Design Sojourn

Sorry for that cliffhanger of an ending in that last post, where I announced that I would be leaving Philips Design at the end of September. I like to be a little dramatic at times and I thought it would be a nice lead in to the story I’m going to tell you today.

So what, you may ask, am I going to do next?

I have spent most of my life working for people, or more accurately, designing for other people and making said people rich! Well not really…but I did decide that it was a time for a change. It was time to do something different and, more importantly, something for myself. I decided that I would like to be in a position where I would be able to call the shots and for a change, make the ultimate decision. Central to this plan, as you probably guessed by now, is Design Sojourn.

The Design Sojourn blog has actually been in operation for almost 5 years now! Throughout the history of this website, I have shared my ideas and thoughts on design, bounced these ideas (and sparred) with designers from all over the world. I even helped and mentored designers whenever I could. I hope such efforts have contributed to the international design industry as a whole and in return allowed me to build credibility as a designer.

So it is then logical to expand Design Sojourn into other areas beyond just blogging. I plan for Design Sojourn to evolve into a full fletch design consultancy and brand management company. Yup, I’m going to be a full time entrepreneur.

Here are a few more details:

Design Sojourn The Blog

First and foremost Design Sojourn the blog, will continue, but it’s going back to its roots. This blog cut its teeth by helping designers be the best they can be. Design Sojourn was and is all about “How to do good design, and make clever products”. I did, in recent years, moved this blog into Strategic Design. However by helping designers become more strategic, was still really in the same vein of helping designers be the best they can be. Being strategic is the name of the game in today’s design industry.

I have also taken a look at the state of my blog, and I have to say I’m not happy with it. In the recent years, my heavy workloads and family commitments have influenced a drop in the quality of my posts. I had a shocking realization that the posts people come to Design Sojourn for are more than 2 years old. The numbers don’t lie, and so this needs to be fixed.

As I will likely now have an opportunity to become the master of my own domain, (literally) I will be able to better manage my time to write more useful and engaging posts that will make your visit to Design Sojourn worthwhile. Growing Design Sojourn is high on the priority list, with a target of doubling readership in the next six months.

Finally, now that I am on my own, I will not be tied down nor associated with any brand. I’m now a Design Rōnin. A master-less designer roaming the world and kicking ass! Sorry, too many Akira Kurosawa movies.

Of cause I’m not about to take a “dump in my own backyard”, but do expect a more edgy tone, more rants, and of course, constructive criticism. Not being associated to any brand does provide a lot of freedom.

Design Sojourn Consulting

After everything, the unfortunate hash realities of life still exist. We still need to eat and I have a mortgage to pay. This is where things here at Design Sojourn will start to be a little different.

Many companies setup a company then a blog to get them going. I’ve actually flipped this approach on its head by turning my blog into a company, Design Sojourn Pte Ltd. Here is what we do:

Design Sojourn is a strategic design collective that features a multi-disciplinary team of designers, whom are the best in their respective industries.

We see ourselves as guides or translators for clients and partners in their journey in design.

Anchoring our creative process around the tenets of Joy with Functionality and Simple but Edgy, we offer full end-to-end design solutions that range from design languages that fulfill business needs; to commercially viable and resolved designs; to marketing, communications and new media solutions. However we are also small, flexible and nimble enough to take on that “quick kill” design problem. No job too big or too small.

I can promise you that other than getting a “Hire me” banner up, and an update to my About page, I will not be constantly reminding you of my consulting services. However, in the coming weeks, I will share more about Design Sojourn Consulting and what it stands for. Especially its design process which, I think, you might be interested to see?

If you, or someone you know, need my services or want to collaborate with me, please do not hesitate to contact me at brian@designsojourn.com. I won’t bite, and if something does come out of this, I will be in your debt, as this will allow me to continue to blog, not to mention pay my mortgage…

Design Sojourn Brand Management

The other thing that Design Sojourn Pte Ltd is going into is Design Entrepreneurship. As Design Producers, we design, develop, and produce products under our own brand or basket of brands. We also work closely with awesome designers to collaborate on products from design to market. When the time is right you will know who these awesome designers are.

I’m sure by now, you also know about our Spaces for Ideas brand? Well you will be pleased to know that we have spun the brand off Design Sojourn and given it its own dedicated site at www.spacesforideas.com. To celebrate the launch of the site, we have reduced the prices for the Expandable Sketchbook, so if you have not gotten your Sketchbook yet, do head on over and get one now!

We will also be expanding the Spaces for Ideas product range to include more sketchbook solutions. On a side note, SpacesforIdeas.com will focus more on sales transactions and product information. My sharing of development efforts, as well as the design activities will still be here on Design Sojourn. I’m guessing that you don’t want to be bothered with all this blogging noise when you make your purchases or vice versa?

On Design Sojourn, you can expect some announcements as well as the banners you see now. I’ve dumped the ugly Google ads, and will continue to streamline the site’s design so these ads do not overpower your reading. However, they will be a necessary evil, as Design Sojourn is the main marketing engine for my Spaces for Ideas products. Please do let me know, if you have any feedback on this matter?

———

There are a few other things in the works, but they are currently too premature to talk about it now. I’ll let you know as soon as they are ready to fly! All I can say is that they will be quite awesome.

What do you think? Am I out of my mind? Many of you have been part of my own design sojourn right from the start as friends and loyal supporters. It has been a great honor journeying with you and I do hope to get your continued support of this website and in all my future endeavors. Thank you.

Image from the Little Thoughts Group.

Today, I have a guest post from my friend and a fellow industrial designer Tan Lun Cheak. Lun Cheak believes that design in Singapore, (and I dare say Asia and the rest of the world), needs to break out of the mass manufacturing of standardized soulless products and move towards authenticity. We can do so by adding more heart in our design. I hope you enjoy his Singaporean view point on design, and please share if you find his insights resonating with the type of design in your part of the world. I suspect it might be.

———-

Like all Singaporeans, I love my Carrot Cake, Char Kuay Teow, Chicken Rice, and my favorite, Bak Kut Teh (Ed: Awesome local fare you should try the next time you are here!). Unfortunately, the overall quality of our local delicacies have declined drastically over the recent years.

These days, I am hard pressed to find an appetizing bowl of Bah Kut Teh where the broth is not over laden with MSG to cover up for the lack of fresh ingredients. Gone is the authenticity of the recipe, the heart and soul of the dish.

Changes in lifestyle habits and the rise of the fast food culture are some of the obvious reasons leading to the overall decline of food quality and food culture. Furthermore, the surge in food franchises, serving standardized menus in shopping malls all over Singapore, are the biggest threat to food quality in Singapore.

Food Courts today sell customers the convenience of a one-stop food paradise, where you can always find something for everyone. They have turned traditional hawker cooking into projects of efficiency and mass production. You still get cheap food, but what is missing is the love of the cooking process and pride of the results.

Industrial Design is also very much about mass production and standardization. It is all about the one-size-fits-all, where the objective is trying to design for as large of a mass appeal as possible.

Industrial Design was introduced to Singapore in the early 1980s. The profession has a relatively short history here when compared to Europe, America or Japan. So unlike these countries which have seen the profession evolve and mature through various art and industrial revolutions, Singapore’s industrial designers got in at a time when the country was all about computerization, production efficiency and productivity.

As a result many Singaporean industrial designers are pre-occupied with the task of improving the design processes and methodologies so that MNCs (multi-national companies) can create products that are universally palatable enough to impact their bottom line. (Ed: Playing the mass manufacturing or economies of scale game.) We’ve referred to global trends for inspiration, followed structured design processes, and even devised design standards. So much so, the ID practice has become so “mechanical” that often times we loose the heart and soul of the design.

We need to relook at designing products that can offer more experiential meaning to the consumer, where the end result should be about enabling the user to be touched at a deeper level so that they can form lasting relationships with the products they buy. Create an experience that forces consumers to move beyond “buy and forget”, or “consume and throw”.

We need to re-examine the notion of designing for a mass appeal. We all know that when you try to design for everybody, you inevitably design for nobody. We need to explore designs that connect to the consumer the way Bak Kut Teh’s peppery soup does with a few and avoid watering down the soup to appeal to everyone.

We can then go on to ask, if it is not about designing for the masses, the is design more about a personal expression?

Maybe it is time for the design profession to step back from analytical tools or standardized processes, and re-look at focusing more on the subject of design as art. Should we find avenues where designers are able to express oneself at both an emotional and experiential level? Were we can weave personal stories through the designs that we create with much love and pride.

As much as it is about who we are designing for, it can very much be also about who we are designing as!

For example, the heritage, culture and social fabric of Singapore are poignant sources of inspiration. Living and growing up in this part of the world provides Singaporean designers with a unique platform by which many meaningful ideas, relevant to consumers in this part of the world, can come.

It will likely be a voice that not everyone would be interested to hear about, but then again it does not matter, as it is all about connecting with the few who will truly appreciate or get it.

I am also not talking about going totally nostalgic either.

Industrial or Product design should still be about innovation and making everyone’s lives better. Therefore I believe it is about striking the right balance between one’s heritage and innovation while finding that unique voice that can defines us. Let us all reject creating products like we do standardizing food and start injecting more heart and soul into our designs.

———-

Tan Lun Cheak is a member of the Little Thoughts Group, a collective of 20 industrial designers, which explores and challenges the known perception of industrial and product design. For more information on the group, please visit their website at littlethoughts.org

This article has actually been sitting as a draft for a few months now. I knew I wanted to write a follow up to the popular (49 comments at the time of writing!) Design Thinking is Killing Creativity, however I held off, as I wanted to have some time to hear your feedback as well as look at the fall out of Design Thinking all over the Internet.

What was interesting was that I have been getting feedback that it sounds, from that last post, that I’m against Design Thinking. I have to say that on a cursory glance, that previous article did sound like I was bitching about Design Thinking.

So for the record, I like to say that I am not against Design Thinking. In fact I am fully for it and have said countless of times that I hope Design Thinking becomes a function within organizations so that there are more employment opportunities for graduate designers. What I am against is the way Design Thinking is being “pimped” as the next big thing and how everyone who is anyone is jumping on this bandwagon, rightly or wrongly.

In fact this article is all about fixing the problems with Design Thinking, assuming we all can agree there is a problem in the first place? What value I would have to the design community, if I just complained about it and did not offer some kind of solution?

Right, so now let’s get back to big can of worms shall we?

Design Thinking is Quite a Mess

So as I was saying, after the dust settled in my previous article, I have been involved in online forums and websites tracking this discussion and the sentiments from the bottom up. Sadly indeed, we can see that the Design Thinking is a mess and the confusion is huge.

Raymond Pirouz, in a similar Design Thinking discussion on Linkedin, shared a video of a panel of people discussing Design Thinking. You don’t have to watch it all the way through as it is pretty long, but after about 10 minutes you can tell that their definition of Design Thinking is, for lack of a better phrase, all over the place. It is clear that the panel members all have different opinions, influenced by their background and motivations, of what Design Thinking is.

The always-generous Rita Sue penned a reply to this video that I have shamelessly reproduced here:

The video is very enlightening. Such diversity of opinion about the same subject. No wonder it is such a hard job to explain all this to people in organizations who haven’t a clue. Actually, if they met the Jump guy one day, the Nestle guy another, and Nathan Shedroff another, they may just give up the idea of integrating design at a high level in their organization. It is very frustrating to talk to several experts with diverging opinions when you are trying to learn about what to you is virgin territory. How can you expect “civilians” to know how to move forward?

In the final analysis, I think there is not one way to do any of this. If any one of those points of view are introduced to a company and the activity is led by a very smart person, like one of them, I truly believe the design function/activity will get sorted out, be influenced by the culture, and influence the culture.

I had a friend (long dead) who was in a think tank in a top advertising agency and once wrote an article about how marketing got accepted into companies and or how internal marketing functions were built. It was a similar struggle. There were various configurations organizations adopted or developed for integrating marketing, which is now of course considered a vital function the way we all want design to be. Companies used to look to their ad agencies for their marketing expertise. I think it would be a useful exercise to uncover some of this info. Good discussion!

Indeed, in many ways Design Thinking is much like Marketing when it first had its day. During the early days, Marketing struggled to find acceptance and budgets to get things going. I remember discussing how Marketing ROI should be calculated, and have used similar techniques in my own discussions on Design ROI.

Design, a Core Function in Every Organization.

As mentioned briefly before, what I think should be happening is Design needs to be a function within an organization, core to any business. Just like finance, human resource etc. organizations serious in leveraging the value of design should not try to do it on its own, but hire the relevant people trained or skilled to do the job. My dream is to see companies hiring designers as leaders to drive that function. I’m not implying that this function should be lead by designers only, but I’m more of a view that this is a specialist job, like a CPA, so get people with the right skills and designers at this time seem to be the better choice. Though I do know of very suitable candidates that don’t have a classical design background but have been in the industry for a long time.

Raymond Pirouz, a lecturer in design strategy, also shared that he teaches MBAs design appreciation and design’s application to business strategy. This is similar to my previous comment and seems to be the right way to go. Indeed this would also fall inline with how MBAs learn to understand and appreciate finance, accounting, HR and even logistics.

In this manner we can reduce the backlash of businesses questioning the value of design thinking. Having a designer (or someone suitably trained) entrenched in an organization, responsible for looking after and managing the design process, will allow everyone instead to focus on the results and getting the job done, rather then getting bogged down in the semantics of the Design Thinking process.

It should seem by now, that the way we defined Design Thinking is getting less and less important. Still, if we need to get the man on the street to better appreciate Design Thinking we might need to also rethink how we approach educating the masses on design thinking.

Design Thinking + Design Doing = (Just) Design?

So, in my view, one of the big problems with Design Thinking is the overemphasis on the process. If now we should be focusing on results, then we really need to get back to design (doing) and coming out with meaningful solutions. Furthermore, Design Thinking is but one of the many tools available and should be seen and accepted that creative work is part of a larger system and not some magical panacea.

Ariel Guers writes:

From what I can tell (finishing Ph.D. thesis on decision making in design) Design Thinking cannot really be separated from design doing when the design problem can be characterized as a wicked problem. If you talk about simpler problems, for sure you could separate these two states.

To be able to generate “creative” (very complex term btw) solutions you need to have some kind of artistry (Donald Schön’s term), this artistry is acquired through lots of practice (reflection in-action and on-action). A couple of workshop with post-it are just not enough to turn you into a designer.

Also, according to my own research and understanding of several other researchers (Dorst, Cross or Lawson for instance) designers think in a very different way than what Design Thinking puts forward. Designers usually consider a *very limited* set of alternatives and develop guiding principles right from the start. They don’t postpone judgment and decision making in order to open-up to new alternatives, they rapidly create a rough (partial) solution (to a partially defined problem) and move forward to see what else they can learn about the problem, through iterations. Actually, it’s more complicated than this, of course, but I leave it like that for brevity’s sake.

Before we conclude this article with the few points on how we can fix Design Thinking, lets take a look at a quote by Roberto Verganti in a very awesome article on Core77 titled: Design Thinking Everywhere and Nowhere.

Let’s agree that all of humanity are designers, and that design is one of the things that separates us from the apes. As Jonathan Ive put it: ‘Design is not important. Good design is important.’

First, when we talk of designers, we usually mean professional designers, who have reached an accepted level of competence. They have survived a Darwinian selection process (there are far more graduates than jobs) and have clocked up well over 10,000 hours of practice on projects. We should remember that designers learn by doing, not by learning and practicing a theory, designing involves a lot more tacit knowledge than in other areas of business. It’s therefore hard to believe that senior managers can change their thinking habits of a lifetime after a workshop or two working with designers. And, to be frank, to suggest as much devalues what designers do.

Second, a key factor in creating good design that really does make a difference is great designers. These talented individuals are few and far between and provide critical competitive advantage. Let’s forget about Design Thinking as a magic process, and focus on how designers and managers should best work together to deliver great quality outputs.

He goes on to talk about how “user centered innovation is dead”, but that is another story.

So How Can We Fix the Problems of Design Thinking?

This is indeed a complex problem, that I don’t have a perfect solution. Perhaps Design Thinking needs some Design Thinking to fix it eh? But let me give it a go by synthesizing, then summarizing my key points above:

1) Teach Design Thinking with Design Doing.

2) Anchor Design Thinking as part of a larger holistic process.

3) Leave Design Thinking and managing the design process to the experts. Accept that, just like accounting, not everyone can do it.

4) Finally, call Design Thinking something else.

On that last point, I think Design Thinking has moved on and evolved partly because of this and many other discussions all over the world. I rather just call it Design, a noun, a verb, an action, a process and an object. What do you guy’s think, and do share your suggestions on how we can fix the problems of Design Thinking?

Recently, there has been a lot of buzz on the Internet about two similar events. What happened was basically this; The Masters of the Universe had proclaimed their decrees like dictators and the only thing the rest of the world could do was, for a lack of a better phrase, gnash their teeth in frustration.

The current king of micro blogging, Twitter, recently acquired Tweetie one of the best iPhone Apps on the iTunes store:

“We’re thrilled to announce that we’ve entered into an agreement with Atebits (aka Loren Brichter) to acquire Tweetie, a leading iPhone Twitter client. Tweetie will be renamed Twitter for iPhone and made free (currently $2.99) in the iTunes AppStore in the coming weeks. Loren will become a key member of our mobile team that is already having huge impact with device makers and service providers around the world.”
Source: Mashable

The key point of this discussion is highlighted in bold. Twitter decided that they needed an iPhone App, so not only did they purchase one and made it official, they made if free for all. This pretty much put many developers, who slaved over their own paid Twitter clients or applications, out of a job.

The next story should sit much closer to home for industrial designers.

Computing giant Apple, who topped Bloomberg’s 50 Most Innovative Companies in 2010, decided to ban Adobe flash on their iPhone and iPad platforms. Yep, this is the same Adobe who makes our beloved Photoshop and Illustrator tools. I won’t go into the merits of this decision, but suffice to say we are not going to see any cool websites with animations on our iPads.

But what I’m going to say is this: have we all gone collectively mad? Sorry guys, I’ve got a big rant coming.

If businesses are going to bet on creating solutions on platforms they do not own, they have to realize that this a huge business risk. When the platform owners change the rules of the game, everything pretty much goes down the drain and we will have likely no control or say over this decision. Oh, I can just see this story played out again with Facebook developers in the near future.

While software developers are only feeling the heat now, many product developers have been beaten black and blue for a long time now. I would say pretty much since the launch of the iPod. The multi-million dollar iPod/iPhone/iPad accessory market, suffers this same fate every 6 months when a new “i-something” gets launch. I though they get special privileges as official “i-something” developers with sneak peeks or development line charts. No way, they are just like everyone else! The moment Apple launches something new; they run like mad to be the first to get the next “i-condom” out.

Imagine living your life like this every 6 months? It sucks, but at least from what I hear the money is good.

Image: Freedomofcreation.

Making Apple accessories with simple molds and processes is one thing, but when you build entire product propositions around platforms you don’t own or control is risky indeed! Imagine dropping a $500,000 on an investment in manufacturing and part costs, and you can begin to see how risky it is in riding the Apple platform wave.

Despite these huge risks, companies are still jumping on the Apple bandwagon. It is almost as if Apple has defined the boundaries of the entire industry, and it is impossible to break out of it. For some examples, check out these recent Apple centric products making the rounds on the Internet. While they are nice designs, they do suffer from some of the risks I have highlighted above.

This iPhone desk phone dock by Kee Utility, looks great, and I’m sure fulfills a need, but the moment Apple decides to change their connectors or connection protocols it becomes a beautiful lump of recyclable plastic and metal. Especially when the product is completely useless without the iPhone in the dock.

This Parrot (Zikmu) speakers designed by Philippe Starck is jam packed with speakers, wireless electronics and Starck’s royalties. I’m pretty sure you can’t fit an iPad on it. I know that last comment is silly, but I think you get my drift.

This $300 Bowers and Wilkins P5 headphones produces great sound are just wonderfully retro styled. However it has an elaborate removable magnetic cover that allows access to a jack for interchangeable cables, one for an iPhone mic and the other without. While this product is not as high risk as some, the elaborately designed removable cover must have cost a bit of effort. This feature is really only necessary if you need to change the cables for the headphone’s use with an iPhone.

At the end of the day, product development is still risky business. Many businesses still see that if you have to put down a big investment in product development, you might as well bring in the Apple equation so that the risks can be better mitigated for a better chance of success. Finally as Apple’s track record has been impeccable of late, the lure of apparently easy money is really too strong to resist sometimes.

The question is what should strategic designers do? Encourage businesses to have faith in their own propositions, or ride the Apple wave? Whatever it is, it cannot be denied the reach and impact Apple has in consumer electronics today. Almost every product in the market has an “i-something” support of some kind.

Edit: As this is meant to be a living document, I have updated it to reflect my most recent thinking. The original was published on 26th March 2008, just over 2 years ago.

I used to see myself as a person who has an aesthetic that flows with the different trends of the time. Thus I never really thought of generating something holistic like this. Recently, I am starting to realize there is a lot of value in having some kind of personal design philosophy tucked away somewhere.

Similar to a mission statement, a personal design philosophy defines a designer’s view on life. Along the same lines of thinking, Dieter Rams’ 10 Design Commandments helped define him as a designer, and perhaps by identifying my own principles or laws, I could better define myself as well.

The other reason why I think this blog is a great place to put up my design principles, is that it allows this to be a living document that is constantly in Beta. So here we go, and please be gentle as this list is by no means final?

[ Good Design ] ~

1. is a good investment.
This originally started as “Good Design is Good Business” courtesy of Mr. Watson. However in today’s commercial environment, I belief most people understand this concept. Unfortunately not many actually see it as an investment that has tangible returns. Therefore most Return on Investment (ROI) calculations can be applied here. This means there has to be risk assessments, planning, budget controls, and long term goals set out. Design should never be just about making something look good and flogging it for extra cash.

2. is all encompassing.
Good design is all encompassing and unifying. It should not just be about the product or look. It should include every single aspect that revolves around a product, including things like user interface, packaging and branding etc.

3. does not exist in vacuum.
Nothing comes from nothing. I find the best designs works best for the context it was developed in. Good understanding of user needs, a critical insight on a problem, and a well-defined brief is important for producing the good design.

4. satisfies all requirements.
A design solution cannot be successful if it does not satisfy all the requirements of the user, business and development constraints. This is more about prioritizing rather than about compromise. Pick your fights, learn to negotiate, and make sure you win the war not the battle.

5. is beautiful.
I don’t think too much needs to be said here, except our visual sense is one of the strongest of our 5 senses. There is no justification for ugly and over styled products. In other words you cannot polish crap. So it is better to be self-critical always, rather than face the consequences when the market tells you otherwise.

6. is innovative, logical and clever.
Good design does not stop at being beautiful. Good design goes beyond aesthetics, as it also needs to be an innovative and clever solution that evokes an emotional response from the user. Good design just makes sense.

7. is intuitive and uncomplicated.
This is my latest addition. Leonardo Da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”. Making a product simple to use, intuitive and uncomplicated is probably one of the hardest things for a designer to do. It requires passion and dedication at every stage of the products’ development cycle.

8. is strategic.
This last one, I think is the most important. Design can and should be applied in all aspects of an organization. My favorite thought is that, Design should be a vital function in any organization, just like finance, accounting or logistics etc. This way Design is involved at the highest level of decision-making, and part of why an organization exists.

———-

So what do you think of my Principles of Good Design? I think it still needs some work, and can be made a lot simpler. I will leave it like this for now as I do intend to update this post from time to time. Also why not have your say by sharing your own Principles of Good Design for discussion? I look forward to hearing from you soon.

You might have probably heard everyone’s jaw drop after I mentioned this on Twitter over the weekend.

A fellow designer and I were discussing this in detail and jointly came to this disappointing conclusion. It was quite a significant conclusion and likely to be correct, as both of us were in positions to manage design processes and teams, and also shape and influence design centric business strategies.

I do not think that this epiphany happened as a result of this discussion. This was something that has been cooking at the back of my mind since design thinking started gaining traction in the competitive corporate environment. My thoughts include design thinking’s impact, its fallout, and its side effects.

This was really not an easy post to write, there were lots of information for me to manage and reorganize. As with any story, lets start from the beginning by looking at why design thinking was even needed in the first place?

Why Design Thinking?

I think A.G. Lafley says it best with the following two quotes on the difference between business and design thinking.

“Business schools tend to focus on inductive thinking (based on directly observable facts) and deductive thinking (logic and analysis, typically based on past evidence), …”

“Design schools emphasize abductive thinking—imagining what could be possible. This new thinking approach helps us challenge assumed constraints and add to ideas, versus discouraging them.” ~ Proctor & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley

(From The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation, Business Week 28 July 2008)

Businesses finally realized that in this hyper competitive environment, design thinking could help create the next big thing. Considering all the hard lessons learnt during the recent recession, businesses were more than ready for this change.

So designers (well at least some) are rejoicing that design thinking has finally reached the tipping point. The evidence is everywhere. Any business periodical worth its salt has some form of design coverage in the form of a segment, blog or at the very least a “design” tag.

Everyone was happy. So happy that we were even rolling with the confusion between big D Design and small d design. There is no denying that design, both the verb and noun, has finally got the recognition it needs by being firmly entrenched in the board room.

Everything Comes at a Cost?

For design to be so integrated into business processes, a huge divide had to be crossed, and different mindsets had to meet and meld. It became a prerequisite that design thinking had to be communicated in a language that the business can understand.

That, in my humble opinion, was the beginning of the end.

As design thinking moved closer across the chasm to the business, it further evolved and started to inherit the problems that businesses so hoped that design thinking would solve and move beyond.

For one, design thinking’s consumer focused methodology was used to validate rather than predict. We explored a similar discussion in the post “user centered design is dead”. We were now asking consumers “What Next”, instead of leading with compelling and meaningful solutions. As a result, we just kept on optimizing rather than innovating.

Design could have stepped in to reverse this. However I believe instead of getting easier, it got harder. Perhaps now design and business are just too close, and being too close has its disadvantages as people start taking each other for granted.

The popularity of crowd sourcing did not help. Together with the Internet, market research now becomes scalable with access to truly statistical significant data. Now suddenly businesses have access to large amounts of information and data, and logically old habits die-hard. The real failure here is when businesses validate solutions (anchored by design thinking) with data compiled from existing solutions.

Furthermore in the 5 or so years since design thinking made it big in the boardroom, I’ve experienced over and over again business ROI getting the better of design thinking. Awesome product propositions anchored by critical insight, technology, and business potential, gets killed or watered down because risk adverse businesses believe they can’t sell enough to justify the product’s existence.

Sigh. At the end of the day though all is not lost as well-informed designers can still negotiate around and resolve such hazards.

Design Thinking Packaged like a Happy Meal

The last straw came when I realized that the design thinking process had now become a nice little packaged “product”. A nice curriculum taught in schools and universities, spread in droves by business consultants eager to jump on what was now the next big business trend. Just like JIT, Six Sigma and ISO certifications etc, design thinking was now being structurally deployed like another other business process in organizations far and wide.

What makes it worst is when people from such design thinking integrated organizations are debating the right or wrong way in conducting Design Thinking. I wonder if they forgot that it is not about a right or wrong process but a right or wrong solution.

Dictating design thinking as a sequential step-by-step process is ripe for failure in the creativity and solutions department. This is probably why after half a decade; the companies that are creating innovative products continue to be the usual suspects. The same old brands that have been doing so even before Design Thinking had its day. Therefore I feel design thinking has not produced the results the business has been hoping for, and despite the best efforts, design thinking will continue to be something only a few can do well.

Furthermore design thinkers that have not been classically trained in design “doing” will likely not realize that great innovative solutions don’t come at the end of the process; they come from any part of the process.

Design is an iterative activity that only has broad guidelines but no fixed process. What’s more important is that critical insights, sensitivity to consumer needs and beautiful solutions comes from the creative chaos encouraged by an open design process. All of this got killed when the business mindset required design thinking to have structure, repeatability, and reliability.

Time to Move on, Nothing to see Here!

I think it’s time for all of us to move on. Design thinking should not be seen as the end all, but part of a number of design tools businesses can employ. Therefore I have always contested, from the beginning, that designers should lead such efforts. This is because classically trained designers have the ability to able to deal with chaos and manage risk; something the business needs help with. All the more so, as it is from within this chaos that paradigm-shifting ideas will come. That is where the Holy Grail really resides.

———-

Phew! What a beast of an article, and I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I did writing it. Please do excuse the grammar (which I went back to fix), as it was 2am when I struggled to complete this post. As always, I’m looking forward to your feedback.

Edit: Check out the follow up post: How Can We Fix the Problems of Design Thinking?

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?

Note: This editorial was written for Yanko Design (YD) in my capacity as Industry Consultant for that website. As there are some Design Sojourn readers don’t really frequent YD, it would make sense to republished the article here. Looking forward to all your comments.

It is with a hard heart that I write this post today. The Pocket Light by Hyun Jin Yoon and Eun Hak Lee (Ryan Harc), was stolen, produced and sold, unlicensed, under another brand. I do not condone such activities and urge all readers to boycott any fake Pocket Lights you may encounter.

Original Pocket Light

Fake Pocket Light

Moving forward, we could speculate 101 ways how and why Ryan Harc’s design was stolen, but ultimately it does not matter. What really matters is the fallout of such a situation, the impact of it on the designers and the design industry.

In many ways the Internet is a new medium when it comes to the management of intellectual property. Many designers are still struggling to reconcile its power of reach versus the need to control information flow. Here are some of my thoughts on how you can manage your creative content on the Internet.

1) Managing Expectations

Whenever a design is shown to the public there is a chance it could get ripped off. Design awards, graduation shows, public critiques, discussions with model makers, even obtaining costing for prototypes are all possible avenues where a design could get stolen.

The Internet is no different. In fact, because of the power of the Internet’s reach, the chance could be higher. However I do find it interesting that designers take more precautions showing work at graduation shows or manufacturers than on the Internet.

This being said, I have to say that the case of the copied Pocket Light happens rarely, especially if the stolen design was just a concept. The reason because the additional work required in taking a concept to an actual product requires far more effort than just coming up with an idea. In many cases it is very difficult to do if the designer that came up with the idea is not part of the development team.

That’s why people often tend to rip off finished products like LV bags or Vertu phones. All the hard work has already been done, all you need to do is just reverse engineer it. Oh, and there is that brand element as well.

So how or why did the Pocket Light get stolen? My guess is that it was “The Perfect Storm”. So happens that a manufacturer or a brand had access to all the right ingredients and be in a position to take up that idea and convert it quickly and easily into a product. In my opinion it was just sheer bad luck on the part of Ryan Harc.

2) So then why would anyone want to post his or her designs on the Internet?

There are actually a number of reasons, but the trick here is making sure you figure out “why?” before you do so.

The first and most common reason is credibility. Budding designers or design studios looking to make a name for themselves often share online self initiated design projects with the aim of getting their talent discovered.

If this were your objective, then getting a design copied would then fall in the realm of “imitation is the best form of flattery.” It is unfortunate, but consider milking it for all its worth.

The next reason designers publish designs online is that they are looking for a job. Most of the time these designs are portfolio work that have already been introduced in the market. However there are designers that would include personal design projects or submissions to design competitions hoping to show potential employers the breath of their talent.

The final last two reasons are closely link. That is, designers intending to sell a product or the rights to a design for production. If this is indeed your objective, you should ensure that you have taken the relevant intellectual property protection like patents or design registrations.

An important thing to note is that these 4 points are mutually exclusive. You cannot hope to “gain credibility” and also aim to “sell your design”. Both require different mindsets, and to combine the two is a recipe for disappointment.

3) So what can we do to protect ourselves?

I’m no expert on intellectual property, but by understand the gist of what it can do for you widens your options. Do research the details of Utility Patents, Design Registrations and Trademarks at your nearest Intellectual Property Office as soon as you can.

But for the purpose of this discussion, let us look at IP more from a strategic angle; is IP really needed for what you want to do?

An old employer of mine has this policy on patents. If an idea or invention could be licensed to another party for royalties, then it is worth taking the effort to get a patent. Why is this so? It makes perfect sense when you look at patents from a business point of view.

In certain cases the cost for a patent could come in at USD $30,000-50,000(for a worldwide coverage) or more. This does not include things like patent searches, legal fees and other incidentals. So if you look at it from an ROI (Return on Investment) perspective it just doesn’t not make sense. More so when you consider that most patents are applied on inventions before they are even launched or market proven.

I’m not saying don’t patent your idea. If you think you have a killer idea or invention, then you should really consider investing in a patent. The hard part is figuring out if the idea is really worth it.

Now this comes to the next part of the patent equation. Lets say you managed to pull together $30,000 and got yourself a patent. You now have peace of mind. You launch your product and it becomes a small success. The success is small enough that you don’t rest on your laurels but big enough for the rest of the world to take notice that it is now market proven. Soon cheap imitations start to flood the market while you are struggling to grow your business. The question now is do you have the financial muscle or just simply the willpower to enforce your patent?

Many inventors I have spoken to shared with me that patents are really just for a peace of mind. In certain cases they are useful, in other times, too much of a good thing. At the end of the day the decision is really yours but be aware of what it can do for you, and weigh the pros and cons of that hefty investment.

4) So what shall we do now?

Let me now share with you 4 suggestions on what I think designers can do, considering the landscape I have outlined above.

a) Share it, Get famous and Move on.
Most designers would fall under this category. So when you share designs, you do it to share and celebrate the cleverness of the idea. You may also do it for karma, and in the hope that by sharing, karma comes back to you as fame and maybe even fortune. But at the end of the day you are realistic, you expect nothing in return and quickly move on to the next big idea you come up with.

b) Make it, Share it, Sell it, and Get Out!
One thing about patents they never talk about is that it can be circumvented. There is no guarantee that someone will not takes your idea, modify it and sell it as a better alternative. So one way to play it is that if you think you have a good idea and want to capitalize on it; then a way to do it is to make your money and get out.

I planned my iPoor T-Shirt project with this strategy in mind. I knew the idea had merit, but with the product being a T-Shirt with a simple silkscreen graphic, I knew anyone could easily copy it. So I hatched a plan to make the iPoor T-Shirt in limited quantities and once it sold out, I’m out of the game. This strategy also forces you to ensure costs, margins and return on investment all work they way you want it.

c) Share it to Stake your Claim to the World.
I’m sure you can relate to my situation. I’m an employed designer, struggling to make ends meet, but I have ideas and some savings to invest in it. So how can I leverage on the power of the Internet to help me? I know I can’t afford a patent, so what do I do? I share it and stake my claim to the world, and if the design gets ripped off people will hopefully “do the right thing”.

My Spaces for Ideas Sketchbook is one such project, where by engaging my readers for feedback and getting them to be part of the development process, I hope to build a following of people that have a strong relationship with the product. Furthermore, by showing my process and prototype, there is no doubt as who came up with the idea first and when.

As a side note, the final design has not been revealed as it is in the process of getting a Design Registration. This is an alternative to a patent and not as expensive. Did I mention to Google Design Registrations?

d) Go under the Radar
My last suggestion does depend on the nature of your product, design or invention. Akin to much of the things you will find on Etsy, going “under the radar” means you build a design so niche, unusual to make, or not inline to existing standard processes that it becomes difficult to copy.

My Un-p3 Mp3 project was an experimental project aimed at exploring unusual manufacturing or creation processes with consumer electronics. A prominent design magazine in China was interested in showcasing this project, particularly on how I came up with the idea and built it. Needless to say I was not too keen.

—–

I’m sure there are many more strategies or things you can think of or do, for example creating a unique brand, but I think many of them are out of the reach of the small organizations or partnerships. Regardless I look forward to hearing your feedback and also any of your own ideas and suggestions you may have.

I like to leave you with a few closing words. Despite your best plans, and perhaps even a Patent, your designs or inventions are never 100% safe. It could get ripped off anywhere, even in your own design studio. But take heart with something someone once told me: People can copy our ideas, but they can never copy how we came up with them.

At the end of last year I was planning to write a post that was something like “The Best Products of 2009″ or “The 2009 Product of the Year” or even “The Best Products of the Decade”. After asking my twitter friends and designers what they thought, and compiling their feedback and suggestions, I realize this did not make sense, as I was not in a position to actually trial enough products to make an accurate call.

Not only that, I realized that the Internet was littered with such product “Oscar Awards”. Unfazed, I decided to instead focus on something that is closer to the core focus of this site. Design strategy and direction.

At the same time while I was drafting the content of this post, I was contacted by the PR folks from Waggner Edstrom, and asked if I would be interested to take part as 1 of the 5 expert panelist in an event organized by HP + Microsoft called Future Is. They asked me if I would be interested to share what I thought the Future Is from the perspective of an industrial designer.

As with most weird cosmic convergences, I was more than happy to share, last Saturday, my 11 Design Strategies of the Next Decade on this public platform but I only managed to share 1 out of my 11 strategies during the panel discussion. However the sideshow above contains the full 11 strategies and thus you will get to read the entire presentation instead of being there.

Besides only having 5 minutes to present, the reason why the full slide presentation is published here was that HP would like to take this discussion online and engage the world’s budding design futurists. HP would like to hear your thoughts on what the Future Is to you?

Now to encourage you guys to stop lurking and start sharing, I am giving away a HP Mini 5101 for the best comment, which I will select. Comments from regular readers get extra brownie points! (Just Kidding)

If only it was that easy! The other 4 bloggers will also share their thoughts online and only the contributors of the best, most interesting and vibrant discussion will get a chance to win this giveaway! So do start writing, tweeting and passing the word around! But most of all I hope you will enjoy the article and the conversations that follow.

Disclaimer 1: It seems that if the judges pick this as the winning discussion, I get to win a HP Envy 15. So if you win, I win! As I’m in the market for a PC and I have a belly to feed, this will really help me out! (Heh-heh no pressure!)

Disclaimer 2: I intentionally left Green out of the presentation as I consider Green is a basic “hygiene factor” i.e. a must do in the next decade.

Image by Rob Warde

Wow what a year 2009 was? We got hit right in the face by the economic down turn and designers all over the world were falling like flies as companies cut R&D or design budgets in response to a drop in consumer spending.

While we all tighten our belts and expected the worst, I saw 2009 as a humongous opportunity to position a brand, company and even ourselves, so that we can be well prepared for the recovery and be miles ahead of the competition.

Being a glass half full kind of guy, I was sort of glad that 2009 happened. 2009 got us to sit up and reconsider our spending habits, almost managed to purge the world of dodgy finance, and in a spectacular Darwinian fashion only the fittest company survived. However despite this, I’m glad 2009 is over and am really looking forward to flying start in 2010.

I’m sure you are equally well positioned to leverage on this so called “V” shaped recession/recovery, because you are reading this post or have been following this blog! If you have been walking this learning journey with me you would likely be as ready as I am!

With that, let me share my 5 things I wish for in 2010:

1) Another brand becomes synonymous with design and innovation like Apple

Apple has done a fantastic job since the maestro Steve Jobs retook the helm as CEO. Their design-focused organization reaped the rewards of their effort by turning in a fantastic profit even during a recession.

However, while Apple is the king of the hill in design and innovation, I am keen to see another company, not necessary a competitor, be considered an equal peer to Apple. Dyson or Oakley probably comes close, but considering Apple’s dedicated fan base and universal appeal, they still lack behind.

It’s really not that difficult to build a design focused organization and everyone seems to know what to do. But organizations will still struggle as long as design is seen as “one” of the processes. Design needs to be part of a cultural mindset and something that has to be entrenched in the DNA of the organization before “it” can happen.

2) Design Thinking moves to a higher level of credibility and trust

I sincerely hope that in 2010, Design Thinking really sorts itself out. The competence gets defined properly, practitioners suitably qualified, and the results justify its investment. In other words Design Thinking really becomes a means to an end.

Furthermore, I like to see more designers get involved in Design Thinking, picking up the skills necessary to bridge the gap. In my mind Design and Design Thinking are two sides of the same coin. Therefore I believe designers are best suited to grow and be part of this competence as they have the right foundation anyway. What they need is to pick up the right skills to communicate what they have been trained for.

Eventually I see this as a great career opportunity for designers, especially if Design Thinking moves into organizations that do not traditionally hire designers. It means more work for all of us!

3) Brands realize that people are not stupid

Businesses have always known this but somehow live in denial. They continue to deliver product propositions that don’t make sense. With the Internet allowing both wide and in depth access to information; brands and businesses have to realize that you can no longer expect to “sell ice to an eskimo”.

This fact was brought into sharp relieve in 2009 when the cash strapped, informed and savvy consumer only bought products that made sense or are the best their money can buy. Again it’s survival of the fittest, Apple turned a profit and Dell tanked.

4) People grow immune to consumerism

Conversely, consumers need to adopt more sustainable behaviors and better manage their consumption habits. To a certain extent, businesses that flood the market with product dribble can still get away with this, as there are consumers that are still buy said dribble. When there is a willing buyer, there will always be a willing seller.

I was appalled during this Christmas season at the number of shops flogging, for the lack of a better word, crap. On sale were cigarette lighters crossed with Swiss army knives, head bobbing figurines, phone charms, color changing light pipes, 1001+ pouches for all occasions, digital clocks, FM radio statues and teddy bears at the end of a pens etc. To top it off this “marketplace” was the busiest and noisiest place in the entire mall.

Really do we really need all this stuff?

5) Sustainability becomes part of the brief

I’ll be straight with all of you. We can easily create sustainable products. So why don’t we do it more frequently? Because it requires additional (in fact a lot of) time and effort to ensure all the factors are in place to make a product sustainable.

So in the hum drum of daily business financials, cost management, and shorter product lead times; sustainable discussions often fall by the way side. Compounded by the inertia of large organizations, moving towards sustainable product solutions will be a slow process indeed.

However I believe we can get more than half way there if sustainability is made part of the product brief. The other half would be motivation. I sincerely hope that sustainability becomes a habit, but it is still a very tough discussion. As off right now, sustainability does not gel with economics.

But we will need to persevere for our children’s sake. When we can get more people to be part of the solution, sustainability in products will be easier to implement. When sustainability finally moves to a critical mass, it will then take off, as economics of scale will now be our friend.

———-

Well that’s my 5 wishes for 2010, a year that I can’t wait for, as I expect it to be really exciting! What about you? What do you hope or wish for yourself, career, design profession or industry? I look forward to hearing from you!