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’!
Thursday, September 21, 2006
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
