Design Sojourn

Let’s start with 3 truths.

1) The best place to be is to have a good presentation with good content. Works in any situation.

2) If you have good presentation and your content sucks, you might still get away with it.

3) If your content is great but your presentation is crap, it’s 50/50 split that could go either way.

Right. Interestingly, this was one of the topics we discussed during the Designer Mentoring program. It came up a number of times, so I felt it should be shared here with all of you as well. It is quite a difficult concept to grasp, so please bear with me while I try to explain?

Time and time again I see this issue crop up in Design. Some common scenarios include designers that sketch well (presentation) but produce unusable or poor designs (content), or portfolios that have great layouts (presentation) but suffer from poor image quality or work (content).

The trick is to be able to distinguish between good presentation and good content.

The first thing to do is to not get overly caught up with the allure of technical skills like sketching, rendering or even public speaking. While a certain level of skill is still required, for the sake of argument, lets consider that a great presentation excites the eyes but often fools it.

In this context, what is great content? Great content just works, great content makes sense, great content is timeless, and great content is beautiful (more than skin deep!). Most important of all, great content still works even if it was let down by a poor presentation. Try to look past the presentation and into the core of a design by asking yourself why it works. Be critical with everything. Don’t just look, but see.

Oh one last thing, substitute “content” with “idea” or “concept” and you still get the same results.

Image: Economy of Innovation by Smart Design. Click here for a larger size.

When I first saw this interesting illustration created by Smart Design, it did not resonate with me. Thus I only forwarded the image via my usualTwitter link love and spent the rest of the week thinking about it.

What threw me off was Bruce Nussbaum’s comment on the image which was, in his usual fashion, off the mark. Sorry Bruce. He wrote:

Design was born as Design Strategy to help guide CEOs in an unsettled and turbulent era. It morphed into decoration, then usefulness and now—back into Design Strategy once again in a period of uncertainty.

Being a designer, I would so love to embrace his comment as the truth. Unfortunately it is not. In my opinion, he should should have read the title of the graphic first: Economy of Innovation. If you look carefully at the Dow Jones stock chart, it looks like the key drivers of the first Bull Run are the TV and the automobile. In the next Bull Run, it was actually not the Mac, but the microchip that allowed for the desktop computing revolution. I did miss the internet at the top of the stock chart though. But if we did follow Bruce’s reasoning, it looks like Raymond Loewy and the iPhone are causes of the current economic crisis!

However if now we take a step back and look at the chart again, we can clearly see that Innovation not Design is key in driving the success of an economy. Let’s not discount Design totally though, I think Design did have an important role in delivering the innovation to the consumer in a meaningful way.

Now, I like to ask you this? To get out of this economic crisis, should we focus less on styling or the next iPhone, and instead look to create innovations like the microchip or automobile that can really change people’s lives?

Sadly most designers including myself are guilty of the former. Food for thought nevertheless?

Click here for a bigger picture!

This little chart was inspired by my Interaction Design colleagues. If you come from an Industrial Design or Interaction Design point of view, you might just end up focusing on one part of this chart and miss the whole equation. Personally, I find creating silos of design disciplines with hard lines in between is just an incorrect way of working. Designing an engaging product experience should be well considered journey lead by a multidisciplinary designer managing every touch point your consumer engages with either your product or brand.

Thomas Meyerhoffer, a former designer at Apple, did what any designer would do when he was not happy with a product. He created his own. In Thomas’ case it was his love for surfing and his hatred of existing surfboard designs that got him going. His unique boards are an awesome response and an application of a designer’s critical insight on how people use such products.

Meyerhoffer’s key insight was that the the board isn’t monolithic; instead, it has different zones that need to serve much different functions. Thus, near the front, there’s a “waist” which allows a paddling surfer to maneuver more easily, with less impediments to her arms. In the back, the pointy tail digs into a wave’s surface, providing leverage to maneuver the board during tail rides. For nose rides, the front end is deeply concave, to conform to the wave and offer lateral stability.

Check out Mayerhoffer sharing his thoughts about his designs:

I want one! Pity, I don’t know how to surf.

Via: FastCompany and New York Times.

I’m always happy to hear of designers that have taken the effort to turn one of their great ideas into reality. I think it is a great learning experience even if the result was a not a success. (Remember you learn more if you fail!) So if you have ever thought about doing the same, I highly recommend that you do so!

I often belief that “Sometimes Designers need to Walk the Path on Their Own”. By “Path” here, I mean the design process, or more specific to my statement, the attempt to participate in the entire design and product development process. In other words, coming up with an idea, creating a business plan, working out the marketing story, developing the concept, refining it, realizing it in CAD, manufacturing the product, testing it, packing it, selling it and even shipping the product.

In our day to day work lives most designers are actually confined to a certain set of activities such as concept development or CAD work. By walking the “path” with your own product, you stand to learn a lot of things that can be beneficial to your career as a designer. For example you start to think of your designs now as a product that has to sell. That means budgeting and return of investments (ROI), marketing plans, consumer behavior studies and even pricing strategies. You will also get a chance to do things like manage shipping and logistics, and best of all inventory control. (Not!) Even refining a product hot of the prototyping machine is a priceless experience.

Eventually you may start to realize that many designers are really not just designers but are instead, what I like to call, Design Producers. Phillip Starck or Karim Rashid are good examples, but Design Managers in organizations also fulfill this role by their ability to work with different departments or competences. In other words, Design Producers are experts in gathering all the required pieces of the puzzle together and then piecing them together to create unique and meaningful solutions.

Industrial Design has evolved in today’s business and consumer climate. It is not just about creating beautiful objects, it requires so many elements for it to be a success that the creative aspect, we all know so well, often becomes but a small piece of the entire picture. As a result many Design Producers do very little hands on Design, even if they are very good at it. But, if you think about it, at the end of the day this is still Design, no?

Image: Yo Yo Ma at the World Economic Forum 2008 by Any Mettler

This article was written for Yanko Design (YD). As I know some Design Sojourn readers don’t really frequent YD, I have decided to republish and keep a record of the article here. Enjoy, and I’m looking forward to your comments if you have not left any before!

Have you ever wondered how you could be the best designer in the world? How to be that money making Design Virtuoso? I know I have. What about you?

I sort of knew what it took, but I never really knew what it took, until today. According to Chris Guillebeau, the man behind The Art of Nonconformity, if you want to a virtuoso, or just be really good with anything (music, sport, design etc.), you will need to invest approximately 14,600 hours of practice or training to get there.

The time cost of becoming a virtuoso—which I’m defining here simply as a measure of extremely high expertise—is about 10 years of consistent training for at least several hours a day. This is the consensus view from a wide scientific literature on virtuosos from various disciplines.

Roughly, this breaks down to 14,600 hours over the course of a decade (4 hours a day, no weekends or holidays). According to experts who study the experts, If you spend approximately 14,600 hours practicing the cello, learning to be a surgeon, playing chess, or doing any activity that has a progressive learning scale and can be evaluated by other experts, you’ll achieve the status of being a virtuoso.

Yes, there are some disclaimers, and the most important one is that you have to have somewhat of a talent at playing chess or cello to begin with. But most virtuosos are not innate geniuses; they are instead highly disciplined individuals.

Extracted from: The 14,600 Hours to Virtuosity by Chris Guillebeau.

Wow. Now you know why some designers seem to be able to sketch, CAD or even design better than others. They have invested the time and effort to perfect their art.

Why some designers are so good?
I am willing to bet that those car designers who are able to sketch or draw so well, have put in serious time into their profession. Furthermore, I will not be surprised if many of them have been already sketching cars before they even got into design school!

Therefore, if you want to be really good at something, you have to first set a goal and then put in the hours to get there.

When I started out my design career, I was an old school designer living in a transition period between 2D and 3D. I had no 3D skills and no job because all the design firms were only hiring CAD jockeys at that time. Therefore I was determined to learn 3D and be the best CAD jockey there was. I made a decision to be very good at Rhino3D, in an environment dominated by Alias and Pro-Engineer.

So I put in the hours, invested weekends, read the Rhino Manual from cover to cover (I kid you not!), and did all the tutorials. Not only that, I searched out every hint and tip there was on the web, and even participated in the Rhino software Beta feedback team. In no time I was churning out Rhino CAD files dead quick and to a quality that was even manufacturing ready!

Passion and Dedication.
Chris talks about Talent being but one of the elements in the equation. I agree, even with design, Talent is nothing without discipline. However I like to add, particularly with design, Passion and Dedication are another two elements of this equation. I find that the two are linked, if you have a Passion for something, Dedication is not far behind.

There is a clear difference with a designer that lives and breathes design vs. a designer that is “oh-hum” about design. Having Passion is not just about loving design, it is also about the dedication to get knee deep in it, and the will to be designing almost all the time. I can relate to designers like Marc Newson who always seem to be critical of their surroundings and never seem to stop wanting to improve it. I can see also passionate Designers taking part in design competitions, creating their own products, or even solving problems outside of design.

It is Passion that is the fuel that keeps the fires burning and the designers going in the wee hours of the morning.

Being a “Jack of all Trades” is Only the Starting Point.
I like to close this discussion up by addressing a big complain I always here from Industrial Designers. That is we end up being “Jack of all Trades, and Masters of None”. Yes and No. The nature of the industrial design profession requires us to cover a lot of ground at school. However learning does not and should not stop when you graduate. When you do graduate, it is now up to you to focus on areas you are either interested in or perhaps areas you want to improve. For example if you start clocking just a few hours a day in sketching, you will soon have 10 hours a week, 40 hours a month and 480 hours a year etc. You see, you don’t have to put in that 14,600 hours to be a Virtuoso (unless you want to!), but anybody can start being better in something when the time is invested in doing so. Best of Luck!

Jabra Go 6400 headsets. Via: Fastcompany

When Apple launched their G3 “Bubble Gum” colored transparent iMacs in 1998, the world loved it. And as a result Apple was reborn. Unfortunately, the world loved it so much that almost every other product released was either transparent or in “Bubble Gum” blue/pink/red.

The same thing happened with their white/black iPods and Macbooks. Suddenly the world suffered from a color deficiency and far to many fingerprints. The problem was that in 90% of of the time, the application of these elements were wrongly seen as “only just a surface treatment”, or even just a fad.

ASUS’s Eee keyboard, a touchscreen PC-in-a-keyboard. Via: Gizmodo

Looks like in 2009 the story is still the same? Just like the iPod, Apple was not the first to create a phone with a touchscreen, but they were the first to create a compelling product proposition with the help of their easy to use and iconic (excuse the pun) iPhone interface. The immense popularity of the iPhone and its interface has launched a number of products with iPhone like touch screen interfaces. Whether used in the right context or not, you be the judge?

I have been watching ”Design Thinking” very closely for a long time now, often amused on how it is unfolding in both the design and non-design industries. At this time I’m curious it is evolving, and having strong suspicions on how it can be an element to bridge the “language gap” between Design and the Business.

Interestingly, since I started watching this topic in 2006, everyone who is anyone (including yours truly) jumped with their $0.02 cents worth in trying to figure out just what this is all about. However many posts never seem to get the idea of Design Thinking right, and the definition and objectives for Design Thinking never clearly expressed.

I started this discussion in June 2006 with my post “Everybody is talking about design, creativity & entrepreneurship“. In it I concluded that while Tom Peters suggested that “Design was It”, it was not clear, at least to me, to do what? It sounded to me more about encouraging a more creative businesses mindset or managing innovation and creativity within an organizations.

In Nov 2008 with “Design Thinking or Just Thinking“, I lamented that it looks like Design Thinking was just plain old Thinking after all! However I did hypothesize that: “Design Thinking is a thinking process that anchors your decision making with multi-disciplinary influences”. I think I was getting close, but I still missed context, the “Why” we do this. Why would non-designers (the Business in this case) be interested in Design Thinking and the Design Process?

More recently, a number of online posts on this topic has push this issue, in my humble opinion, to a tipping point.

John Medea, in his post Learning from How Designers Think and Work, focused on Designer’s value and pits Designers to be “experience perfectionists”. Unfortunately, the purpose of such “experience perfectionists” is still not clear.

Bruce Naussbaum in his usual misrepresentation of designers asked: Is Design Too Important To Be Left Only To Designers? In this case he talks about how designers are angry/concerned/afraid of “other people” working with design thinking, or design processes, or how designers are still stuck in their silos. Not sure to which designers he has been speaking to, but much ado about nothing as usual. Do check out the brilliant blog response by Robert Brunner called “Is Design Too Important To Be Left to Thinkers”.

The good news is that I think we are now a step closer. John Edson who wrote “Designing Business; Businessing Design“. Describes Design Thinking within organizations by this:

Empowering the drive to create products aimed at the needs of real people is this question: Does the business culture favor conversation–or is it stuck in hierarchical control? Classic business management education values control and it depends on deductive reasoning to create that control. “The most important business transformations cannot be proven before they are undertaken,” promotes Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. “Analytical and deductive reasoning practices in business destroy value.”

{snip}

In my view, it’s crucial for business to awaken to the powers of design. I don’t think that future enterprises will be able to connect to customers or remain competitive without increasingly fluid and agile management practices that respond more to the idiosyncrasies of real people than to the current fiscal quarter’s numbers.

But when it comes to the profession of design, discovering and answering the unmet needs of customers requires a designer’s ability to move beyond the expected. It’s our job to create these wonderful expressions, giving personality to a company and delight to the customer.

Reads a little complicated? Let me try to distill. So why are businesses so interested in design thinking?

In my humble opinion, designers have the ability, through their consumer insights and boundless thinking, to come up with un-tested opportunities that businesses are not able to due to the culture and way in which companies are run. The common results focused business culture thrives on the tried and tested, which business leaders know is not conducive for the future and the next big product break through. It is the designers ability to manage and work with the risk of the unknown (concepts, designs etc.) that is going to help win the day.

A perfect partnership don’t you think?

c8- h10- n4- o2 by Gilad Davidi

Beautiful work by the students from The Shenkar College of Engineering and Design, Ramat Gan. They were tasked by their lecturers to re-invent the Coffee (and Espresso) or Tea Cup by “deep diving” into our coffee culture and understanding the coffee drinking rituals involved.

Espresso and Cappuccino cups by Lee Casper

Overall fantastic work, and a great showcase of how Designers can gain critical insight for product creation through ethnographic studies. Just where is this school? I would love to visit it!

Check out the rest of the refreshing concepts at Design Boom.