My Frustration with Design Research

I have been reading design research posts to the point I am getting bogged down. I do not oppose research, else I wouldn't be on the list and join the Design Research Society. I am a staunch believer of methodology, simply because without a sound and effective method of thinking, I cannot get my answers to existing problems.

People have several definitions to research. Design to many people means different things. Design to me is a specific term to a profession that looks into planning of given factors to form a solution. You could jolly call that Strategy, Plan, Architecture,Engineering etc. It basically means the same thing --- systems orgainising and execution to form an finalised solution. It could be a policy, it could be a 2 dimensional product or it could be solid 3D form. It's just that the dimension of the components are different. Different people are playing given factors to a problem differently. Hence the various sayings and arguements. At least that's how I see it.

I usually do not take on to one theory that seriously. But I do view them as opinions mainly because different cultures sort problems differently. And I value and respect that seriously. They need to do so because that's their way of living, seeing things in their own individual perspectives. People love to mention Rittel. Then they would also skew in Tim Brown, then John Chris Jones...or someone who can be recently become controversial as Don Norman ; and before you know it, people will start to debate about who failed to understand what and where it went wrong. Honestly, I don't see that as important as to go down to earth and see the nature of the changing climate. What is crucial and neck cutting is to understand the different sets of problems. An effective design research is one that fully understands the nature of the problem. Once you've understood it, it applies to all different kinds of problems. That makes you a whole rounded poblem solver. Hence, to me, someone who cannot sort out social problems cannot be a true problem solver for a product which is going to be used by people. Products, in my eyes, are to be used by a living being. If we fail to understand the living interaction between a living being and the product, there is no point of desigining, and nevermind the innovation. People may dispute this, but I personally find it a good tool to coming up with ideas to solve problems quickly. We can fly to the edges of the universe, but we must always come back to the concept that we must solve problems permanently and not skirting around it in different fashions.

I often wonder when we can get out of the tangle. Perhaps taking the words out and place in pictures could solve part of the problem. Dan Roam and many others offer some cues to visual thinking. Or at some point, take away all the books and make people really brainstorm for a new way of seeing solutions. Then you will understand why I don't appear to read too much into those books anymore. Not that I don't respect them, but I won't drool over them to the point of hanging there for ages. It sometimes gets you addicted, which is not that healthy for design research. To be able to do research, you must be free spirtited, sharp and quick to act on the materials given. Time is important and hence the aptness of mind to sort problems out outweighs stepping over the same areas again.-- Karen Fu

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis. Are we playing with fire?

Just posted my reply to Fil Salustri on PhD-Design forum list with regards to Nuclear energy.This is related to my ealier blog posts here. Sharing this on my blog and open for comments:

> Forest fires are nature's way.  Fires happen all the time, not started
> by humans.  Sometimes, humans start bad fires, but nature recovers.
> Read up on the nature, frequency, and response of nature to forest
> fires.
> And yes, nuclear energy is containable.  This is evident from the
> history of nuclear energy.
>

I just knew before I shut my eyes to sleep that someone would say this because
I didn't specify 'Fire'. My apolgies for missing the explaination.

Forest fires are natural occurance. But what I was trying to say was that
fire is something we cannot control effectively despite our advancement
in technologies. Fires can be started by humans as they could be started by
nature. With climate change and weather conditions getting drier in places
in California and Australia, prepare for more fires.

And many fires are initiated by humans.
And often it is very hard to recover. Often at the risks of firefighters.
One typical example is the forest fire in California in the US about 2
years back.
It was outrageous. (see reference links below my sig.)
And notably the fire caused in LA was human induced too.

> Nuclear energy is not spontaneous at all.  The nuclear fuel is HIGHLY
> manufactured material.  Naturally occurring uranium is virtually
> harmless.  I have samples of pitchblende in my rock collection.  Have
> had since I was a boy.  I'm fine.

Naturally occurring uranium is harmless, but after human intervention, this can
become harmful. The same could be said about gun powder. Some cultures use
it for fire crackers, celebration; while some used it to blast their
enemies' heads off.

The hard truth is there are people who have uncanny ways of doing things.
They are all innovative. But the cause for concern is the potential and the
extent of danger that each element poses. It I hold uranium. or even harmless
amount of untouched hydrogen, I am fine. But if I hold just hydrogen
alone and played
with it in huge amounts under pressure, I get a hydrogen bomb. Human ingenuity
can come up with ideas. Just that it has to be on the right track.
Hydrogen is abundant.
Wrong use, and its a terrifying abundant gas used for massive destruction.

> We are imperfect beings.  Your demand for "100 percent" containment is
> not rational.  It can't be done.  Nature can't do it.  Humans can't do
> it.

True we are imperfect beings. And also due to our imperfection, we cannot also
be confident and sure that humans can design the best containment to fuels
that are potentially highly combustible. Both nature and humans cannot
ensure 100 percent
containment on any materials that we have to be totally safe. We need
precautions.
If we can prevent a disaster like Fukushima, and we are able to do now; I feel
we should take the precaution now like some of the EU countires are doing now.

> Forget about coal being depleted.  What about the health risks and
> GHGs from using coal as an energy source?

Should have added to say that I don't even want coal / fossil fuels and anything
that exhaust fumes.  Anyway I've just stated my stand on coal now at
late bedtime.

>
> As far as cost goes, I would like to know where you got your
> information on cost.  I expect that given the extremely tight control
> on nuclear plants, that the costs would be higher.  But are the costs
> that much higher - proportionally - than other high-tech / dangerous
> technology?  I ask out of ignorance.  Until I have numbers, I will not
> endorse one side or another of the argument.
>

I am trying to hunt for the stats. It comes with a large world map
showing where the
nuclear plants are. US has lots concentrated in the eastern part of
their country.
Then they show the costs of setting up a plant that is initially high
and covers itself
over a period of time. If memory doesn't fail me, in aroun 5-8 years
time, and its covered.
I should have recorded the link when I read it last week.
I will try to find it.

>
>>
>> In all, why should it be all fission?
>>
>
> Cuz that is, for now, the only game in town.

if thats the only game in town, then we are being utterly uncreative.
How can we be confined by that one source of energy alone when there
are clearly others at hand?

Its like talking about using only force to answer problems in the world.
There are many ways of doing it. Gandhi used peace for India to obtain
freedom for
his people. Singapore used to believe that merging with Malaysia as
the only way to
survive. People used to think that a country that has lots of natural
resources are the ones
which will prosper. It is via human creativity that makes our
prosperity and it is
humanity that keeps our society sustainable.
All these policies/inventions.ideas are man-made. We can change. For
that to change,
we must have guts to go into the unknown and venture. And fortunately for us,
we have other sources of energy that we can source. It may not be quick and cost
effective like nuclear, but we can design it with our expertise of new
forms of energy tio
answer problems. Policies to encourage smart use of energies. My blog
is about that.
If anyone's interested, its below my sig too.

The reality is do we need to really use
that much energy? Of course we don't. Thats another topic.

Its already 3:20 am here. I need to get some sleep. I only login an
hour ago. Shouldn't have.
But I did. So I might as well complete at least this email. I have
books to cover and notes to take
tomorrow.

>
>>
>> I'm fully awake...
>> Karen Fu
>>
>
> I hope you get a good night's rest.
> Try a shot of whiskey.  That always helps me. :-)
>

Thanks for the advise. But I don't drink.
I only use wines for culinary purposes.
And I don't take caffeine to wake me up.
I use excercise. It works.  : )

I'll look for the infographic and the stats and post later.

Karen Fu
elfin blog: http://daringtochange.wordpress.com
Other blogs can be traced from here. Your adventure may vary.

My sleepy links are for your reference. I shall endeavour to look for more.
But for now, let me have my slumber.... (thanks)

1. California Forest Fire, New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30wildfires.html
2.What causes forest fires:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-forest-fires.html
3. Human caused wildfires increases in Calif
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wildfires/2009-05-14-human-caused-wildfires-increasing_N.htm
4. Eyeing Japan, Countries reassess Nuclear Plans:
http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/blog/2011/03/15/eyeing-japan-countries-reassess-nuclear-plans/

Posted via email from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Design Thinking Made Visible

Open publication - Free publishing - More anthrodesign

The Future of Design Stanford Conference - BusinessWeek

The Future of Design Stanford Conference

Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on March 19, 2010

I’m going to give a 5 minute talk on the future of design on Friday to spark conversation within a terrific group of design thinkers from around the world. Banny Banerjee, director of the Stanford Design Program is putting it on. I first met Banny at a conference in India put on by the National Institutes of Design.

Here are my thoughts on where Design/Thinking is going and should be going—and what is needed to get there. They are designed to provoke. Let me know what you think.

Point of View: Designing A Post-Liberal Arts Paradigm—Innovation Arts

The creation of a new belief system—Innovation Arts—to replace the prevailing Liberal Arts paradigm should be the next stage in the evolution of Design/Thinking. A world of constant, cascading change and the failure of existing social organizations requires a shift from the prevailing Liberal Arts paradigm that trains individuals how to make sense of an existing world based on past knowledge and reifying society to a new paradigm that trains people how to build new social systems based on deep knowledge of current cultural rituals and behaviors while embedding action in social, economic and political context. An Innovation Arts paradigm would also form the foundation of a post-Neo-Liberal economic theory that reconnects elites to real business context rather than the quantified financialization of business functions, focuses on value in network relationships and group social behavior and educates people to make rather than consume.

Three Future Directions for the Advancement of Design

1—Develop a mature culture of criticism. If it is to evolve into a mature intellectual system of thought, Design has to create a critical, self-reflexive literature. Design’s public discourse remains aspirational, narrow and secretive. Despite an emphasis on the importance of failure in prototyping and learning, little actual discussion of failure exists. Despite a focus on practice, very little is revealed of what really occurs in consultancy or corporate design practice. The RCA and SVA have just started MFAs in Design Criticism. We need more challenging conversations on both Practice and Theory. And we desperately need a powerful HBR of Design Thinking, anchored in an academic institution. Suggestions? Business or Design School?

2- Build Human Centered Design Tool Kits for Political Policy Makers. Design has focused recently on creating how-to design kits for NGOs to operate at the Bottom-of-the-Pyramid level in Asia and Africa. Building how-to kits for policy-makers at the Top-of-the-Pyramid level in the US, Europe, Latin America and Asia is equally important and challenging. The First World is the new Third World and needs Design Thinking to redesign itself. Design’s venue is expanding from product to experience to systems to policy. Policy is the new edge in Design and it speaks to domestic as well as foreign human needs.

3- The “as if….” perspective of ritual, serious play and the making of the new embodied in the Innovation Arts paradigm is already dominant in much of Generation Y culture. Gen Y has much to teach and much to do. In an effort to understand and activate the Gen Y demographic, Parsons is launching a Gen Y Research Institute. It will focus on deep understandings of Gen Y culture as represented by the global student body at Parsons and provide a public stage and financing for the products and services created by these students. A global collaborative of Gen Y research efforts would be hugely productive.

via businessweek.com

Reading this commentary by Nussbaum and company and had to add a very quick comment: 'Unless we take into consideration a radical change in design thinking, we will not solve any problems with real value-added and sustainable solutions.'

People are talking about different types of thinking and even morph into thinking hybrids when we may well possibly need just one - 'sanity and ethical thinking.'

Too much problems arise because we don't think in the right direction for different problems. And very often the real root of most problems is 'human nature'. The way I see it is that people do not really want to hit at the moral problems at different levels for many reasons. Either being really dogmatic or being really selfish. Perhaps we need to rethink about how we treat different problems at varying degrees. Maybe what we need to think is just being level to everyone else. Specific classification of thinking may create class disparities as far as solving real needs is concerned. Unless we stop thinking about intellectual ego, we will forever have this persistent problem of 'not doing the right thing' for the environment at large.

Best wishes !

Posted via web from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Design Thinking in Stereo: Martin and Brown. Total Experience: Total Experience: the emerging practice of design for experience.

While read and reviewed by many already, this piece takes a critical look at Tim Brown’s “Change by Design” and Roger Martin’s “The Design of Business” for significant contributions and potential misses.

When the topic of “design thinking” had gained enough momentum for BusinessWeek to devote an entire issue to design in 2004, it was a siren song to me. Newly converted, I digested everything I could find. Design thinking seemed to cover most of the experiential clues I’d been collecting as the means to improve business potential.

By 2006 an IIT Institute of Design interview with Roger Martin, titled “Designing Decisions,” told of his conversion to the concept when noting the language and behaviors of designer friends. That same year, Tim Brown presented fundamental thoughts on design thinking that also caught my attention.

But none of it was enough to satisfy me, so I convinced colleagues to help host a 2007 Design Thinking conference in Dallas, just to talk about it. We extended that conversation via a LinkedIn group that has grown to more than 2,500 members worldwide [as of this posting, 3000 members].

Discussions on the LinkedIn group noted an increase in attention to design thinking, particularly in 2009. Martin was either speaking or hosting conversations with other members, while Brown issued a challenge to “move from design to design thinking” via a 2009 TED presentation. By the end of the year both Martin and Brown had released books on the topic.

Same Song, Different Verses
Both texts are extensions of each author’s continuous and evolving messages. Each approaches the same subject from a different perspective.

In The Design of Business, Martin expands on what I’ve labeled the “Design Thinking Continuum” which he described in the winter 2003 issue of Rotman Magazine, under the same title [pdf].

Martin took this continuum to a new level in a 2007 IIT-ID presentation when he talked about the significance of shifting from a focus on reliability to viability (which I summarized in Reliability vs. Validity). He expands on this duality throughout his book, in the context of specific business examples.

Martin’s thesis for business: “Design-thinking firms stand apart in their willingness to engage in the task of continuously redesigning their business. They do so with an eye to creating advances in both innovation and efficiency—the combination that produces the most powerful competitive edge.”

Brown’s book, Change by Design, struck a chord similar to that of his 2006 presentation, which highlighted principles necessary for the practice of design thinking. He notes why business interests have turned to design: “Innovation has become nothing less than a survival strategy.” Later in the book he adds this emphasis: “Design thinking may be one of the most profitable practices a corporation can adopt during a recession.”

Change by Design builds upon a theme that both Brown and Martin embrace: “The natural evolution from design doing to design thinking reflects the growing recognition on the part of today’s business leaders that design has become too important to be left to designers.”

Good Vibes
Neither book stands alone. Tim covers more of the practical elements of applying design thinking (some of the ‘binary code’) and Roger focuses more on the models to frame the activities (the algorithms and heuristics).

In select passages from Brown’s repertoire, he illustrates how design thinking moves design into a more strategic role to unleash “its disruptive, game-changing potential”:

Empathy: “Perhaps the most important distinction between academic thinking and design thinking… The mission of design thinking is to translate observations into insights and insights into products and services that will improve lives.”

Collaboration: “We need to invent a new and radical form of collaboration that blurs the boundaries between creators and consumers…. For the design thinker, it has to be ‘us with them.’”

Synthesis: “The creative process…relies on synthesis, the collective act of putting the pieces together to create whole ideas…to sift through it all and identify meaningful patterns.”

Biomimicry and intelligent design: “Nature, with its 4.5-billion-year learning curve, may have something to teach us about things….”

Optimism and trust: Design thinking relies on an “attitude of experimentation,” supported by a “climate of optimism…Optimism requires confidence, and confidence is built on trust.”

Visual thinking: “Words and numbers are fine, but only drawing can simultaneously reveal both the functional characteristics of an idea and its emotional content.”

Prototypes and storyboards: “…thinking with my hands…”

Brown also offers specific examples on where and how to apply design thinking:

Transactions and touchpoints: “Describing a customer journey…clarifies where the customers and the service or brand interact. Every one of these ‘touchpoints’ points to an opportunity to provide value….”

Engineering experiences: “An experience must be as finely crafted and precision-engineered as any other product.... Unlike a manufactured product or a standardized service, an experience comes to life when it feels personalized and customized.”

Innovative approach: “Many companies have shifted the horizon of their research programs from long-term basic research to shorter-term applied innovation…. Eventually it will be as natural to see innovation labs in service-sector companies as it is to see research and development facilities in manufacturing companies.”

Not business as usual: “We…set out to train companies in our methods of human-centered, design-based innovation: user observations, brainstorming, prototyping, storytelling, and scenario building…. [This] is not the most effective way to proceed. Innovation needs to be coded into the DNA of a company…P&G…designated a chief innovation officer, increased the number of design managers by more than 500 percent, built the P&G Innovation Gym…and elevated innovation and design to core strategies of the company.”

New relationships: “Design thinking is being applied at new scales in the move from discrete products and services to complex systems.… We are entering an era of limits; the cycle of mass production and mindless consumption that defined the industrial age is no longer sustainable…. Design thinking needs to be turned toward the formulation of a new participatory social contract…. We’re all in this together.”

Embracing complexity: “When it comes to colonies of humans, we have to reckon with additional factors of individual intelligence and free will…. Instead of an inflexible, hierarchical process that is designed once and executed many times, we must imagine how we might create highly flexible, constantly evolving systems in which each exchange between participants is an opportunity for empathy, insight, innovation, and implementation.”

Repeatedly, design is compared and contrasted with design thinking: “Design is about delivering a satisfying experience. Design thinking is about creating a multipolar experience in which everyone has the opportunity to participate in the conversation.”

Dissonant Passages
I’m quite comfortable mucking around in concepts, which are far more critical to the design of transactions and services than to products you can see and touch. Martin focuses on concepts as a means to help others apply design thinking to things like business strategy.

I’m not as comfortable, however, with the way Martin shares his concepts. The book was bumpy—it lacked the natural flow of his other works, and seemed ill sequenced. The strongest lead-in for the book started in Chapter 4—design thinking in the context of the P&G story—with supporting details in Chapter 3. Then Chapter 5 introduces the critical context for the trade-off between validity and reliability, with supporting details in Chapter 2.

Chapter 1 starts off with a “new” concept, a “knowledge funnel,” that is referenced throughout the book. It takes the original design continuum (referenced earlier) and aligns each part to a funnel starting with “mystery” as the widest part. For me, the funnel detracts from the original concepts, as the funnel forces something that was once fluid and unidirectional into a very linear concept. The additive value of the funnel is not apparent.

This is unfortunate because Martin’s concepts are not only relevant, they’re also interrelated in ways that provide a powerful framework for assessing and applying design thinking (as illustrated below in the “Design Thinking Framework”). The mystery continuum has a direct correlation to validity and reliability. Note how the left and the right of the various continuums in the following diagram correspond directly to one another.

This collection mimics the left and right of a long-standing, powerful model: yin and yang. Just as with the yin/yang model, design thinking works to embrace the dichotomy—embracing both sides at once to create a new “middle.” But business tends to believe that the goal is to move toward the right. As a result, businesses are predominantly over-yang’d. Design thinking provides a means to restore the natural power inherent in the balance.

Martin’s writing circles back on itself often and poses contradictions. He speaks repeatedly of a balance: “Design thinkers seek to balance validity and reliability.” Then in the diagram of the “Design thinker’s personal knowledge system,” the first label states: “1. My world is reliability oriented.” I got the distinct impression that Martin kept commingling references to designers with design thinking.

Perhaps Martin simply lacked having the benefit of a strong co-author like Tim Brown had: “My silent partner Barry Katz, through his skillful use of words, made me appear more articulate than I really am.”

Unresolved Passages
Other critics have suggested that neither author sufficiently communicated how to apply design thinking. With a deep reliance on the context of a problem, I’m not sure that anyone can “prescribe” enough of an approach to satisfy these detractors. My guess is that people still need help figuring out how the parts and pieces apply in various situations (if anything, this was where Martin excelled, as he gave example after example as to how the validity versus reliability continuum applied).

Neither author sufficiently addressed the following:

The design question. Martin has addressed the relevance of asking “why” in past articles, and Brown mentions it briefly in his summary. “A willingness to ask ‘Why?’ will annoy your colleagues…but…it will improve the changes of spending energy on the right problems.” But it is through repeated inquiry that the core design question is identified. In an earlier book, David Kelly gives a perfect example of not getting the question right (though his example is intended as a positive one). In the redesign of a water bottle for bikers, IDEO did not start with a non-product question, such as: “How do we deliver fluids to an individual who may have one or both hands busy?” If they had asked this question, they would have invented the water bladder years earlier.

The significance of failure. While both authors heartily supported the significance of discovery by failure (failing faster), and cultures that support such, neither addressed the significance of failure as a starting point for design discovery and the relevance of accommodating exceptions in solutions (embracing failure as part of the solution).

Embracing the in-between. Late in his book, Brown notes in passing, “It is precisely in the interstitial spaces…that the most interesting opportunities lie.” That is the sweet spot for design thinking. It is both in-between and comprehensive at the same time. It is the dichotomy, the paradox. In his book, Martin erroneously assigned the paradox to the mystery: “Starting at this paradox – this mystery…”. Design thinking’s strength is in embracing the paradox, considering possibilities across all of the dimensions of the Design Thinking Continuum. How is that possible? By delivering solutions that most appropriately apply binary code to the repeatable actions that no one wants to be bothered with, algorithms to repeatable yet variable things, heuristics where human judgment can help with exceptions, and a healthy dose of mystery to continuously question all assumptions. It’s effectively no different than applying the concepts of integrative thinking -- which Martin supports in his earlier book “The Opposable Mind” – across the Design Thinking Continuum.

Curtain Call
In the end, both books—and both authors—contribute significantly to the discipline of design thinking. My armchair recommendation for practitioners is to leverage both books. If your goal is to share the value of design thinking with others, I’d suggest Brown’s book over Martin’s.

via totalexperience.corante.com

Received this thoughtful blog entry via @postinddes at linkedin. Something to add on to what we have read from Tim Brown and Roger Martin.

Posted via web from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Neri Oxman: On Designing Form

via vimeo.com

Top of the class intellectual presentation that revolves around fundamentally about biomimicry. The talk is successfully informative with new findings but I was and still am wondering how the computational aspects would turn out forms in a more creative way. She cited a critical point that nature is a grand materials engineer, and that creative human intervention could patch up what nature lacks and give new forms. I enjoy very much reading into the presentation on an academic level and that stimulated a lot of thinking. But somehow I feel she sunk too much in depth on materials and the computational process. Correct me if I'm wrong. But that is the impression I have.

Her detailed talk on how function is validated via computational method to invent form is a very thought provoking idea. I often feel that nature is unique and trying to computate every natural aspect of it is still almost impossible as its more complex than said. Nature is my view consists not only the physical but also the metaphysical aspects in which no computer can calculate the values. In that sense, I doubt the efficiency. The talk deals with how to think in a natural way to design multifuncational products, which is the trend now in product design. Many more products are focusing on multi functional ideas via engineering. The talk has great aspirations that I really like. It defines nature and how we could design in a sustainable way with respect to what great masters had set in; and how advanced technology in this centuray could value add these ideas. The introduction to interesting materials makes this video very note worthy albeit with pending questions on the efficiency of this thinking methodolgy. I think its a little on the linear aspect.

My modest two cents for the evening.

Posted via web from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Why are there so few truly remarkable products? | Design Sojourn

Thanks for visiting and please keep in touch? ~ D.T.

It’s quite simple really.

Our industrialized economy, founded on mass manufacturing and economies of scale spurred by consumerism, is the greatest enemy of remarkable products.

Of course many products will come close, in fact many will be hailed as fantastic or even great, but the truly remarkable will be few and far between.

People striving to create awesomely remarkable products can do so because it is actually quite straightforward. Unfortunately it rarely happens, as making remarkable products is a constant uphill battle against the basic machinery that makes it all happens.

Lets take a look and see why.

1) Manufacturing bland
The whole objective of mass manufacturing is to get economies of scale when you manufacture large volumes of product. So what does this means?

You build standardized products with as many common parts as possible. Or take this to the next level by making products with as many off the shelf components as possible. Take a look at the computer industry and you can see this glaring problem. Pretty much everything looks the same and differentiation ends up being very superficial.

2) Race to the bottom
One of the big advantages of economics of scale is a product made as cheap as possible by a repetitious and standardized process. Why is this important?

It is a big race to the bottom in terms of price. Contract manufacturers are pressured to reduce their cost by ensuring pricing efficiency and sufficiency. Products are built to a level of specification that most consumers are willing to pay. This is then balanced off with the cost and margin a brand is willing to accept.

This is to avoid situations, for example, where groups of people will not be interested to pay more for, say, a mobile phone with camera when all they need is a straight forward phone.

So in a product creation process like this, why then anyone go the extra mile for an awesome function or spec when it will be just considered a nice to have or not appeal to the market majority?

3) Products that do too much
On the other end of scale from the previous point, designers often get sucked into creating products, designs, forms, or shapes etc. that try to appeal to as many people as possible.

In essence, we end up with products that try to be everything and the kitchen sink. This is also often comes as a response to unfocused marketing stories that try to unsuccessfully satisfy as many consumers’ needs as possible.

4) We threw out the baby with the bath water

Gordan Ramsey said (via Contrast):

“It doesn’t matter how amazing the steak is, if it’s served on a cold plate it’s crap. If it’s served with a dull knife it’s crap. If the gravy isn’t piping hot, it’s crap. If you’re eating it on an uncomfortable chair, it’s crap. If it’s served by an ugly waiter who just came in from a smoke break, it’s crap. Because I care about the steak, I have to care about everything around it. “

These days it is getting extremely difficult for designers to manage the entire design development process because organizations decided (about 10+ years ago) not be vertically integrated and outsourced much of their (lower value) down stream development processes. This helped organizations reduce overheads, costs and increase efficiency, especially if the process moved outhouse was manufacturing.

The net effect of contract manufacturing or contract “everything” for that matter, is the loss of control. It is hard, not impossible, to regain this control and ensure the integrity of a design solution through out the development process, but you need extremely passionate, dedicated and persistent team that don’t come a dime a dozen

———-

So I hope we can now see that the environment we design products in, leans towards encouraging the creation of watered down products with little innovation and poor differentiation.

What do we do now?

I’m not asking you to go against industrialization or the contract manufacturing process as it has many benefits, what we need to change is our mindsets and decide if we are happy with acceptable products that just meets everyone’s requirements, or strive to create remarkable products that go beyond what people expect and accept that it will appeal to fewer people.

If you ever had a doubt about designing fewer, focused, but exceptional products. Check out this quote by Apple’s COO Tim Cook (via Seth Godin):

“This is the most focused company I know of, am aware of, or have any knowledge of… We say no to good ideas every day.” Cook then pointed out to analysts that every single product the company makes would fit on the single conference table in front of him. “And we had revenue last year of $40 billion.”

Ahh…is it not great how design can do so much more when design is doing less?

via designsojourn.com

Just posted at deseignsojourn about why there are so few great products. My modest take in the comments section on the actual webpage:

'chipping in late at night: I think all the above factors could boil down to one main reason: hiring. Design is mainly dependent on fine thinking and wise hiring of the best minds. Probably this may sound pessimistic but I often feel that bad products are there because we have wrong hiring objectives. Worse if one takes in individual (politicking) objectives into hand.

When inferior minds are hired, don't expect remarkable products because one simply cannot become remarkable via unremarkable minds.

Also remarkable products can only derived from an clear mind. Not a mind that is busy of how to get the best of just yourself and your peers. Its about getting the best into the team that counts.

Hope I've made sense..'

Posted via web from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Kristian Andersen + Associates » Blog » The Role of Intuition in Design

via kaplusa.com

Some quick scribbles here:

We are hitting 2 main ideas here: 'New ideas may not be derived from a logical sense of thinking.' & 'Intuition may be more 'logical' than scientific thought.' Could Education be instilling a less effective way of cultivating creative and original minds? More than often, I feel that what we learn may be instilled by fixated concepts that is based on too much 'formula' / biased ideas; rather than making us think about 'what are other possible ways that are derived from the so-called less sophisticated means of thought, such as intution; and 'how are such ideas formed beyond the science/math/tech routes'. When we solve problems of any kind, scientific methods help us to come to answers in a top-down method that could be quite mechanistic, resulting from mainly a few thinking routes. That often assumes that such evaluative methods will eventually come out with the so-called 'right' solution. Intuition is one part of our minds that may have been incubating over time and come up with a way of thought via various experiences. These intrinsic experiences may not be highly valued because it is often hard to measure without tangible evidence. This article also reminds me of my observations on people who may have very little formal education but are very experienced problem solvers in their own interpretated ways/methods. The value of being formally recognized is very important in our socieities such as the use of verbal expressive power is usually the 'lingua franca' of a smart solution. However, the reality is that such intelligence had not been that very sound. Look at the mess that we have. Isn't that coming out from 'logical' thought?

PS: pardon the terse write up. I know I have to express it better, and I could have written very short quick notes on the article. But others must know how I think too. Pretty much a pain for me to write really...hope this makes sense.

Posted via web from Daring to Posterous-ly Change

Tim Brown CEO and president of IDEO talks about Change by Design.

The title of the book grabbed my attention immediately to pick it up for a quick skim. The book was published in September 2009, only to reach Singapore shores recently. The book takes a lot of real life case studies to illustrate the different thinking processes used and made interesting insights on the various methodologies. Particularly eye catching when he cited Shimano as a topic starter. Almost uncanny as it looks, I cannot help but to agree that innovation is about simple conversion of needs/ demands into a solution via exploration of methods.

Posted via web from Daring to Posterous-ly Change