|
by Andrew Lam-Po-Tang
Design has hit the big time, so to speak.
In the last few years, the idea of design as an innovation process has been proposed by strategic design firms such as IDEO. The following article in BusinessWeek lays out the principles as practiced by IDEO (but by no means unique to that firm, no matter how much clever media relations management would have you believe):
This idea has developed some currency amongst economic policymakers in places such as the UK, because these countries (and ours) are scrambling to find an answer to the inexorable rise of China and India as unbeatable centres of low cost manufacture and services.
Logic dictates that if someone like China has an unbeatable advantage in cost structure, then you have to find another way to compete. Design is that way. To get a sense of how seriously design can be taken by policymakers, have a read of the UK Innovation Report by the Dept of Trade and Industry, especially Chapter 2, pages 40-43:
Apple Computer, with its iPod-fueled resurgance, is the standout example of the incredible potential of design. It launched a better-designed music experience (iTunes + iPod) a couple of years after the technology had been commercialised by the likes of Creative and iRiver, and proceeded to cream the market with its irresistable combo of supreme usability and cool. Was it cheaper? No. Was it technologically superior? No. Was it better designed hardware, software and an all-round experience? Yes!
So how do some designers respond to this embracing of design by our beloved non-designer clients and policymakers? Go on, have a guess...
Yup, they **** all over these parvenus, these ignorant non-designers, these oh-so-clumsy advocates of design. A designer of the stature of Michael Beirut, no less, has been scathing in his view that "innovation is becoming the design world's favorite euphemism":
While I agree with Beirut's observation that the business world is highly susceptible to jargon and fads, I don't think it helps to encourage designers to view the "design = innovation" concept with such cynicism.
Judging by the comments to Beirut's post, it seems that a lot of designers would rather sit back in their offices and laugh at their clients than deal with the complexity of helping them sort the wheat from the chaff. Designers who act this way should expect to piss off, rather than constructively influence, their clients. And that, my friends, is the road to irrelevancy.
For a more balanced view, I take heart from Bruce Nussbaum who is BusinessWeek's design commentator, who said,
"Just when victory is near, when design is finally being accepted for what it can do, people are denying its power, whining about the nomenclature and clutching defeat from the jaws of victory."
For Nussbaum's full article, see:
| Feedback by Ralf Beuker | Thursday, 6 April 2006 |
"Hi Andrew, thanks for your columns here which I find highly informative! I will clearly link them on my blog on design management (written in English): http://www.design-management.de
Hi Dominc, as noted above you might find reading my blog useful as well as this one: http://www.cph127.com
Cheers, Ralf."
| Feedback by Paul Ducco | Tuesday, 14 March 2006 |
"Excellent article/post, thank-you."
| Feedback by Ross Floate | Friday, 10 February 2006 |
"Without doubt, design is a major driver of (and marker of) innovation. Many of the major success stories of recent times have a major design component - think of the Dyson vacuum cleaner if you want a non-iPod example. Without design as a competitive point of difference, vendors simply engage in a race to the lowest price point.
Great article. Great links.
Ross Floate"
| Feedback by Dominic Banner | Tuesday, 7 February 2006 |
"excellent, interesting stuff-will read the links with interest. Would like regular bulletins of this nature in the future"
Return to Observations
AGDA Members: Discuss this article in AGDA's Business Forum.
The views expressed this article are not necessarily those of AGDA. Please note that the information in this article is the opinion of the author only. I can therefore accept no responsibility for actions taken on the basis of this information. Copyright Andrew Lam-Po-Tang (andrew@lam-po-tang com), 1998-2008. Permission is granted to freely copy this document in electronic form, or to print, for personal use. Reprinting for non-personal use will require the express permission of the author (which I will generally be very happy to give).
|
