 |
....
and do we still need (industrial) design as seperate
discipline? This was the thesis of a podium
discussion I recently participated on. A podium discussion
means you have a small group of people sit on a podium
discussing, in front of another group of people,
the audiance, who is waiting for something interesting to happen.
The discussion focussed on innovation and the role
of the (industrial) designer in the innovative process,
implicitly assuming innovation is typically an engineering
excersize. However, innovation basically is problem
solving. We all do that. Every day. What we call
innovation are the creatively new solutions to problems.
Still, it 'simply' is problem solving. What drives
us to innovative problem solving is the complexity
of the problem and the amount of urge to solve it.
Engineers are trained primarily in endurable/functional
problem solving. They are thinking inside the functional
box. Designers differ in that they are trained primarily
in creative/esthetic problem solving. They are trained
in thinking outside the (functional) box. To get
it to work, you can always find an engineer.
Without interdisciplinary,
no innovation
Not true. Interdisciplinary is not a precondition.
Anybody, working alone, narrowly educated, can be
innovative. However, an interdisciplinary team will
be more likely to innovative because of the many
different ways the problem is looked at. Innovation
is stimulated by a new way of looking at a problem.
New can be Ønew for the disciplinary¬. In biology,
studying ants, it was long known that simple tasks
to individuals could create complex behavior in
a group. It was completely new / innovative to apply
these ideas to informatics and mathematics.
Interdisciplinary is difficult
and time consuming
This is not true. And even if it was true, it should
not be a reason to avoid interdisciplinary. Mathematics
is difficult. Do we stop teaching it? But interdisciplinary
is not difficult; working together as a team is.
In working as a team there are two aspects that
complicate things: conflicting personalities - not
everybody can work well with everybody - and competition
- we all want to be the best are recognized for
it. Concerning conflicting personalities, an interdisciplinary
team more likely will have different people with
by definition of interdisciplinary different training/education,
but also with different interests, a different look
at live, etc. At a personal level, the creation
of the team will be difficult. Since we all consider
ourselves professionals, this is not an area many
of us are skilled and or trained in. At a professional
level, however, it will be easier to work with an
interdisciplinary team because each will have their
own ¥ clearly different from the other ¥ competence.
Professionally, competition ¥ blocking team work
¥ will be less, which will make the team function
better.
You can plan
innovation
True. You can select the problem where you feel
that you need to improve. You can plan what you
would like to address or at what area you would
like to be innovative. This is what companies are
doing (or should be - Potter argues that many companies
focus to much on cost cutting eroding differences
in positioning in the market). They are innovative
in an area which makes them different to the competitor.
Although the area of expertise/innovation can be
planned, it is not possible to plan time frames
and level of innovation ¥ is it a small twist/improvement
or truly ground breaking ¥ is more difficult, virtually
impossible, to predict in advance. This comes back
to people management and team creation.
In
the innovating process the designer has the task
to implement
I think this is based on the misunderstanding that
Innovation is limited to technology. Engineering
and design are different disciplines, only partly
overlapping. Nevertheless, both disciplines depend
on the other. A technical innovation requires a
designer afterwards to ensure the 'right background
colors'. Alternatively, innovative design requires
engineering to ensure that was is designed can be
produced/build. One does not follow the other. They
interact and challenge each other.
Research
in design renders the mythical creative designer
as normal working bee
Research and design are not that much different.
Design is seen as an -almost artistically - creative
process, research as very stuffy. However, research
is a very creative process as well. It is a continuos
process of questioning yourself, ideas, statements
etc. What-if, what-if, what-if. It requires a very
creative mind. Regretfully, there are very few designers
doing research. I know a hand-full. Consequently,
most research focuses on technology issues. Technical
improvement of some sort. Research in design would
place the technology in the world, in the context
of experience. It would address topics like perception
(not vision) or interaction (not construction).
But such issues are difficult to measure (or it
requires a very creative mind to measure them).
Research on these topics are few. For example, we
have done research in how to apply color to a specific
kind of graphical use interface to improve the use
of the system which resulted in a set of very concrete
guidelines on how to apply color. It still needs
a creative - or esthetically skilled - person to
arrive at a 'pleasant' design.
In
sum.....
The discussion was interesting, sometimes even sparkling
and I enjoyed participating. Myself, I mostly learned
that a significant objective of such discussions
is presentation of yourself or one of your project.
Silly me, I prepared myself on the content of the
discussion. |
|
