the flip side – down with innovation

there’s a great article in ID magazine that rather shrewdly discusses the recent rise of innovation and design thinking in current cultural and business vernacular as a surrogate for design. Author Rick Poynor writes,
-
Design is now so important, it seems, that designers can no longer be trusted with it, and to make it absolutely clear that control has moved into someone else’s hands, design needs to be given a fancy new name. Call it design thinking. Call it innovation. “Everyone loves design but no one wants to call it design,” BusinessWeek’s Bruce Nussbaum informed the readers of Design Observer last year. “Top CEOs and managers want to call design something else—innovation. Innovation: that they are comfortable with. Design, well, it’s a little too wild and crazy for them.” Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, offers this prescription: “Businesspeople don’t just need to understand designers better—they need to become designers.
however, what does this mean for the discipline of design? while perhaps a bit harshly, poynor continues and makes a strong case for the validity of design as it stands/has stood historically as well as it’s role as a transdisciplinary broker of previously unavailable knowledge, process and insight. not design thinking, as such, but design.
-
The first step in the process of disempowering designers is to insinuate that, despite all that time at design school followed by years of doing the job, they have an incomplete grasp of design… Having written off designers as mere stylists with insufferable egos, whose sole aim is to impose their impractical excesses on long-suffering consumers whom they never trouble to consult, the way is clear for a new breed of intermediary to step up and take business’s hand. They might once have called themselves design consultants—the rhetoric is not so different—but today they are known as design thinkers and innovation experts. For these design-ovators, everything is subordinate to strategy. Design is one small cog in an elaborate analytical machine intended to dazzle prospective clients into believing that they are dealing with rigorous professionals who work with precise methodologies and defined, quantifiable outcomes.
and finally…
-
The problem that designers face now is the same problem they have faced all along: how to communicate with clients who lack a basic grounding in the visual arts and don’t seem to think it matters. Businesspeople don’t need to become designers. They need to learn that there are types of awareness and understanding expressed through visual form that even a team of the finest poets would be hard-pressed to summarize as a list of handy PowerPoint bullets. Music, dance, and the visual arts operate on a different plane from words. As Dori Tunstall, design teacher and anthropologist, says: “There is an inherent intelligence to beauty, which is about the depth and passion we feel for the world.” Design thinkers like to wax lyrical about the elegance of their strategic thinking as a form of design in its own right, as though this could ever be a substitute. They can keep it— in 2108, if there are museums then, no one will queue to see a strategy. Give me something tangible, something brilliant and extraordinary that illuminates our perception of what human life can be. For that, we still need designers.
hat tip to changeist for the link




“Design is one small cog in an elaborate analytical machine intended to dazzle prospective clients into believing that they are dealing with rigorous professionals who work with precise methodologies and defined, quantifiable outcomes.”
Sounds awfully familiar….. ;)
michelle
04/25/2008 at 9:36 am
Both innovation and design need to take additional *big* steps toward sensing better what the demand side needs, and move beyond being two approaches from the supply sides (strategy and product development, respectively, alongside marketing) meant to get more product into the pipeline.
Fortunately this greater attention to sensing happening more and more, but the article seems to shed light on a turf war to see who gets to have the big idea inside the company.
Scott Smith
04/25/2008 at 4:34 pm
@ michelle.. noooo. why would you say that?
@scott smith – there are 2 good points you’ve made. first off, yes, i think that the relationship design and innovation have with demand, perhaps more empathy and ability to translate the supply into value.
a discipline i see this happening is craft, where micro-production, creativity, agility and empathy could be thought of as defining characteristics of both the business model and process.
it’s less about the discussion of the discipline’s value for its own sake (which is a problem that both design and innovation can run into, but by no means fully characterizes them) and more about the ability to self-sustain through action…
or something…
michele
04/28/2008 at 9:55 am