It is quite an honor to be invited as a guest blogger on this site. I have followed Ralf’s blog for a while now and we have discovered that some of the issues I am looking at in my work very much relate to the concerns and interests of the participants of Vol. 2: design-management.de.
Before I will begin “rambling off,” I think it is only fair for you to learn a little bit more about me. I am writing from the city of Atlanta, where I have just recently returned after six years in Pittsburgh. I am quite happy about this since Atlanta is home to my beloved Falcons and Braves. And while I grew fond of the Steelers in Pittsburgh (sorry, Pirates, not a possibility), I did miss watching my favorite team’s matches.
Currently, I am finishing up my dissertation on organizational change through human-centered product development. I anticipate being one of the first PhDs in Design that the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon graduates this May. Depending on the day, I consider myself either a gutsy pioneer or a masochistic guinea pig. This is after all a rather young field and even among designers, the value of design research is still in dispute. There are encouraging signs though, and I do count this blog among them. So thank you for the opportunity to engage in a conversation.
What will I be talking about? What is my contribution?
There are several directions in which we can take this blog. Much on it depends on your interests, questions, comments, suggestions and perspectives. To begin the conversation, I will share with you what I am currently working on– a dissertation for a doctoral degree in design. This in itself might be a topic: What is a PhD in Design? How does one go about it? Why would designers want to engage in doctoral research? But of course, many of you would sooner or later ask: And what does this have to do with design management?
Well, a lot in my case. In fact, in my first chapter, I spend a significant amount of thought and words trying to come to terms with where design management comes from, what it accomplishes and where it falls short. Why am I doing this? Because like many of the readers on this blog, I am interested in learning about how design thinking and design methods apply to the organization itself. As we have seen over the past posts to Ralf’s blog, there is a big question as to what design thinking and design methods are.
In my methods chapter, I am pointing to the lack of existing case studies about design projects and how they contribute to a lack of understanding the activities that constitute designing. When I say case studies, I do not have in mind the glossy magazine and book pages that claim to “uncover” “real-life projects” or “design secrets.” I pitty the poor business student, manager or anyone else outside of design hoping to find answers about methods and thought in them. All they get to see are finished products and PR pieces that have more of a marketing function for both the designer and the product than an educational role. The fuzzy front end, the activities, the struggles, none of these are explained or communicated through these highly sterile aesthetic works. What we are left with is design equals magic. As a result, most people perceive of design only that which is linked to star designers, form and objects.
If there is such a thing as design thinking and design methods, we need to talk about it. Among the difficulties to talk– or even document– design thinking and design methods, is the concern that inadvertently by doing so, designing will be reduced to a formulaic activity. That is the fear that by describing design activities one takes the creativity out of design since much of what is happening in designing happens “between the lines.”
Actually, from what I see, just the opposite may be the case. For organizations, creativity is great but only as long as it can be applied efficiently and effectively. Thus, many organizations prefer to talk about the activities of designing as a “process” rather than as an “inquiry.” A process implies a particular outcome whereas an inquiry puts the outcome in question. When it comes to innovation, the “process” approach is problematic because organizations themselves have to change, too, in order to provide better products and experiences for their customers. A “process” effectively contains the creative potential within the activities that are defined to be part of the process. An inquiry, on the other hand, does not have such boundaries and can truly be effective within the organization.
My criticism with design management is, that it has so far, mostly looked at designing as a process, rather than an inquiry. And when we start talking about designing, we might just find the principles at work that are at the heart of every design project. In my upcoming blog, I will talk about a recent project I participated in. Unusual in its nature and context, I hope to encourage others to open up their own treasure box of experiences.
References:
IDSA. 2002 Design Secrets: Products: 50 Real-Life Projects Uncovered (Design Secrets
Series) by Industrial Designers Society of America, Rockport Publishers.
Industrial Design Society of America (IDSA). 2002. Design Secrets: Products: 50
Real-Life Projects Uncovered (Design Secrets Series), Rockport Publishers.
