutical science and geography are also included. BM says they shift to ‘where the intellectual action is.’ MediaLab also aims to focus on work which has social significance.
BM explained that, like Silicon Valley, Cambridge has a very lively industrial eco-system which keeps re-inventing itself.
Mitchell described the recent emergence of DesignLab which is only 6 months old. It is based on the MediaLab model but is more design- and ‘situation-specific’ and has a different approach to IP. A new building for DesignLab, designed by Fumiko Maki, is planned for 2009.
MediaLab’s teams are led by academic staff but made up of graduate students from across MIT as well as research assistants. Each project is funded externally and staff and students are paid for the duration of the project. Students gain credits. A few UG students are also involved. A job description is put out and applications are made.
The space in which MediaLab people work is very important to them (a recurrent theme). Its current building (an I.M.Pei design) is an open, black box performance space with a mezzanine floor built into it with personal/projects spaces on it. It has no external windows.
MediaLab is constantly in search of industrial funding and functions on the basis of an industrial consortium which brings in about $35 million annually. The companies involved have non-exclusive access to MediaLab’s work and ideas. Mitchell describes MediaLab’s work as ‘mostly upstream’. It is primarily concerned with ‘things that think’, ‘artefacts with intelligence’. Its aim is to ‘make digitally intelligent objects tangible’. It has a huge range of industrial sponsors, from automobile to telecommunications companies. It also initiates its own projects, e.g., Mitch Resnick’s toy work. Mitchell is involved with a ‘smart cities’ project.
Mitchell explained why MediaLab Europe, based in Dublin, was unsuccessful. The reasons were primarily financial.
MediaLab is ideas driven and offers visions of the future. It develops close intellectual relationships with its partners through events. It brings all its companies together once a year. Their main benefit is access to a stream of talented students. The Lab is currently working on a concept car for GM. It is a lightweight, electric, rentable car which stacks like supermarket trolleys and folds like luggage. ML is also working on a bus system for Paris, a motor-scooter for Piaggio and the creation of a 21st century village for Zambana in Italy.
Many of ML’s PhD students develop ‘spin-off’ companies.
Mitchell explained that MediaLab’s privileged relationship with corporations made for a difficult relationship with the rest of MIT.
Projects begin with brainstorming and the group quickly starts generating solutions based on big questions such as, in relation to cars, ‘can we get rid of the engine?’ Solutions are then group critiqued and technical research begins. BM characterises the ML design process as ‘getting something out before you are sure of the solution so that it can stimulate responses’. ML is NOT immersed in user culture although some ethnographic work does take place. The question ‘what would users think?’ is addressed. BM described what they do as ‘quick and dirty social science.’
BM talked about the importance of informal meeting places where ideas happen. He mentioned the importance of the Wagon Wheel restaurant in Silicon Valley as one example.
BM described the need for ‘designers who can surf the waves of technological innovation’ and the importance of real personal relationships.
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford University, Palo Alto
Meetings with George Kembel, Executive Director of Stanford d-School and Larry Leifer, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director, Center for Design Research
The d-School has been at least 20 years in the making. Its current aim is to produce ‘leaders’; to teach ‘out of the lecture theatre’; and to use ‘design thinking’ to inspire multi-disciplinary teams to solve problems in ways which do not necessarily result in new products or services but which might produce ‘business plans’, ‘implementation plans’, or ‘strategic plans’, among other things. The emphasis is upon the combination of business issues (viability), technical issues (feasibility), and human issues/values (usability).
The School’s ‘napkin manifesto’ includes the following aims:
• To create the best design school in the US
• To prepare future ‘innovators’, defined as ‘breakthrough thinkers and doers’ (The emphasis on people, rather than on abstract notions of ‘innovation’, provided a theme for the visit)
• To use ‘design thinking’
• To foster radical collaborations
• To tackle big projects
The d-School is not technically a school (but rather an ‘institute’) as it does not have its own students but takes them from a range of existing Stanford masters programmes (this was perceived by several people we spoke to later as a problem). Students are awarded a ‘medal of honour’.
The emphasis is on the creation of multi-disciplinary teams working on projects and on ensuring that thinking is balanced by doing. Discourse/dialogue is only half the equation and important questions, it is believed, arise through ‘doing’. Kembel emphasised the ‘process’ and stressed that all the d-School projects – some of which were ‘invented’ by members of Faculty (although they has to be ‘real world’ in nature – Larry Leifer commented that ‘the topic didn’t matter as it was the process that was important) and others of which were brought to them by industry – had to be ‘process conscious’. Some projects were ‘altruistic’ in nature, e.g., ‘handling emergency aftermaths’. It was emphasised, however, that projects had to be constrained.
The d-School’s primary asset is its students. Kembel explained how industrial collaborators soon came to understand this and that they gradually replaced their black suits with jeans and joined in with the University community.
Faculty staff were seen as ‘collaborators with students’ rather than as ‘sages on stages’. Kembel explained that staff members are subjected to critiques from other staff and students in this process.
Teams are surrounded by both staff and ‘coaches’ – the latter were characterised as ‘veteran design thinkers with teaching/industrial experience’.
The multi-disciplinary teams consist of people with expertise in the areas of business, engineering, design and social science – (the latter importantly includes ethnographers who were mentioned by many other people during the visit, as well as psychologists and artists). (It is important to note also that the d-School was conceived and initiated by product designers). In such a multi-disciplinary team people are not as hierarchically-oriented as they would be in a team of ‘like-minded’ people, Kembel explained. The focus is on the way in which the members of the team make decisions together and the process that underpins that. Team members have to quickly become ‘experts’ in fields outside their own.
The emphasis is upon the use of ‘design thinking’ as a common language to bring together people who speak different languages. The concept of ‘T’ shaped people (vertical = specialist, analytical depth/horizontal = breadth/empathy with other disciplines) is seen as crucial in this context. (This was mentioned at other visits, especially at IDEO).
The optimum size of a team was deemed to be 3 or 4. (this was emphatically reiterated at other visits) (Larry Leifer described 3 as ‘optimum’; 4 as ‘okay’; and 5 as ‘death’).
The class sizes at d-School were 24-30 and they came for around 10 weeks and undertook a number of projects (4/5) during that time.
The process the teams follow begins with quick initial research (including observation of users) followed by prototyping (up to 10 per project). This might involve using a workshop, making a video or doing spread sheets. Kembel described this as a ‘common sense’ process. Leifer re-emphasised that much learning takes place in the prototyping process and that it is the learning rather than the prototype that is important. Like Kembel he stressed that there is no method in the d-School approach to creativity and innovation and that prototyping ‘forces decision-making without reference to quantitative data’. Both stressed the importance of intuition. Each student has to keep a ‘design log’ and there is a ‘wiki website’ on which to record the process. There are no team leaders and the emphasis is on ‘what’s important for the process?’ and ‘how do you select ideas for projects?’. The students have to decide what is important. The main question is ‘what is the problem?’
The space, or ‘habitat’ in which innovation can occur is an important theme for the d-School (as it is for many of the places we visited) as it is seen as ‘governing how people behave’. D. School is working iteratively on a space planning exercise for a building it will occupy in 2009, funded by a $35 million gift by Hasso Plattner. It is housed in temporary space at present. (Leifer added that it is important that the space is ‘not precious or finished’ and that the team members have to be empowered to own and change the space and to have 24/7 access to it). Couches (sofas became a leitmotif on the visit!), coffee tables, large tables, common areas, flexible spaces (walls on wheels) and break out spaces are important. Personal space is limited (These themes were reiterated frequently during the visit). A loft/warehouse is seen as the ideal sort of space.
The difficult question of assessing student teamwork was discussed but not satisfactorily resolved.
Larry Leifer reiterated many of the points made by Kembel adding that his area of expertise is in cognitive science and that he has a group of PhD students who work individually and who ‘study people who study design’ in an ‘observatory’ context. His specialism is teamwork and he uses the notion of Jungian personality types. He is keen on maximum diversity in creative teams and the need for continual ‘unlearning’. He asked why designers don’t consciously ‘steal’ or ‘cite’ other people’s ideas as they do in other disciplines. He discussed the importance of IP in this context and explained that Stanford works mostly with large-scale, global companies (BMW, Daimler, Chrysler, Panasonic and Schick were mentioned) rather than SMEs as the latter don’t feel they have the time to engage in this sort of activity. (The word ‘immersive’ was used frequently here as elsewhere). Companies pay $75k to work with Stanford.
15.00 – 17.00
IDEO, 100 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto
Meeting with Tim Brown, CEO
David Kelley, the founder of IDEO, studied product design at Stanford 26 years ago (a student of Larry Leifer) and IDEO was a ‘spin-out’. Now IDEO thinking is coming back into the d-School.
IDEO is not an ‘industrial design’ company, but rather a ‘design thinking’ company which can tackle a much wider set of problems, although its core is in conventional design. (60% strategic projects/40% design projects). However objects are still seen as important ways of communicating strategies.
IDEO work with companies which desire growth (This was the case with all the design companies we visited). It also works with start-ups.
IDEO’s staff work across around 50 disciplines, focusing around business, technical issues and social science. Its emphasis is on ‘humanising technology’ and it works on service and space relationships (e.g., retail) and urban planning). The constant is ‘human-centred design’ and a ‘holistic’ way of doing things. They continue to ‘chase the interesting problems’. Their work covers the toy industry to medical products. One of their emphases is ‘story-telling’ and to this end they involve film-makers and writers.
IDEO’s starting point is that ‘designers have always had to understand a bit of everything’, therefore ‘design thinking’ is itself a multi-disciplinary process. Empathy for other disciplines is important. User observation is important. People with ‘hooks out to other disciplines’ are crucial in this context, but they must also have ‘knowledge of their core subject’. Tim Brown mentioned that this approach is being developed at Rhode Island School of Design, in Toronto, at Art Center (Pasadena) and at Berkeley.
Brown stressed the importance of ‘figuring out the right problem’ which might not have been the one the client came with. They need to question the brief.
IDEO’s aim is to develop long term relationships with clients. They work with some companies (e.g. Pepsi) which have no in-house designers and others (e.g., Proctor and Gamble) which have lots. It is difficult for them to work with SMEs as they may not have the capital to do something with the solution that IDEO has given them. However they see an eco-system of companies developing with ideas coming from small companies and large companies developing them (the model of small companies selling ideas to GOOGLE and YAHOO was mentioned). They work mostly with global companies. Brown fears that under-investment in British design education might mean that we loose the edge in this area (he is an RCA graduate). Like d-School they stressed that their ‘design thinking’ process was not a methodology. Brainstorming and prototyping are important as is use observation at the outset of a project. Brown talked about a ‘pick’n’mix’ approach and explained that you ‘cannot fix the process because it stifles innovation’. (This was re-iterated many times during the visit). Projects are rigorously managed.
IDEO has a matrix structure which means that all designers work across a range of projects.
There is lots of collaborative space and little personal space. They use a huge warehouse with project rooms down the sides and large collaborative spaces in the middle – large tables etc. A team might live in a project room for 3 months. They bring research material back to them. Lots of Post’it notes were being used (One of the visit’s most dominant themes!).
18.00
Dinner meeting with Jonathan Ive, Vice-President of Industrial Design, Apple Computers, hotel in San Francicso
This meeting was very different from the last two inasmuch as Ive, a highly creative and innovative designer, works in a ‘conventional’ way with a small, specialised, product design team. Unusually, however, he is on the board of Apple and clearly plays a key role within the company. This is undoubtedly due to the far-sightedness of the company’s CEO, Steve Jobs, who returned to the company in 1997 to launch the I-Mac and the I-Pod. The lesson of Apple, where the Cox Review is concerned, is that, as well as educating excellent designers, such as Ive, HE needs to educate industry ‘leaders’ who have an acute understanding of design, its process, and its economic and cultural benefits.
Ive gave us an account of his work experience at Apple. 90% of his time is spent designing. He is adamant that ‘it is a mistake to push designers to become business-people’ and he doesn’t consider himself one but he knows ‘how to make a product’. Having said that, he stated that, ‘you have to be a collection of people to make a product.’ He stressed that Apple’s goal was not to make money but to make the best products. It is, as he reminded us, the only company which deals with both software and hardware. He has Europeans in his design team and, like Brown, is worried that the UK is under-investing in design education. (He was educated at Northumbria University). His view of designers is that they should be ‘fanatical craftspeople’. He emphasised the unique character of Apple, explaining, for example, that it has no corporate guidelines book.
Tuesday September 12th, 12.00 – 14.00
Jump Associates LLC, San Mateo, California
Meeting with Alonzo Canada,
Jump operates rather like IDEO but it is a younger, much smaller (9 years old with 45 people as against 500) company. They specialise in design and innovation and aim to ‘reinvigorate products and services’ and help firms to meet their strategic objectives. They are a multi-disciplinary, highly collaborative practice (including ethnography and organisational psychology as they value social research) which, like IDEO, works with ‘clients who want to grow’. They bring together design (what’s possible, including technology?), business (what’s viable?) with culture (what’s desirable?). Jump’s teams include designers, engineers and marketing people but each individual is multi-disciplinary.
They employ people who have expertise in 2 of these areas and are open to learning about the third) (rather more demanding than d-School and IDEO who look for expertise in one area only. They can only use graduates or people with life/work experience. An ideal employee, for example, would be an anthropologist whose parents are designers!) They call these people their ‘resident schizophrenics’ and say that in the end they have to train their own people.
Examples of projects included, what will come after the SUV? How can a bank re-engage with is customers? How can e-bay express its identity? They try to approach problems in new ways and to look at the world from the consumer’s perspective.
The space in which they work is very important to them. They have created a stairwell at the heart of their building to facilitate chance encounters, conversations and exchanges of ideas. Public and café space is important as is what they call ‘neighbourhood spaces’, which are open plan spaces where people on different projects work closely together, and project rooms (one has cushions on the floor). They talk about ‘fostering random interactions and are interested in ideas ‘just coming up’. If they gain legs they follow them through even if there isn’t a client. Another project room has a gap at the top of the walls to avoid being in total isolation. They see spaces combining both fixed and fluid elements. People move between teams which are made up of 3-5 people. 6 is seen as too many. Post’it notes are everywhere! They don’t know what they are going to end up with when they start out on a project.
Jump, like IDEO, does abstract projects but communicates the solutions visually and concretely (a strong theme of the visit). It finds its ideas in Business journals (e.g. from work emanating from the Harvard Business School and ‘entertainment magazines.’ They have a magpie approach to both academic and popular ideas accessed through the media and put them side by side. They believe in different cultures of innovation – invent/execute/explore/apply - but are most keen to apply ideas rather than just to articulate them. They describe themselves as ‘intellectually curious’. Like IDEO they talk about ‘constructing narratives’ and they involve both narrative and linguistic analysis. Like many other people on the visit they quoted Starbucks as an innovation of significance in terms of the way it has provided a new space for teenagers – not a bar, not a school, not home - and it defines its customers in a new way. They do not attempt to define innovation but, like others, see it, in broad terms, as ‘invention with socio-economic impact’.
Wednesday September 13th, 9.00 – 10.30
Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
Meeting with Patrick Whitney, Director, and V. J. Kumar
The Institute of Design has developed a masters/PhD programme (120 masters students and 10 PhDs) which is design-led but which is directed at the business context. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach bringing together marketing people, engineers and designers. Whitney does not like the term ‘design thinking’ but nonetheless talks about the relevance of the ‘way designers think’ to solving business problems. In particular he isolates analytic thinking, prototyping and the importance of the retention of ambiguity and multiple options up to the end of the project. He says that this is ‘like the core action of the design process’ and claims that it is ‘more relevant to the way people are living’. He sees the application of this approach to the creation of products, services and organisations. He argues that this is the next evolutionary stage for design which started out as an ‘arts and crafts’ concept and he uses the term ‘design planning’.
The approach is based on the British-based Design Methods movement of the 1960s but it has been stretched to become more flexible in order to meet the needs of a new socio-economic and cultural context.
The staff of the I of D are involved with ‘executive level’ short courses focusing on ‘real life’ industry projects and development for designers (e.g., GK Design)
Their bottom line is the belief that ‘designers need a more formalised education’ and that they should no longer be seen as ‘exotics’. (Whitney saw the d-School as a ‘new name for an old product’). His definition of innovation was ‘top line growth’ or ‘new things that are adopted by customers.’(Ethnography was mentioned again, as was the idea of doing user observation exercises with disposable cameras)
V.J. Kumar presented what he describes as an ‘innovation tool kit’ which attempts to formalise Whitney’s approach diagrammatically. He defines innovation as ‘a new idea that is made viable in the market and adds value to users and providers’. He stressed that the design and innovation process ‘is not linear’.
11.00 – 12.30
Stuart Graduate School of Business, IIT, Chicago
Meeting with Zia Hassan, Dean Emeritus and Professor and Harvey Kahalas, Dean
For 4-5 years the School has run a joint/dual programme with the I of D which ends up with the award of two degrees – MBA/Masters in Design. It was stimulated by design students wanting to take business courses and aims to produce CEOs who will lead across design/business with Steve Jobs as the role model. The question was asked as to whether ‘design is a subset of the business discipline’.
There is no strong sense here that real multi-disciplinarity is occurring even though all the usual buzz words are being used. It seemed as the real aim is to inject a level of creativity into business education and practice, and create a niche MBA (there was much discussion about vanilla MBAs) and that the I of D is conveniently situated to provide that. Artists, poets and other ‘pure creatives’ could just as well be introduced if this is the real aim. There did not seem to be any understanding of ‘design thinking’ in a sophisticated way. It was also pointed out that IIT may be offering 2 courses which are in competition with each other rather than really developing synergies across disciplines.
13.30 – 16.00
Meetings with Craig Vogel, Director of Centre for Design Research and Innovation, University of Cincinatti, and Tom Fisher, Dean, College of Design, and Marc Swackhamer, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architecture, University of Minnesota
Craig Vogel presented his work at Cincinatti and outlined the new developments in US design education which are recognising the inherent multi-disciplinarity of design and the need to align it with new areas and use its ‘thinking’ to solve a broader range of problems. He talked about some of the problems of multi-disciplinarity, explaining, for example, that ‘business people and engineers are very uncomfortable if their goals are not clear’. He stressed the important role of human factors, cognitive psychology and ethnography. Apple and Starbucks were cited once again as leading innovators. He made an important point that ‘innovation is not driven by technology but by value’ and stated that the MFA/MDA are the new MBA.
The staff members from the University of Minnesota described their plans for a new, innovatory, product design course. /
17.00
Herbst LaZarBell, Chicago
Meeting with Walter Herbst and Mark Dziersk, Senior Vice President, Design
This is a fairly conventional design consultancy in the sense that it is very product-oriented but it uses much social research (including ethnographers) and multi-disciplinary teams in which individuals are learning from each other during the design process. Like the other companies visited it also works on strategy for its clients, especially in relation to brand languages. It roots its work in the consumer experience, which it sees as primarily emotional in nature, and observational research. The brand solution follows from this. It depends upon brainstorming and cross-functional groups and is interested in product innovation which results in radically newly-conceived products. The idea that nobody wants a drill, they want a hole, was voiced, and the example of a baby’s nail clipper with a magnifying glass in it, which results in fewer injured babies and less fingernail biting, was given.
The firm has a developed notion of the market which is less about market segmentation and more about ‘tribes’ and the fact that one person can belong simultaneously to many. ‘The brand comes from the product not the other way round’ it was explained and it was claimed that ‘good design is not good enough any more’.
Ive’s reluctance to let designers become businesspeople was reinforced by the idea expressed here that ‘ watching a designer give business advice is link watching a cat bark.’
The difficulty of finding ‘cross-over’ people was discussed ((cf. Jump). The anthropologists they employ, for example, ‘have to have an empathy for creativity’.
Teams of 3 – social scientist, designer, engineer – were favoured.
Some designers were trained in interview techniques. Sometimes the anthropologists act as pseudo-clients (they disappear at the engineering stage). Products are created in mock-up spaces, e.g., an iron in a laundry room.
Thursday September 14th, 9.00 – 11.00
Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
Meeting with Walter Herbst, Director, Master of Product Development Programme, School of Engineering and Applied Science
Herbst made a presentation about the Masters of Product Development course at Northwestern which is taught jointly with the Kellogg School of Management. The average age of students on the course is 37 and they attend for one day a week for 2 years. Most are sponsored by their employers. The curriculum aims to balance and blend ‘right and left’ brain activities and the course is team and project based. It aims to develop managers and includes ‘analysis of products and why they were designed the way they were.’ The course has more ‘doing’ in it than its Chicago Business School equivalent and integrates design and business more effectively.
11.30 – 13.30
Ford Engineering Center, Northwestern University
Meeting with Wally Hopp, Joint Masters Programme Director
There is also a ‘Master of Management and Manufacturing Design’ course at Northwestern which is based on an MBA but which includes an engineering programme in it ‘to give it depth’. The aim of the course is to produce team managers. The MBA element is taught at an accelerated rate. The course was developed in response to the US loss of global leadership in manufacturing in the early 1990s. (cf. masters courses in Engineering Management at MIT) Both products and services are embraced and ‘real life’ projects are undertaken (example of body-bags for use after a disaster was discussed). The example of Starbucks was given again.
An executive version of the course also exists.
Friday September 15th, 7.30 – 9.00
Group Meeting, Hotel@MIT
A number of emerging themes from the visit were identified at this point, listed in no particular order. They included:
• spaces for innovation
• dealing with ambiguity
• the conflation of innovation, creativity and design
• ‘design’ being applied to wide range of problems, not just product-oriented ones
• ‘design thinking’
• The importance of multi-disciplinary teams
• Business-led innovation masters courses/design-led innovation masters courses
• The danger of over-formalised design methods
• The need for ‘concreteness’
• The appeal of design in its breadth across the production/consumption cycle
• Design’s self-defining, integral role within manufacturing and business
• The role of design in the next industrial revolution
• The creation of business leaders
• The extension of products to services
• The absence of conversations with clients
• User-focused research (ethnography)
• Design’s essential multi-disciplinarity
10.00 – 12.00
Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass
Meeting with Professor Joel Moses and Daniel Whitney
A presentation was given on a set of masters courses undertaken with the Sloan School of Management at MIT which bring together engineering, management and social science. They aim to produce ‘tomorrow’s leaders’ for manufacturing. They are project based and sometimes lead to real product development (a plastic paint can and a playground set were cited). The student team sizes are 6-7. The word ‘immersion’ was used again. As there is not a product design course at MIT links have been made with the Rhode Island School of Design. They were described as contributing ‘shape, colour and texture’ and as being able to ‘get the awkwardness out of products’. The SDM course is a distance learning course.
We were told that ‘most other business schools don’t want to mix with grubby engineers’ and that the collaboration didn’t work at Stanford.
The reason behind the lack of success of MIT’s link with Cambridge UK was given as the fact that it was a top-down process (directed by Gordon Brown) which was not rooted in a genuine, long-term association. MIT is more hopeful about a planned Portugal collaboration
12.00 – 15.00
MediaLab/DesignLab, MIT
Meeting with Bill Mitchell, Professor of Architecture and Media Arts and Sciences
Mitchell provided an overview of MediaLab’s background. It was formed 20 years ago and aims to provide ‘synthetic work across disciplines.’ Rooted in technological research it takes on projects which are linked to areas such as software and consumer electronics but it also works on concept cars, robotics, prosthetics etc. Work takes place on the ‘atelier’ model and it is based on activity rather than theory. Prototyping plays a very important role. It is multi-disciplinary and project-based. Teams are put together as required. The model of activity is research/theory/concrete realisation and the teams include engineers, artists, architects, computer scientists, physicists and many others. Mitchell mentioned including a brain scientist in a recent project. Currently there is a shift towards the life sciences – bio-technology in particular. Pharmaceutical science and geography are also included. BM says they shift to ‘where the intellectual action is.’ MediaLab also aims to focus on work which has social significance.
BM explained that, like Silicon Valley, Cambridge has a very lively industrial eco-system which keeps re-inventing itself.
Mitchell described the recent emergence of DesignLab which is only 6 months old. It is based on the MediaLab model but is more design- and ‘situation-specific’ and has a different approach to IP. A new building for DesignLab, designed by Fumiko Maki, is planned for 2009.
MediaLab’s teams are led by academic staff but made up of graduate students from across MIT as well as research assistants. Each project is funded externally and staff and students are paid for the duration of the project. Students gain credits. A few UG students are also involved. A job description is put out and applications are made.
The space in which MediaLab people work is very important to them (a recurrent theme). Its current building (an I.M.Pei design) is an open, black box performance space with a mezzanine floor built into it with personal/projects spaces on it. It has no external windows.
MediaLab is constantly in search of industrial funding and functions on the basis of an industrial consortium which brings in about $35 million annually. The companies involved have non-exclusive access to MediaLab’s work and ideas. Mitchell describes MediaLab’s work as ‘mostly upstream’. It is primarily concerned with ‘things that think’, ‘artefacts with intelligence’. Its aim is to ‘make digitally intelligent objects tangible’. It has a huge range of industrial sponsors, from automobile to telecommunications companies. It also initiates its own projects, e.g., Mitch Resnick’s toy work. Mitchell is involved with a ‘smart cities’ project.
Mitchell explained why MediaLab Europe, based in Dublin, was unsuccessful. The reasons were primarily financial.
MediaLab is ideas driven and offers visions of the future. It develops close intellectual relationships with its partners through events. It brings all its companies together once a year. Their main benefit is access to a stream of talented students. The Lab is currently working on a concept car for GM. It is a lightweight, electric, rentable car which stacks like supermarket trolleys and folds like luggage. ML is also working on a bus system for Paris, a motor-scooter for Piaggio and the creation of a 21st century village for Zambana in Italy.
Many of ML’s PhD students develop ‘spin-off’ companies.
Mitchell explained that MediaLab’s privileged relationship with corporations made for a difficult relationship with the rest of MIT.
Projects begin with brainstorming and the group quickly starts generating solutions based on big questions such as, in relation to cars, ‘can we get rid of the engine?’ Solutions are then group critiqued and technical research begins. BM characterises the ML design process as ‘getting something out before you are sure of the solution so that it can stimulate responses’. ML is NOT immersed in user culture although some ethnographic work does take place. The question ‘what would users think?’ is addressed. BM described what they do as ‘quick and dirty social science.’
BM talked about the importance of informal meeting places where ideas happen. He mentioned the importance of the Wagon Wheel restaurant in Silicon Valley as one example.
BM described the need for ‘designers who can surf the waves of technological innovation’ and the importance of real personal relationships.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
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’!
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’!
What are designers for? By John Miller
Part of this agenda is supply driven - our design graduates are an undertapped resource. Our courses traditionally prepare them for the design industry, design practice or designer-making. A tiny amount of design graduates go for "graduate jobs" and neither are they well prepared to carve themselves out useful and fulfilling careers in SMEs.
Others have highlighted the large corporates/engineering focus of the US model. There was a secondary narrative to do with spin-outs (mostly fairly unconvincing). For the UK we need to describe how someone with a design training can have an impact on a business of 100 or so employees - developing an innovation culture through management or marketing or media or facilitation as well as design. This means developing course content, looking for role models and case studies other than design heroes and communicating the message. Importantly this needs to happen at school - if design colleges recruited students with Design and Technology and/or Business Studies A levels alongside the Art and Design Foundation route we might see a more diverse mix of expectations.
Teams and Individuals
All the teamwork we saw is not borne out in design education in the UK which is mostly based on individual development. Doing more teamwork and especially across courses will help our students develop their communications skills. Exotic ideas, prosaic communication? But not too much - I have a hunch that the immersion and ownership of an idea - the need to prove it and to own and answer robust critique is one of the things that makes our courses special.
Innovation and refinement
Continuing the theme, design promotes innovation but is also about refinement and beauty. An innovation brought to market too quickly may be rapidly superseded - ie we want to produce iconic or definitive products and services, not just this year's novelty. This is a potential niche for the UK - distinctive from the US due to the breadth of subject disciplines and diversity of students. Jonathan Ive = refinement. Baby nail clippers = innovative.
Craft
Our design graduates are such useful people because they have had a design education including real immersion in a subject. It takes a specialist to understand other specialists. There is a danger that adding a lot more business/anthropology/technology to the curriculum whilst broadening the "T" will lead to less accomplished designers and less useful employees.
Innovative educators
We didn't see them. A sense that the product design courses we saw were in the right place at the right time - the traditional educational experience they offer happens to offer something to do with "creativity" to business. There was little evidence of innovative teaching and learning practice. Perhaps this is an unfair characterisation? Anyone disagree?
Interest from students
I have mentioned business demand, but what of student interest? The courses we saw were all relatively small. If we have an SME agenda rather than a large corporates agenda we need to "turn out" many more of these new hybrid designers. Is it something that will interest 17 year olds or 21 year old grads? I mentioned schools work above. Cox talks about using the media and I think it's an essential part of the mix.
Others have highlighted the large corporates/engineering focus of the US model. There was a secondary narrative to do with spin-outs (mostly fairly unconvincing). For the UK we need to describe how someone with a design training can have an impact on a business of 100 or so employees - developing an innovation culture through management or marketing or media or facilitation as well as design. This means developing course content, looking for role models and case studies other than design heroes and communicating the message. Importantly this needs to happen at school - if design colleges recruited students with Design and Technology and/or Business Studies A levels alongside the Art and Design Foundation route we might see a more diverse mix of expectations.
Teams and Individuals
All the teamwork we saw is not borne out in design education in the UK which is mostly based on individual development. Doing more teamwork and especially across courses will help our students develop their communications skills. Exotic ideas, prosaic communication? But not too much - I have a hunch that the immersion and ownership of an idea - the need to prove it and to own and answer robust critique is one of the things that makes our courses special.
Innovation and refinement
Continuing the theme, design promotes innovation but is also about refinement and beauty. An innovation brought to market too quickly may be rapidly superseded - ie we want to produce iconic or definitive products and services, not just this year's novelty. This is a potential niche for the UK - distinctive from the US due to the breadth of subject disciplines and diversity of students. Jonathan Ive = refinement. Baby nail clippers = innovative.
Craft
Our design graduates are such useful people because they have had a design education including real immersion in a subject. It takes a specialist to understand other specialists. There is a danger that adding a lot more business/anthropology/technology to the curriculum whilst broadening the "T" will lead to less accomplished designers and less useful employees.
Innovative educators
We didn't see them. A sense that the product design courses we saw were in the right place at the right time - the traditional educational experience they offer happens to offer something to do with "creativity" to business. There was little evidence of innovative teaching and learning practice. Perhaps this is an unfair characterisation? Anyone disagree?
Interest from students
I have mentioned business demand, but what of student interest? The courses we saw were all relatively small. If we have an SME agenda rather than a large corporates agenda we need to "turn out" many more of these new hybrid designers. Is it something that will interest 17 year olds or 21 year old grads? I mentioned schools work above. Cox talks about using the media and I think it's an essential part of the mix.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Key findings of the Cox delegation mission to US
The importance of ‘physical spaces’: we have observed the use of engaging and flexible physical spaces to bring multi-disciplinary teams and HE-clients together
‘Design-thinking’: this is emerging as an important conceptual model in the US for creativity and innovation; it may be too early to say whether it is globally significant. The interest in design-thinking appears to flow from a number of facets of design as a ‘discipline’ and its approaches to the learning experience. Design is about ‘constrained creativity’ so it handles real world ambiguity and the disruptive nature of innovation through a structured approach and processes.
‘Design thinking’ fits into the broader context of innovation, which should be seen separately from design and includes manufacturing, financial services, logistics, etc.
Other key aspects of design: intrinsically linked to the business process; massively user/customer sensitive; visual skills provide ways to convey complex ideas to varied audiences; intrinsically multi-disciplinary; only ‘discipline’ that covers the whole chain from production through to consumption.
New and emerging business models in design consultancy are based on multi-disciplinary skills
We were left with a significant query about the significance of design skills versus design methods in the context of new design-thinking and in innovation more generally
Issues of group engagement in collective experience seem critical to creativity/innovation models here, linked to design thinking
Careful thought is needed on the people model: are we trying to make business leaders appreciate design, or designers to lead businesses; as educators do we create hybrids or specialists, etc. What kinds of students and indeed business clients do we anticipate are needed for this kind of model. How far have design practices and design thinking emerged out of specific local conditions such as in silicon valley and Cambridge Massachusetts.
The major developments in design education and practice in the US seem to be fuelled by, and aimed at large corporations through sponsorship and employer demand. It is not clear how transferable the model is to the UK market.
‘Design-thinking’: this is emerging as an important conceptual model in the US for creativity and innovation; it may be too early to say whether it is globally significant. The interest in design-thinking appears to flow from a number of facets of design as a ‘discipline’ and its approaches to the learning experience. Design is about ‘constrained creativity’ so it handles real world ambiguity and the disruptive nature of innovation through a structured approach and processes.
‘Design thinking’ fits into the broader context of innovation, which should be seen separately from design and includes manufacturing, financial services, logistics, etc.
Other key aspects of design: intrinsically linked to the business process; massively user/customer sensitive; visual skills provide ways to convey complex ideas to varied audiences; intrinsically multi-disciplinary; only ‘discipline’ that covers the whole chain from production through to consumption.
New and emerging business models in design consultancy are based on multi-disciplinary skills
We were left with a significant query about the significance of design skills versus design methods in the context of new design-thinking and in innovation more generally
Issues of group engagement in collective experience seem critical to creativity/innovation models here, linked to design thinking
Careful thought is needed on the people model: are we trying to make business leaders appreciate design, or designers to lead businesses; as educators do we create hybrids or specialists, etc. What kinds of students and indeed business clients do we anticipate are needed for this kind of model. How far have design practices and design thinking emerged out of specific local conditions such as in silicon valley and Cambridge Massachusetts.
The major developments in design education and practice in the US seem to be fuelled by, and aimed at large corporations through sponsorship and employer demand. It is not clear how transferable the model is to the UK market.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Thoughts on creativity and how it feeds business through the people who know about it, use it or teach it? By Ken Newton
Spaces
As Important as processes going on within them, both in education and business. ( D school)
Homes for wayward Thinkers
Flexible to reflect changing needs during “The Process”
People
Concentrate on creating Innovators rather than innovations; former will lead to latter.
Mix students and professionals both ways.
T shape people
Use psychologists to help create and support creative thinkong in a zone that does not use data as a support.
Interdisciplinary to reduce internal competition of teams.
Staff as coaches rather than “sages on stages”
Curriculum
Moving from being told what to do and knowing who to please to decding what to do and who and how to please.
Some students “get it”, some don’t; these have to unlearn, but how is this done………….
Question whether required outputs can be achieved within University structures. “We don’t care what Stanford does” – D School
Reward failures in applying processes, but avoid producing “Lifelong Losers”.
Processes
Traditional model of Design Process seems to retain currency; activities within it have changed, particularly in terms of information gathering. Ie Ethno / Anthro study, prototyping for Information etc.
Team activities with internal hierarchies ; Designer holds microphone in Video studies.
Creativity
LET not Make it happen. Create environments, curricula, teams, reward structures that support it.
Develop confidence in intuitive approaches.
Respect required for Design Thinking.
Projects
Anything that motivates students but is ethical, and has appropriate scope and scale to allow all aspects of Design Process to be engaged, particularly prototyping in an appropriate way.
As Important as processes going on within them, both in education and business. ( D school)
Homes for wayward Thinkers
Flexible to reflect changing needs during “The Process”
People
Concentrate on creating Innovators rather than innovations; former will lead to latter.
Mix students and professionals both ways.
T shape people
Use psychologists to help create and support creative thinkong in a zone that does not use data as a support.
Interdisciplinary to reduce internal competition of teams.
Staff as coaches rather than “sages on stages”
Curriculum
Moving from being told what to do and knowing who to please to decding what to do and who and how to please.
Some students “get it”, some don’t; these have to unlearn, but how is this done………….
Question whether required outputs can be achieved within University structures. “We don’t care what Stanford does” – D School
Reward failures in applying processes, but avoid producing “Lifelong Losers”.
Processes
Traditional model of Design Process seems to retain currency; activities within it have changed, particularly in terms of information gathering. Ie Ethno / Anthro study, prototyping for Information etc.
Team activities with internal hierarchies ; Designer holds microphone in Video studies.
Creativity
LET not Make it happen. Create environments, curricula, teams, reward structures that support it.
Develop confidence in intuitive approaches.
Respect required for Design Thinking.
Projects
Anything that motivates students but is ethical, and has appropriate scope and scale to allow all aspects of Design Process to be engaged, particularly prototyping in an appropriate way.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Clare Johnston's blog entry
Overall I am impressed by the amazing confidence and conviction of all the USA Institutions and companies visited, even if the product was unconvincing the veneer and PR was water tight.
Confidence-We are very poor at this in the UK.
Don’t try and fix what isn’t broke.UK Design courses best in world, and there are many international examples of successful Alumni,but we don’t shout about it.
Need to be clear on intended outcomes of multi- discipline approach, what kind of graduates do we want?
Multi-disciplinary projects are already integrated into most BA and MA programmes in the UK,(cross- pollination between Institutions is newer).eg RCA developing new links with Imperial.
Might be wise to review results of these new initiatives before everyone jumps on this bandwagon.
Beware of the overpacked curriculum ,already a big problem in BA and MA.
Is there an equal case for developing some deeper and more specialist pedagogy as a point of differentiation .
Could Business /professional practise be taught as PGCE model currently offered?
Or as virtual learning.
Patrick Whitney- USA industry is more sympathetic to Education,UK generally more cynical, does UK industry understand/appreciate the high standing of UK Design education internationally, should the success of the UK Design courses be more evident.(Marketed)
Strength of many UK courses is Skill and Craft base, should be careful not to dilute this.
Sandwich courses are a good way of gaining industry experience, tend to improve awareness.
I like the idea of the old day release courses in the UK, but for more experienced workers,like the Northwest programme this naturally brings the Industry closer to the curriculum.
There may be a need to address the earliest stages of education so that there is a clear relationship, primary and secondary art and design education shouldn’t necessarily mirror or emulate further education.
Encourage Educationalists not to be scared of changing and experimenting ,at the moment there is strong pressure to hommogeonize, which will result in more blandness like our high streets.
Its been a fantastic trip a great insight,and excellent opportunity to share ideas with a cross section of UK professionals,could we meet up again and try out a mini project on creating potential courses in small teams across our areas of expertise.
Thanks have a great time in Boston.
Clare
Confidence-We are very poor at this in the UK.
Don’t try and fix what isn’t broke.UK Design courses best in world, and there are many international examples of successful Alumni,but we don’t shout about it.
Need to be clear on intended outcomes of multi- discipline approach, what kind of graduates do we want?
Multi-disciplinary projects are already integrated into most BA and MA programmes in the UK,(cross- pollination between Institutions is newer).eg RCA developing new links with Imperial.
Might be wise to review results of these new initiatives before everyone jumps on this bandwagon.
Beware of the overpacked curriculum ,already a big problem in BA and MA.
Is there an equal case for developing some deeper and more specialist pedagogy as a point of differentiation .
Could Business /professional practise be taught as PGCE model currently offered?
Or as virtual learning.
Patrick Whitney- USA industry is more sympathetic to Education,UK generally more cynical, does UK industry understand/appreciate the high standing of UK Design education internationally, should the success of the UK Design courses be more evident.(Marketed)
Strength of many UK courses is Skill and Craft base, should be careful not to dilute this.
Sandwich courses are a good way of gaining industry experience, tend to improve awareness.
I like the idea of the old day release courses in the UK, but for more experienced workers,like the Northwest programme this naturally brings the Industry closer to the curriculum.
There may be a need to address the earliest stages of education so that there is a clear relationship, primary and secondary art and design education shouldn’t necessarily mirror or emulate further education.
Encourage Educationalists not to be scared of changing and experimenting ,at the moment there is strong pressure to hommogeonize, which will result in more blandness like our high streets.
Its been a fantastic trip a great insight,and excellent opportunity to share ideas with a cross section of UK professionals,could we meet up again and try out a mini project on creating potential courses in small teams across our areas of expertise.
Thanks have a great time in Boston.
Clare
Impressions by James More
D school Stanford
- Seek to establish ability to radically collaborate and find ways to remove roadblocks to innovation
- Seeks to inspire multidisciblinarity to foster radical collaboration between students faculty and industry.
Student groupings – size important (around 3 or 4 students) – reference to Steiner’s creative groupings of 3/4
- Industry comes for innovation solutions, but become part of the team and learn how to become innovators. The problems that the students tackle ar thus real world
- In the multi-disciplinarity context, design thinking and the design process becomes the common language and the glue that holds the complexity together
- Space is important: provides habitat which governs how people behave and how the disciplines will come together
- The issues are around the technical and feasibility, business and viability and human values and desirability/usability
- Staff are T shaped people – a deep knowledge of their subject and practice, with a hook to engage with others to seek solutions
- All the interesting work is done at a Masters level – and the sharp money relates to live projects where industry seeks solutions.
- Programme runs for 1 year – students state that they are self selecting. While they come from different disciplines, they haven’t quite fitted in to the way that these disciplines are practiced: issues here are about the ubiquitous opportunity the vehicle of learning provides.
- Spectacular failures are good learning vehicles.
- Art in design does not have a corner on aesthetics: all students should develop their own aesthetic. Where art in design forces decision making without constant data and relies on intuition.
- Innovation often relies on using other peoples ideas, but moving them forward (healthy stealing)
IDEO
- The methods and processes designers use to solve problems allows designers to resolve issues that they are not traditionally asked to be involved in.
- Projects are run by teams of 3 or 4 people of different discipline backgrounds – again T shaped.
- Sense of space is again important, with a café experience important for chance encounters and the kitchen space is an important tool for developing collaborative ideas
- There is a blend of the business voice and the design process
- The consequence of their work is that they have to find ways of making sure that they share the knowledge of their processes and can digest it to keep the company moving along. They thus hire film makers and writers to help develop the narrative so that information is not held in dead storage, but is fluid. This is important, as the more the company moves into strategy solutions, the less tangible the outputs are.
- Where design can spectacularly fail is when the brief is too easy, to be resolving the wrong questions. Designers need to make sure that the design question is the right one.
- Another point of failure is again a consequence of growth from a successful product – that the client has not got the capacity to grow at the rate of change that the product has the potential to deliver.
- Innovation in large companies is difficult sometimes to manage in an ongoing way. A new phase is beginning, where good ideas are created in small/medium size companies and when the capacities are required are sold on to larger companies. This process hasn’t actually changed from the past, but the dynamic change is that of ownership – this present phase is design led, not financially led or business led.
Jonathon Ive
- Fanatical perfectionist. Hugely charismatic.
- Very deep engagement with his own discipline and practice and has a personal ability to hook in with expertise in order to facilitate the design processes requirement to be eclectic.
- Very clear objective about the perfect product. Uncompromising.
- Developed niche brand culture for functional objects of desire that drive new lifestyle activities (gin talking).
Jump
- Believes that design improves peoples lives and has further developed/enhanced the Stanford innovation model in their practice.
- The company is project led – interesting management structure in that there is management responsibility for the projects externally and internally.
- Space – absolutely key to working process, with different accommodation and environments for different design activities. Fixed, Flexible and Fluid. Space allows for collaboration, project building, individual reflection and consideration and the ability to approach thinking in alternative ways. Staff spend most of their time in the office somewhere.
Again teams have 3 to 5 people
- They felt that ‘3 legged’ staff rather than T shaped staff were key – staff were multidisciplinary in themselves, working in their teams.
- Development with companies – focus on the USP can deliver new strategies
- As there is an increased demand for innovation, the bar is raised in staff competency. The company is thus concerned to ensure staff development plugging into the real world and understanding the real world through reading and media
- Innovation is defined as invention with a socio-economic impact. Consequence? Can innovation happen without impact – how do you prepare for the impact, what do you do about the aftershocks.
- Seek to establish ability to radically collaborate and find ways to remove roadblocks to innovation
- Seeks to inspire multidisciblinarity to foster radical collaboration between students faculty and industry.
Student groupings – size important (around 3 or 4 students) – reference to Steiner’s creative groupings of 3/4
- Industry comes for innovation solutions, but become part of the team and learn how to become innovators. The problems that the students tackle ar thus real world
- In the multi-disciplinarity context, design thinking and the design process becomes the common language and the glue that holds the complexity together
- Space is important: provides habitat which governs how people behave and how the disciplines will come together
- The issues are around the technical and feasibility, business and viability and human values and desirability/usability
- Staff are T shaped people – a deep knowledge of their subject and practice, with a hook to engage with others to seek solutions
- All the interesting work is done at a Masters level – and the sharp money relates to live projects where industry seeks solutions.
- Programme runs for 1 year – students state that they are self selecting. While they come from different disciplines, they haven’t quite fitted in to the way that these disciplines are practiced: issues here are about the ubiquitous opportunity the vehicle of learning provides.
- Spectacular failures are good learning vehicles.
- Art in design does not have a corner on aesthetics: all students should develop their own aesthetic. Where art in design forces decision making without constant data and relies on intuition.
- Innovation often relies on using other peoples ideas, but moving them forward (healthy stealing)
IDEO
- The methods and processes designers use to solve problems allows designers to resolve issues that they are not traditionally asked to be involved in.
- Projects are run by teams of 3 or 4 people of different discipline backgrounds – again T shaped.
- Sense of space is again important, with a café experience important for chance encounters and the kitchen space is an important tool for developing collaborative ideas
- There is a blend of the business voice and the design process
- The consequence of their work is that they have to find ways of making sure that they share the knowledge of their processes and can digest it to keep the company moving along. They thus hire film makers and writers to help develop the narrative so that information is not held in dead storage, but is fluid. This is important, as the more the company moves into strategy solutions, the less tangible the outputs are.
- Where design can spectacularly fail is when the brief is too easy, to be resolving the wrong questions. Designers need to make sure that the design question is the right one.
- Another point of failure is again a consequence of growth from a successful product – that the client has not got the capacity to grow at the rate of change that the product has the potential to deliver.
- Innovation in large companies is difficult sometimes to manage in an ongoing way. A new phase is beginning, where good ideas are created in small/medium size companies and when the capacities are required are sold on to larger companies. This process hasn’t actually changed from the past, but the dynamic change is that of ownership – this present phase is design led, not financially led or business led.
Jonathon Ive
- Fanatical perfectionist. Hugely charismatic.
- Very deep engagement with his own discipline and practice and has a personal ability to hook in with expertise in order to facilitate the design processes requirement to be eclectic.
- Very clear objective about the perfect product. Uncompromising.
- Developed niche brand culture for functional objects of desire that drive new lifestyle activities (gin talking).
Jump
- Believes that design improves peoples lives and has further developed/enhanced the Stanford innovation model in their practice.
- The company is project led – interesting management structure in that there is management responsibility for the projects externally and internally.
- Space – absolutely key to working process, with different accommodation and environments for different design activities. Fixed, Flexible and Fluid. Space allows for collaboration, project building, individual reflection and consideration and the ability to approach thinking in alternative ways. Staff spend most of their time in the office somewhere.
Again teams have 3 to 5 people
- They felt that ‘3 legged’ staff rather than T shaped staff were key – staff were multidisciplinary in themselves, working in their teams.
- Development with companies – focus on the USP can deliver new strategies
- As there is an increased demand for innovation, the bar is raised in staff competency. The company is thus concerned to ensure staff development plugging into the real world and understanding the real world through reading and media
- Innovation is defined as invention with a socio-economic impact. Consequence? Can innovation happen without impact – how do you prepare for the impact, what do you do about the aftershocks.
General impressions by James Moultrie
Stanford D.School
“Design thinking”
- began with the design of artefacts, and is now progressing to the design of ‘moments’
- process – human centred, prototyping and testing, how to move between the phases of the process
Manifesto: to prepare future innovators, to use design thinking to inspire multidisciplinary teams, to foster radical collaboration, and tackle ‘big projects’ using prototyping to discover new solutions
Teams:
- of students of the same discipline have a different dynamic to teams of students of different disciplines.
- Have teams of no more than 4 students, preferably 3 – more is a disaster. This has been verified through research at Stanford, with Microsoft – there is no such thing in the real world as teams of more than 3 or 4 people (apparently).
- The teams are then surrounded by faculty and coaches
Teaching:
- Essentially traditional studio based teaching around projects
- Lots of team reflection: focus on ‘I like’ and ‘I wish’
Space:
- The habitat governs how people behave
- The students own and can change the space for their projects
Designs need to combine a ‘hit to the head’ and a ‘hit to the heart’ – function and form
Projects (are topic agnostic)
- Technical: feasibility – thus need to include engineers, ops man etc
- Biz: profitability, viability – thus need to include MBAs etc
- Human values: desirability, usability – thus need to include anthropologists, ergonomists etc
- Focus on ‘content’ (was it a good idea or a good result) and ‘process’ (how did they get there)
- If there is any differential marking, then this is determined by the teams
Projects aim to develop T-shaped people! Thus, the focus is largely on the top of the T, not the leg of the T
- Breadth: business knowledge, empathy, intuition
- Depth: domain specific knowledge
Process
- “There is nothing more important than the questions people ask in the design process – there is an over emphasis (in firms) on managing the decisions that are made, rather than the questions that are asked”
- The top teams ask 45 questions per hour, the bottom teams ask around half this
- There is an emphasis in the process on ‘need finding’
- Engineers are not taught to design but to solve problems
- “We don’t make people design, we let them be creative and innovative”
- Art is important - “art forces decision making without reference to objective data – and builds confidence in the designers intuition”
IDEO
“Design thinking”
- The way designers solve problems – this can also be used by designers
Began by focusing on humanising technology – and are now moving into service, brand experience, space and urban planning
Now over 500 people, across the world – 250 based in San Fran
Storytelling – is a key part of the IDEO culture
Recruiting: want domain depth, with empathy and passion for people and an empathy for staff in other disciplines
“design fails most when relying on the brief and solving the wrong problem”
Approximately 50% of projects are tactical and 50% are strategic
The IDEO designers deliver a strategy embodied in objects, not just objects
Biggest competition for IDEO is the internal capabilities of their clients – as well as management consultants such as McKinsey
Tend to focus on growth projects – not incremental projects
“If design is a tool for growth, then the firm must also have the capital for growth to implement the results of the design process”
“most big ideas start small – and it next to impossible to really predict the future potential of a small idea”
“There is no design equivalent of an MBA”
Methodology is important, otherwise the process is too abstract – the process gives you the starting point, but cant be too predictable
We are developing new tools to help designers think about business constraints
Prototyping is at the heart of the IDEO way: prototypes are viewed as having 3 purposes – inspire, evolve, evaluate
Jonathon Ive
Responsible for specifically the product. The organisation is close enough to be able to ensure consistency of brand and image through discussion and debate, rather than mandating and enforcing any design guidelines.
Attention to detail is paramount – even though the consumer may not be aware of these details when buying and experiencing these products
Good designers have a passion for the craft of design
Jump
Focus on ‘growth projects’ – based on market and consumer insights. Delivering:
- New offerings (products, services, experiences)
- New business models
- New opportunity spaces
- Building the innovative capability of the clients
- New management systems for innovation
Projects combine three things:
- Design: what is possible
- Culture: what is desirable
- Business: what is profitable
- When recruiting, new staff must have expertise in 2 of these 3 areas – thus creating not ‘T’ shaped people, but ‘3 legged stool’ shaped people!
Their definition of innovation: invention with social and economic impact
People: they don’t have multidisciplinary teams, but teams of multi-disciplinary people
Thoughts, Surprises & Insights
Role of design tools & the changing design process: Art is important - “art forces decision making without reference to objective data – and builds confidence in the designers intuition”. It is interesting that in the design consultancies there is a great effort to visualise and codify the design process (through post-its, display etc). In some ways, this is a way of dealing with the need to communicate this intuitive process with a business community that struggles to work with such intuition. From this perspective, these new strategic design tools and methods are important. It would be interesting to see how much they help the design process, as opposed to helping build confidence in and communicate the design process.
Design skills are being applied to a range of new areas. Increasingly, there is an emphasis on the design of complex infrastructures, systems and experiences. However, there is still a demand for the core design skills (visual communication, ideation, development of ideas, aesthetic sensibilities, empathy with people, innate curiosity, visioning, use of implicit language etc).
The ability to use post it notes does not a designer make.
We need to better promote what we currently do well: Much of the approach of the D.School is similar to the way in which design projects are run at Cambridge on the Manufacturing Engineering Tripos. Throughout the third year of the course, the students undertake a major design project. All projects combine the mutual goals of solving real problems with a human focus, creating something of technical feasibility and developing a viable business plan. The teams are comprised of single discipline students, and the teams have the ability to agree differential marking if appropriate. The teams meet on a weekly basis in a ‘studio’ setting with a range of roving consultants to support their work. The maximum team size is 4 students, with some teams of 3. At the end of the year, there is a design show to demonstrate their work. The main lesson for me here is that we should be being much more vocal about this work, to better promote the quality of the design education of our engineering students.
Storytelling: several companies have mentioned the importance of storytelling. Again, this is reflected in the development of new tools and methods to enable story telling both within the design team with the clients and ultimately with the consumer. This might include stories about the product form (e.g. Apple Mac handle to enable a point of contact, the balance point of the screen to enable vibration free movement etc).
Growth projects: The more strategic consultancies tend to tackle projects focused on growth in the client organisations, not just incremental development, which is perhaps more within the capabilities and expertise of the client organisation – most firms tend to be optimised around their current products/services/technology and thus don’t have (and arguable don’t need) a capability for radical innovation. Thus, the strategic design firm is more interested in delivering radical innovation.
Opportunities for education: a design focused ‘MBA’
Design process in different domains: the process is different in different domains. In engineering, the process tends to be less iterative and more focused on the early arrival at a solution that meets a specification, which is then tested against that specification. Other domains (e.g. product design) tend to follow a more iterative process, encouraging the generation of many alternatives and the late selection of solutions.
Design thinking vs design doing: there is a difference between being able to appreciate and adopt ‘design thinking’ and being a skilled designer capable of creating aesthetic, desirable, usable and profitable artefacts/experiences. We still need to focus on the development of designers capable of doing. However we also need to help people from other domains better understand the way in which these designers work. There is a potential danger however in non-designers believing that design is then simple by the adoption of a few methods and tools and thus believing that the professional designers are no longer needed. We need to ensure that our designers still have a deep foundation in the craft of design, whilst also developing the wider business perspective.
Design isn’t (necessarily) the same as innovation: although the design consultancies have become synonymous with innovation through their people centred approach creating products & services.
Dealing with ambiguity: Designers are adept at dealing with ambiguity. This is often a skill which businesses need, but don’t really understand.
“Design thinking”
- began with the design of artefacts, and is now progressing to the design of ‘moments’
- process – human centred, prototyping and testing, how to move between the phases of the process
Manifesto: to prepare future innovators, to use design thinking to inspire multidisciplinary teams, to foster radical collaboration, and tackle ‘big projects’ using prototyping to discover new solutions
Teams:
- of students of the same discipline have a different dynamic to teams of students of different disciplines.
- Have teams of no more than 4 students, preferably 3 – more is a disaster. This has been verified through research at Stanford, with Microsoft – there is no such thing in the real world as teams of more than 3 or 4 people (apparently).
- The teams are then surrounded by faculty and coaches
Teaching:
- Essentially traditional studio based teaching around projects
- Lots of team reflection: focus on ‘I like’ and ‘I wish’
Space:
- The habitat governs how people behave
- The students own and can change the space for their projects
Designs need to combine a ‘hit to the head’ and a ‘hit to the heart’ – function and form
Projects (are topic agnostic)
- Technical: feasibility – thus need to include engineers, ops man etc
- Biz: profitability, viability – thus need to include MBAs etc
- Human values: desirability, usability – thus need to include anthropologists, ergonomists etc
- Focus on ‘content’ (was it a good idea or a good result) and ‘process’ (how did they get there)
- If there is any differential marking, then this is determined by the teams
Projects aim to develop T-shaped people! Thus, the focus is largely on the top of the T, not the leg of the T
- Breadth: business knowledge, empathy, intuition
- Depth: domain specific knowledge
Process
- “There is nothing more important than the questions people ask in the design process – there is an over emphasis (in firms) on managing the decisions that are made, rather than the questions that are asked”
- The top teams ask 45 questions per hour, the bottom teams ask around half this
- There is an emphasis in the process on ‘need finding’
- Engineers are not taught to design but to solve problems
- “We don’t make people design, we let them be creative and innovative”
- Art is important - “art forces decision making without reference to objective data – and builds confidence in the designers intuition”
IDEO
“Design thinking”
- The way designers solve problems – this can also be used by designers
Began by focusing on humanising technology – and are now moving into service, brand experience, space and urban planning
Now over 500 people, across the world – 250 based in San Fran
Storytelling – is a key part of the IDEO culture
Recruiting: want domain depth, with empathy and passion for people and an empathy for staff in other disciplines
“design fails most when relying on the brief and solving the wrong problem”
Approximately 50% of projects are tactical and 50% are strategic
The IDEO designers deliver a strategy embodied in objects, not just objects
Biggest competition for IDEO is the internal capabilities of their clients – as well as management consultants such as McKinsey
Tend to focus on growth projects – not incremental projects
“If design is a tool for growth, then the firm must also have the capital for growth to implement the results of the design process”
“most big ideas start small – and it next to impossible to really predict the future potential of a small idea”
“There is no design equivalent of an MBA”
Methodology is important, otherwise the process is too abstract – the process gives you the starting point, but cant be too predictable
We are developing new tools to help designers think about business constraints
Prototyping is at the heart of the IDEO way: prototypes are viewed as having 3 purposes – inspire, evolve, evaluate
Jonathon Ive
Responsible for specifically the product. The organisation is close enough to be able to ensure consistency of brand and image through discussion and debate, rather than mandating and enforcing any design guidelines.
Attention to detail is paramount – even though the consumer may not be aware of these details when buying and experiencing these products
Good designers have a passion for the craft of design
Jump
Focus on ‘growth projects’ – based on market and consumer insights. Delivering:
- New offerings (products, services, experiences)
- New business models
- New opportunity spaces
- Building the innovative capability of the clients
- New management systems for innovation
Projects combine three things:
- Design: what is possible
- Culture: what is desirable
- Business: what is profitable
- When recruiting, new staff must have expertise in 2 of these 3 areas – thus creating not ‘T’ shaped people, but ‘3 legged stool’ shaped people!
Their definition of innovation: invention with social and economic impact
People: they don’t have multidisciplinary teams, but teams of multi-disciplinary people
Thoughts, Surprises & Insights
Role of design tools & the changing design process: Art is important - “art forces decision making without reference to objective data – and builds confidence in the designers intuition”. It is interesting that in the design consultancies there is a great effort to visualise and codify the design process (through post-its, display etc). In some ways, this is a way of dealing with the need to communicate this intuitive process with a business community that struggles to work with such intuition. From this perspective, these new strategic design tools and methods are important. It would be interesting to see how much they help the design process, as opposed to helping build confidence in and communicate the design process.
Design skills are being applied to a range of new areas. Increasingly, there is an emphasis on the design of complex infrastructures, systems and experiences. However, there is still a demand for the core design skills (visual communication, ideation, development of ideas, aesthetic sensibilities, empathy with people, innate curiosity, visioning, use of implicit language etc).
The ability to use post it notes does not a designer make.
We need to better promote what we currently do well: Much of the approach of the D.School is similar to the way in which design projects are run at Cambridge on the Manufacturing Engineering Tripos. Throughout the third year of the course, the students undertake a major design project. All projects combine the mutual goals of solving real problems with a human focus, creating something of technical feasibility and developing a viable business plan. The teams are comprised of single discipline students, and the teams have the ability to agree differential marking if appropriate. The teams meet on a weekly basis in a ‘studio’ setting with a range of roving consultants to support their work. The maximum team size is 4 students, with some teams of 3. At the end of the year, there is a design show to demonstrate their work. The main lesson for me here is that we should be being much more vocal about this work, to better promote the quality of the design education of our engineering students.
Storytelling: several companies have mentioned the importance of storytelling. Again, this is reflected in the development of new tools and methods to enable story telling both within the design team with the clients and ultimately with the consumer. This might include stories about the product form (e.g. Apple Mac handle to enable a point of contact, the balance point of the screen to enable vibration free movement etc).
Growth projects: The more strategic consultancies tend to tackle projects focused on growth in the client organisations, not just incremental development, which is perhaps more within the capabilities and expertise of the client organisation – most firms tend to be optimised around their current products/services/technology and thus don’t have (and arguable don’t need) a capability for radical innovation. Thus, the strategic design firm is more interested in delivering radical innovation.
Opportunities for education: a design focused ‘MBA’
Design process in different domains: the process is different in different domains. In engineering, the process tends to be less iterative and more focused on the early arrival at a solution that meets a specification, which is then tested against that specification. Other domains (e.g. product design) tend to follow a more iterative process, encouraging the generation of many alternatives and the late selection of solutions.
Design thinking vs design doing: there is a difference between being able to appreciate and adopt ‘design thinking’ and being a skilled designer capable of creating aesthetic, desirable, usable and profitable artefacts/experiences. We still need to focus on the development of designers capable of doing. However we also need to help people from other domains better understand the way in which these designers work. There is a potential danger however in non-designers believing that design is then simple by the adoption of a few methods and tools and thus believing that the professional designers are no longer needed. We need to ensure that our designers still have a deep foundation in the craft of design, whilst also developing the wider business perspective.
Design isn’t (necessarily) the same as innovation: although the design consultancies have become synonymous with innovation through their people centred approach creating products & services.
Dealing with ambiguity: Designers are adept at dealing with ambiguity. This is often a skill which businesses need, but don’t really understand.
T shaped education? By Simon Mosey
My particular interest is in multidisciplinary education. I was intrigued to see aspects of this at Stanford, IDEO, Apple and Jump. Stanford employed a number of different pedagogies in terms of ten week courses, year long projects and research degrees. However in my view they appear to be focussed upon making the best better. By this I mean that each course takes self selected groups, who are ‘misfits’ within their own disciplines and provide a pedagogy that better suits their nature. ie they appear to offer the environment to take a small t and develop a capital T. (maybe I am stretching the metaphor here!)
Whereas, I think the more interesting question is is it possible to take an I to a T? All the companies visited seemed to want to recruit t shaped people and make them more t shaped. Yet, of the companies visited Apple appeared to value I shaped people the most highly and Jonathan Ives himself explained that his in depth craft skill was his most important asset. Nevertheless he acknowledged the importance of having empathy with other disciplines. It appears that this is most effectively gained though direct experience of team problem solving within a business environment. Whether we can, or should, recreate this within the HE environment is an issue I shall hopefully reflect upon more fully at the end of the tour.
Whereas, I think the more interesting question is is it possible to take an I to a T? All the companies visited seemed to want to recruit t shaped people and make them more t shaped. Yet, of the companies visited Apple appeared to value I shaped people the most highly and Jonathan Ives himself explained that his in depth craft skill was his most important asset. Nevertheless he acknowledged the importance of having empathy with other disciplines. It appears that this is most effectively gained though direct experience of team problem solving within a business environment. Whether we can, or should, recreate this within the HE environment is an issue I shall hopefully reflect upon more fully at the end of the tour.
Design or Creativity in business? By Graham Hitchen
Both Jump and Ideo use design to stimulate innovation and growth.
Jump appeared to be focused on introducing creativity and innovation into business through a cross-disciplinary practice, but with a clear focus on the need for design skills.
Ideo’s starting point was product development, where design skills are critical – and the moving upstream with their offer – applying design to business strategy.
Both Jump and Ideo end up at the same point, but in many senses Jump felt like a more mature version of Ideo. Despite obvious methodological differences, Jump appears very clear about the way in which skills learned through traditional design education can be applied to a non-product-based practice.
Jump appeared to be focused on introducing creativity and innovation into business through a cross-disciplinary practice, but with a clear focus on the need for design skills.
Ideo’s starting point was product development, where design skills are critical – and the moving upstream with their offer – applying design to business strategy.
Both Jump and Ideo end up at the same point, but in many senses Jump felt like a more mature version of Ideo. Despite obvious methodological differences, Jump appears very clear about the way in which skills learned through traditional design education can be applied to a non-product-based practice.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Palo Alto - Stanford d-school, IDEO and Apple
From Martin Binks
The d- School shouts informality, flexibility and apparent chaos. In fact this appears to be a requirement for the sponteneity that is part of good design. The emphasis is upon the selection of 'T' shaped students who are then provided with an appropriate learning environment and supported in their learning rather than being 'made' to cover a curriculum.
A candid explanation of the rationale for this approach and some of the lessons learned was very useful in relation to developments at Nottingham on mainstreaming entrepreneurship education. The flexible configuration of space and observations on optimising team size were particularly relevant.
Reactions to the integrative learning approach adopted at Stanford in the context of design education were reassuring in their similarity to experiences in many UK universities.
The enthusiasm and open minded commitment of our hosts, staff and students, was contagious and fed back into the group's growing sense of identity.
Onto IDEO and the commercial application of many of the approaches experienced at the d-School. The emphasis upon 'humanising technology' and the notion of design as a process of creative problem solving reinforced the direct links with entrepreneurship education. Disruptive design as a vital part of innovation is akin to Schumpeter's entrepreneur in the 21st century. The focus upon storytelling as part of design practice and dissemination was valuable. The use of ethnography and the motive of trying to 'make a difference' gave useful insights to process and commitment.
SME relevance is beginning to emerge.
To Apple. Delightfully frank explanation and discussion of Apple, past and present. The demolition of the 'focus group' concept for the purposes of evaluating the acceptability and future performance potential of a new design was particularly well supported. Dont ask people to tell you their opinion on a concept with which they have no experience and expect an accurate reflection of future progress in the market.
The role of intuition rather than data as the foundation of good design was refreshing and somehow familiar.
'Focus means saying no!'
End of a long very hot and very fruitful day!
Martin
The d- School shouts informality, flexibility and apparent chaos. In fact this appears to be a requirement for the sponteneity that is part of good design. The emphasis is upon the selection of 'T' shaped students who are then provided with an appropriate learning environment and supported in their learning rather than being 'made' to cover a curriculum.
A candid explanation of the rationale for this approach and some of the lessons learned was very useful in relation to developments at Nottingham on mainstreaming entrepreneurship education. The flexible configuration of space and observations on optimising team size were particularly relevant.
Reactions to the integrative learning approach adopted at Stanford in the context of design education were reassuring in their similarity to experiences in many UK universities.
The enthusiasm and open minded commitment of our hosts, staff and students, was contagious and fed back into the group's growing sense of identity.
Onto IDEO and the commercial application of many of the approaches experienced at the d-School. The emphasis upon 'humanising technology' and the notion of design as a process of creative problem solving reinforced the direct links with entrepreneurship education. Disruptive design as a vital part of innovation is akin to Schumpeter's entrepreneur in the 21st century. The focus upon storytelling as part of design practice and dissemination was valuable. The use of ethnography and the motive of trying to 'make a difference' gave useful insights to process and commitment.
SME relevance is beginning to emerge.
To Apple. Delightfully frank explanation and discussion of Apple, past and present. The demolition of the 'focus group' concept for the purposes of evaluating the acceptability and future performance potential of a new design was particularly well supported. Dont ask people to tell you their opinion on a concept with which they have no experience and expect an accurate reflection of future progress in the market.
The role of intuition rather than data as the foundation of good design was refreshing and somehow familiar.
'Focus means saying no!'
End of a long very hot and very fruitful day!
Martin
Monday, September 11, 2006
Arrival
So - most of us are here, albeit somewhat jetjagged! Interesting journeys from the airport to Palo Alto - already a sense of the concentration of creative and innovative businesses and activities in the Bay area. Alice and I were on a 'door to door' bus with an Apple employee from Dublin - over here for a big event at Apple tomorrow (Tuesday). Apparently we'll all read/hear about it! And Penny travelled in with a Google employee. Huge Oracle buildings spotted and where Hewlett Packard started in a house in a residential street pointed out to us. Glorious late summer sunshine - with the inevitable strip of low cloud hanging over the Golden Gate bridge.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Background Reading - Rotman School of Management Journal
You may find it interesting to take a look at the Rotman School of Management Journal - see particularly Designing in Hostile Territory, If Managers thought like designers and the 10 Faces of Innovation.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Useful Information and Contact Details
Aviv
aviv.katz@designcouncil.org.uk
Mobile: +44 (0)7966 665524
Lesley
lesley.morris@designcouncil.org.uk
Mobile: +44 (0)7966 233007
Ken Newton
Mobile -07711 376678
Home - 0161 445 1459
General Enquiries
skills@designcouncil.org.uk
Stanford Terrace Hotel
http://www.stanfordterraceinn.com
The Whitehall Hotel
http://www.thewhitehallhotel.com
Hotel @ MIT
http://www.hotelatmit.com
aviv.katz@designcouncil.org.uk
Mobile: +44 (0)7966 665524
Lesley
lesley.morris@designcouncil.org.uk
Mobile: +44 (0)7966 233007
Ken Newton
Mobile -07711 376678
Home - 0161 445 1459
General Enquiries
skills@designcouncil.org.uk
Stanford Terrace Hotel
http://www.stanfordterraceinn.com
The Whitehall Hotel
http://www.thewhitehallhotel.com
Hotel @ MIT
http://www.hotelatmit.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
