Sign in or 
Share this
On the art and science of design
Below is a response to a thread of the Transforming Transformation Listserv at transforming@googlegroups.com posted 12/30/2008:
GK,
Thanks, the readings are evocative, as always. Here are my responses.
t
Who owns the role of designer?
Managing form and function is a cornerstone of all creative disciplines, and no single discipline can genuinely claim unique ownership of the essence of design. Group design may represent a special case, but it is special only in degree. It seems highly unlikely that any professionally trained individual would lack a design tradition in their background and far more likely that in any gathering of professionals from multiple disciplines there will be overlapping traditions which could compete for the group's acceptance. This very front-end design phase can result in a collision of good intentions as different concepts and different perspectives rapidly converge. While academic institutions tend to train and score individuals for their individual design work, the real world rewards individuals who can also work within teams. The intensity of the real world team challenges can rarely be effectively simulated in classroom environments.
Leading boundary spanning team design missions is an acquired talent. Each discipline can - and generally feels it must -- argue for the legitimacy of their own design practices. The familiarity which different professionals all have with their traditions of design is probably a good thing, because they have a basis for valuing design. The conflict that can emerge is really one of design fundamentalism.
Must design be spontaneously creative?
All creative works result as a function of some process, be that an intuitive process or a formal process. Most creative works result as a combination of structured and spontaneous thinking. This is true for the physical sciences as well as for the fine arts. We leverage some underlying constraints in the design challenge and construct a solution. As Kelly Shaw deftly stated, the challenge is one of "understanding which constraints to embrace and which ones to push back on." Some of us have more innate skill in understanding how to manipulate constraints than others, and some of our methods for pulling and pushing on levers are better for some medium that for other types of medium.
Do we design from the heart or from the head?
In a nod to the heart, Derek Oyen cautions that "design thinking is over thinking. The best designs are not about thinking at all." Playing notes is not the same as playing music. There needs to be an emotional involvement. I feel that emotional involvement with design - as with puzzle solving - is unavoidable. Reward centers in the brain stroke pleasure circuits as deep thinkers swing through the jungle of complex thought and find moments of sunlight. I contend that while there are variations among individuals there actually is authentic "design emotion" regardless whether design is applied to the riddles of science or the aesthetics of art. Elegant solutions are gratifying to their creators. Great solutions stir emotions in others.
What is great design?
I particularly liked David Armano's statement that "a great design is great because it creates desire …". I think that this really nails a unifying view that there is a emotive and motivational impact that must emerge from all design to validate it as a valuable artifact. This definition spans the management solution field as well as the product development field. This means that great design can apply to a process - and even to a reflective process such as designing design approaches - as well as to the end products of design. If a newly designed design process rapidly evoked adoption and use by a design community, one would proably have to agree that it must have been a great design. We could have a great visual design also emerge from a great cognitive process that shaped the design brief. I believe that there is room - and need - to praise the greatness of both process impacts and product impacts.
Do rules enable or constrain great design?
Design rules generally can be traced back to observations and reflections of how the mind spontaneously works during design sessions. Rules can be viewed as a means of liberating us or of constraining us, and different camps view rules differently --- some hold rules as dogma and others as guidelines. Even intuitively, we follow innate rules to internalize a conceptualization of a challenge, mentally play with it to feel its bones, and then wiggle things to "imagine" how influences will move though the skeleton of the problem and animate a solution. Business strategy consultants occasionally rename what we naturally do, devise some traffic flow rules to assist groups, and elevate the approach to high status so that the innovation process might command higher billing fees.
Who speaks for design?
The authority that an individual may carry for dominating a discussion of what constitutes design, good design and great design isn't based on what they have been taught, but rather upon what they have learned. Formal training and academic pedigree need not represent the only way to becoming a designer or design managers. Paula Thornton asserts "great designers learn to develop form regardless of schooling."
What is so special about design thinking?
Collaborative strategy is designed (developed) based on a sequence of workshop exercises in a studio-like environment. The rules (or practices or policies or action plans) that result from the design can be traditional or may be radically disruptive. My intuition is that if one looked at the end products of strategy development across a large number of organizations, one may not be able to identify end products which had been guided by a craft that could be distinctly called design thinking.
Some folks may use the term "design thinking" as code for "redesign". Without invoking a special "rule breaking and rule making" feature for design thinking, the notion of infusing a practice of design thinking into the strategy development process of an organization seems redundant.
Take away on design.
Several responders picked up on Rick Poynor's couplet "Visual design without a properly constructed design strategy is empty. Design strategy without a properly executed visual design is unfulfilled." Indeed, design that does not move people into action may be hollow. Action that is not been based on compassionate design can be treacherous.
I am using the term "compassionate design" because it speaks to the need to bring passion forward in the context of the aspirations of others. Individual design may be passionate, but only collaborative design can be compassionate. We may think that we are thinking of others when we design for them, but we can only be certain that we are designing for others when we design with them. Compassionate design only works if all seated at the table are enabled with a capacity to design. Because some individuals will have the benefit of experiences that others lack, an overarching process needs to be in place to assure inclusive and balanced participation. Maybe this level of meta-design --- this "compassionate design" --- differs from design management processes already in play, but I really doubt it.
Tom Flanagan
Director, SouthCoast Community Collaborative Design Studio
SoCo Community Collaborative Design Studio is a project of the Community Foundation of Southeastern Massachusetts. Our mission is to build community capacity through the use of advanced collaborative design practices. SoCoDesign is a resource for multi-organization planning and not a direct source of funds.
VOICE: 508-264-0066
EMAIL: TRFlanagan@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://socodesign.wetpaint.com/
"All democracy is local."
In a message dated 12/30/2008 10:18:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, GKVanPatter@gmail.com writes:
Subj: Beyond The Everyone is Everything Era
Date: 12/30/2008 10:18:51 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: GKVanPatter@gmail.com
Reply-to: transforming@googlegroups.com
Paul, Peter &All: Everyone is Everything is a phenomenon that is underway on the far side of what you two are describing. Everyone is Everything is the 180 degree opposite of “disciplinary segregation”...so to a significant degree discipline tags have already become meaningless. I have no doubt that everyone on this list is well aware of this. We have in practice been operating in that context for numerous years. That is an entirely different conversation.
See
Beyond Hostility: Finding & Creating Inclusive Models for Co-Creation
http://nextd.org/pdf_download/Beyond_Hostility.pdf
Understanding Everyone is Everything is about understanding community characteristics taking place within the context of the freewheeling marketplace. Everyone is Everything is a marketplace phenomenon.
I would be curious to know if list members think we are still in or on the other side of the Everyone is Everything Era that seems to have risen to widespread popularity and had its peek during the height of the American centric dot-com era when design and innovation needs overwhelmed human capacity in the marketplace. Although the dotcom bust served to correct that capacity imbalance many attributes from that era, for better and or for worse, remain in the mix as part of the present day marketplace legacy system.
Due to globalization marketplace dynamics and numerous legacy remnants are now being transferred to the strategic space race.
With my sense-making strategic design journalism hat on I am interested in these kinds of questions: In 2009 what are the strategic implications of Everyone is Everything and how do professional communities grapple with such challenges? What is a professional community in the context of Everyone is Everything? Have professions and professional communities become irrelevant? Are professional communities now simply a collection of people using the same words? How do organizations and individuals behave in an Everyone is Everything business environment?
I wonder if we are brave enough to point out any examples of the Everyone is Everything Era that are still around?
Below are a few that come to mind. What do you see going on in these pictures? Can you explain how we got here as a community of communities? What do you think is driving this train? Does it matter?
Shopping For Innovation: What you need to Know before hiring a design firm
http://www.core77.com/reactor/11.05_shopping.asp
Build your very own seat at the strategy table
http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2008/08/27/build-your-very-own-seat-at-the-strategy-table/
Design Strategy 99% Bad!: A rebuttal
http://experiencematters.criticalmass.com/2008/05/07/design-strategy-99-bad-a-rebuttal/
It is unlikely that we can collectively have meaningful conversations regarding knowledge sharing, education, challenges, change, etc. if we are not prepared to talk about what is really going on in the marketplace and why.
Have a good day all.
...
GK VanPatter
Founding Editor
NextD Journal
Strategic Design Perspectives
NextD
Design is Changing! Are YOU?
http://nextd.org
...
Co-Founder
Humantific
http://www.humantific.com
Subj: Down with form
Date: 12/30/2008 12:52:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: valentina@valentinamiosuro.com
Reply-to: transforming@googlegroups.com
I recently came across Rick Poynor's "Down with Innovation" published in April of this year.
I'd like to draw attention to the end of the article:
"Design thinkers like to wax lyrical about the elegance of their strategic thinking as a form of design in its own right, as though this could ever be a substitute. They can keep it— in 2108, if there are museums then, no one will queue to see a strategy. Give me something tangible, something brilliant and extraordinary that illuminates our perception of what human life can be. For that, we still need designers."
What caught my attention is the assumption that no one would queue to see a strategy because of its abstract nature. I wonder if at the time Poynor knew there are practitioners out there making strategy tangible and clear. Some are designers, some are not.
Truth of the matter is the strategic recommendations are just as important as the format in which they are presented. The complex nature of some solutions and their potential systemic repercussions call for more sophisticated communication strategies that aid clients' understanding, setting up conditions for informed decision making. Although I am still a baby in this fuzzy design world, I have witnessed various clients challenge their own perception of their organization when presented with diagrams and process maps. Such visual tools teach them to think systematically and embrace a holistic approach to problem solving. I believe that to be a version of Poynor's call for the tangible, brilliant and extraordinary that illuminates perception.
Further, practitioners like Hugh Dubberly have recognized that the making of these diagrams forces the process to be explicit and visible —therefore supporting collaboration and facilitating optimization.
Not everyone recognizes the importance of form and making, and how it may hinder or aid understanding and collaboration. But who does? Well, really.. who cares?
My mother's office is filled with large sheet of construction paper and markers, and her walls covered with drawings that I recognize as concept maps (she sees them just as drawings that help her see things better and explain it to others). She works for a German facility management company and her job is to optimize internal processes, ultimately saving money for the company while ensuring her clients' delivery of quality services. Her title? Manager of special projects. Her background? Medicine.
I work at Siegel+Gale for the Simplification group optimizing customer experience. My desk is also filled with markers and paper, utilizing mapping as a way to better understand problems and collaborate with content strategists and designers alike. My title? Information architect. My background? Communication design.
I am not interested in suggesting that everyone is a designer. I am questioning what can be gained by defending roles and dividing up responsibilities.
Valentina
GK,
Thanks, the readings are evocative, as always. Here are my responses.
t
Who owns the role of designer?
Managing form and function is a cornerstone of all creative disciplines, and no single discipline can genuinely claim unique ownership of the essence of design. Group design may represent a special case, but it is special only in degree. It seems highly unlikely that any professionally trained individual would lack a design tradition in their background and far more likely that in any gathering of professionals from multiple disciplines there will be overlapping traditions which could compete for the group's acceptance. This very front-end design phase can result in a collision of good intentions as different concepts and different perspectives rapidly converge. While academic institutions tend to train and score individuals for their individual design work, the real world rewards individuals who can also work within teams. The intensity of the real world team challenges can rarely be effectively simulated in classroom environments.
Leading boundary spanning team design missions is an acquired talent. Each discipline can - and generally feels it must -- argue for the legitimacy of their own design practices. The familiarity which different professionals all have with their traditions of design is probably a good thing, because they have a basis for valuing design. The conflict that can emerge is really one of design fundamentalism.
Must design be spontaneously creative?
All creative works result as a function of some process, be that an intuitive process or a formal process. Most creative works result as a combination of structured and spontaneous thinking. This is true for the physical sciences as well as for the fine arts. We leverage some underlying constraints in the design challenge and construct a solution. As Kelly Shaw deftly stated, the challenge is one of "understanding which constraints to embrace and which ones to push back on." Some of us have more innate skill in understanding how to manipulate constraints than others, and some of our methods for pulling and pushing on levers are better for some medium that for other types of medium.
Do we design from the heart or from the head?
In a nod to the heart, Derek Oyen cautions that "design thinking is over thinking. The best designs are not about thinking at all." Playing notes is not the same as playing music. There needs to be an emotional involvement. I feel that emotional involvement with design - as with puzzle solving - is unavoidable. Reward centers in the brain stroke pleasure circuits as deep thinkers swing through the jungle of complex thought and find moments of sunlight. I contend that while there are variations among individuals there actually is authentic "design emotion" regardless whether design is applied to the riddles of science or the aesthetics of art. Elegant solutions are gratifying to their creators. Great solutions stir emotions in others.
What is great design?
I particularly liked David Armano's statement that "a great design is great because it creates desire …". I think that this really nails a unifying view that there is a emotive and motivational impact that must emerge from all design to validate it as a valuable artifact. This definition spans the management solution field as well as the product development field. This means that great design can apply to a process - and even to a reflective process such as designing design approaches - as well as to the end products of design. If a newly designed design process rapidly evoked adoption and use by a design community, one would proably have to agree that it must have been a great design. We could have a great visual design also emerge from a great cognitive process that shaped the design brief. I believe that there is room - and need - to praise the greatness of both process impacts and product impacts.
Do rules enable or constrain great design?
Design rules generally can be traced back to observations and reflections of how the mind spontaneously works during design sessions. Rules can be viewed as a means of liberating us or of constraining us, and different camps view rules differently --- some hold rules as dogma and others as guidelines. Even intuitively, we follow innate rules to internalize a conceptualization of a challenge, mentally play with it to feel its bones, and then wiggle things to "imagine" how influences will move though the skeleton of the problem and animate a solution. Business strategy consultants occasionally rename what we naturally do, devise some traffic flow rules to assist groups, and elevate the approach to high status so that the innovation process might command higher billing fees.
Who speaks for design?
The authority that an individual may carry for dominating a discussion of what constitutes design, good design and great design isn't based on what they have been taught, but rather upon what they have learned. Formal training and academic pedigree need not represent the only way to becoming a designer or design managers. Paula Thornton asserts "great designers learn to develop form regardless of schooling."
What is so special about design thinking?
Collaborative strategy is designed (developed) based on a sequence of workshop exercises in a studio-like environment. The rules (or practices or policies or action plans) that result from the design can be traditional or may be radically disruptive. My intuition is that if one looked at the end products of strategy development across a large number of organizations, one may not be able to identify end products which had been guided by a craft that could be distinctly called design thinking.
Some folks may use the term "design thinking" as code for "redesign". Without invoking a special "rule breaking and rule making" feature for design thinking, the notion of infusing a practice of design thinking into the strategy development process of an organization seems redundant.
Take away on design.
Several responders picked up on Rick Poynor's couplet "Visual design without a properly constructed design strategy is empty. Design strategy without a properly executed visual design is unfulfilled." Indeed, design that does not move people into action may be hollow. Action that is not been based on compassionate design can be treacherous.
I am using the term "compassionate design" because it speaks to the need to bring passion forward in the context of the aspirations of others. Individual design may be passionate, but only collaborative design can be compassionate. We may think that we are thinking of others when we design for them, but we can only be certain that we are designing for others when we design with them. Compassionate design only works if all seated at the table are enabled with a capacity to design. Because some individuals will have the benefit of experiences that others lack, an overarching process needs to be in place to assure inclusive and balanced participation. Maybe this level of meta-design --- this "compassionate design" --- differs from design management processes already in play, but I really doubt it.
Tom Flanagan
Director, SouthCoast Community Collaborative Design Studio
SoCo Community Collaborative Design Studio is a project of the Community Foundation of Southeastern Massachusetts. Our mission is to build community capacity through the use of advanced collaborative design practices. SoCoDesign is a resource for multi-organization planning and not a direct source of funds.
VOICE: 508-264-0066
EMAIL: TRFlanagan@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://socodesign.wetpaint.com/
"All democracy is local."
In a message dated 12/30/2008 10:18:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, GKVanPatter@gmail.com writes:
Subj: Beyond The Everyone is Everything Era
Date: 12/30/2008 10:18:51 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: GKVanPatter@gmail.com
Reply-to: transforming@googlegroups.com
Paul, Peter &All: Everyone is Everything is a phenomenon that is underway on the far side of what you two are describing. Everyone is Everything is the 180 degree opposite of “disciplinary segregation”...so to a significant degree discipline tags have already become meaningless. I have no doubt that everyone on this list is well aware of this. We have in practice been operating in that context for numerous years. That is an entirely different conversation.
See
Beyond Hostility: Finding & Creating Inclusive Models for Co-Creation
http://nextd.org/pdf_download/Beyond_Hostility.pdf
Understanding Everyone is Everything is about understanding community characteristics taking place within the context of the freewheeling marketplace. Everyone is Everything is a marketplace phenomenon.
I would be curious to know if list members think we are still in or on the other side of the Everyone is Everything Era that seems to have risen to widespread popularity and had its peek during the height of the American centric dot-com era when design and innovation needs overwhelmed human capacity in the marketplace. Although the dotcom bust served to correct that capacity imbalance many attributes from that era, for better and or for worse, remain in the mix as part of the present day marketplace legacy system.
Due to globalization marketplace dynamics and numerous legacy remnants are now being transferred to the strategic space race.
With my sense-making strategic design journalism hat on I am interested in these kinds of questions: In 2009 what are the strategic implications of Everyone is Everything and how do professional communities grapple with such challenges? What is a professional community in the context of Everyone is Everything? Have professions and professional communities become irrelevant? Are professional communities now simply a collection of people using the same words? How do organizations and individuals behave in an Everyone is Everything business environment?
I wonder if we are brave enough to point out any examples of the Everyone is Everything Era that are still around?
Below are a few that come to mind. What do you see going on in these pictures? Can you explain how we got here as a community of communities? What do you think is driving this train? Does it matter?
Shopping For Innovation: What you need to Know before hiring a design firm
http://www.core77.com/reactor/11.05_shopping.asp
Build your very own seat at the strategy table
http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2008/08/27/build-your-very-own-seat-at-the-strategy-table/
Design Strategy 99% Bad!: A rebuttal
http://experiencematters.criticalmass.com/2008/05/07/design-strategy-99-bad-a-rebuttal/
It is unlikely that we can collectively have meaningful conversations regarding knowledge sharing, education, challenges, change, etc. if we are not prepared to talk about what is really going on in the marketplace and why.
Have a good day all.
...
GK VanPatter
Founding Editor
NextD Journal
Strategic Design Perspectives
NextD
Design is Changing! Are YOU?
http://nextd.org
...
Co-Founder
Humantific
http://www.humantific.com
Subj: Down with form
Date: 12/30/2008 12:52:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: valentina@valentinamiosuro.com
Reply-to: transforming@googlegroups.com
I recently came across Rick Poynor's "Down with Innovation" published in April of this year.
I'd like to draw attention to the end of the article:
"Design thinkers like to wax lyrical about the elegance of their strategic thinking as a form of design in its own right, as though this could ever be a substitute. They can keep it— in 2108, if there are museums then, no one will queue to see a strategy. Give me something tangible, something brilliant and extraordinary that illuminates our perception of what human life can be. For that, we still need designers."
What caught my attention is the assumption that no one would queue to see a strategy because of its abstract nature. I wonder if at the time Poynor knew there are practitioners out there making strategy tangible and clear. Some are designers, some are not.
Truth of the matter is the strategic recommendations are just as important as the format in which they are presented. The complex nature of some solutions and their potential systemic repercussions call for more sophisticated communication strategies that aid clients' understanding, setting up conditions for informed decision making. Although I am still a baby in this fuzzy design world, I have witnessed various clients challenge their own perception of their organization when presented with diagrams and process maps. Such visual tools teach them to think systematically and embrace a holistic approach to problem solving. I believe that to be a version of Poynor's call for the tangible, brilliant and extraordinary that illuminates perception.
Further, practitioners like Hugh Dubberly have recognized that the making of these diagrams forces the process to be explicit and visible —therefore supporting collaboration and facilitating optimization.
Not everyone recognizes the importance of form and making, and how it may hinder or aid understanding and collaboration. But who does? Well, really.. who cares?
My mother's office is filled with large sheet of construction paper and markers, and her walls covered with drawings that I recognize as concept maps (she sees them just as drawings that help her see things better and explain it to others). She works for a German facility management company and her job is to optimize internal processes, ultimately saving money for the company while ensuring her clients' delivery of quality services. Her title? Manager of special projects. Her background? Medicine.
I work at Siegel+Gale for the Simplification group optimizing customer experience. My desk is also filled with markers and paper, utilizing mapping as a way to better understand problems and collaborate with content strategists and designers alike. My title? Information architect. My background? Communication design.
I am not interested in suggesting that everyone is a designer. I am questioning what can be gained by defending roles and dividing up responsibilities.
Valentina
Tom_Flanagan |
Latest page update: made by Tom_Flanagan
, Jan 1 2009, 11:37 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by Tom_Flanagan
477 words added 6 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
design
design thinking
great design
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
