Discuss further in the
Member's Forums

I think it's important to be able to distinguish between "strategic" and "tactical" decisions and projects. It's about the difference between 'doing the right thing' and 'doing the thing right.'

Strategic decisions are generally those which set a direction or profoundly reconfigure a client's business/es to align them more closely with their markets. An acquisition or sell-off, creation of a new business, redesign of core business processes around customer segments, entry into new countries - these are all strategic decisions.

Tactical decisions and projects are those which optimise the client's performance within the predetermined strategic direction. New marketing programs that bring renewed focus on the targeted customer segments, providing a web-based promotion/distribution platform to extend reach and radically reduced cost are tactical projects.

So how many design projects would you consider truly "strategic"? If you are repositioning the client via a complete identity or if you helping them communicate with new customer segments with new packaging and promotions, that is strategic.

My guess is that most of what design is about is tactical rather than strategic. "Strategic" is one of those much-abused words like "creativity." How many of you designers cringe when your marketing manager clients describe themselves as "creative"? That inner voice of yours mutters, "oh great, another wannabe-designer who is going to argue about typeface and colour selection."

How do you think those clients feel when a designer talks about "strategic" design, especially if the project is strictly tactical?

There is nothing wrong with "tactics", except that maybe it doesn't sound as glamourous as "strategy." But quite frankly, if I was the client about to hire you as the specialist, I'm not sure that I would care. After all, getting the job done well is at least as important as deciding on which job needs doing, isn't it?

"Andrew

I think we have briefly corresponded before. I thought you may be interseted in these observations.

The challenge, I think is defining the difference between tactics and strategy. You are right, many design activites take place at a tactical/functional level of strategy - a component of a co-ordinated marketing intiative such as a range of collateral materials or packaging activity. Nonetheless, these functional level intitiatives, to be effective,should be mapped to business, coroporate and network-level thinking. As such, communication design is not just a 'bolt on' or disparate dimension, but an holisitic and integrated pre-requiste of an organization's brand philosphy.

Furthermore, I have recently conducted some research for my MBA thesis, on the influence of creativity and innovation throughout the phases of the communication design process - from front-end planning to post project evaluation. I discovered that where there is sufficient colaborative involvement between cleints and designers, communication design is perceived as an holistic component of corporate and brand level strategy. In this setting, clients make as much contribution to the creative process as designers. Similarly, design teams become far more integrated into issues of front-end strategic planning. As such, creativity and strategy are perceived as part and parcel of the same integrated and continual process, where both parties have opportuntiy to contribute. But collaboration is the key, otherwise as you suggest, there is confusion and misperception not only concerning defintions, but also roles.

Interesting, and perhaps most surprisingly in this specific arena of communication design - the most successful enviroment for what I have described above, was observed amongst in-house marketing departments and design studios."

Return to Observations

AGDA Members: Discuss this article in AGDA's Business Forum.

andrew@lam-po-tangcom