Saturday, July 12, 2008

DQ: the multiplicity of the Design Quotient

As I was looking at how this concept of DQ can be developed further, I remember a post that I read in a blog somewhere about the need to have the T-shaped designer, one who would be imbued with the artistic flair of an artist, the technical wizardry of an engineer, yet has that aesthetics intellect to mash this two together into something that is marketable, sellable and most importantly, profitable!

So perhaps I can take a leaf from this need to have a T-shaped designer, and start off at with this post by looking at the pluralistic domain requirement when one wants to decipher the latent Design Quotient (DQ) of any individual. Does that mean that one has to be be good in all the 3 areas mentioned above in order to score a higher grading in DQ. On the contrary, rather than measuring one's ability as a grading of sorts, what I would love to see is perhaps a 'softer' approach to this! Perhaps when one talks about DQ, or lack thereof, I would love to interpret it as something that is beyond just the sole domains of either designers, engineers, artists, marketeers, or all of the above. There must be some distinction in at least the interpretation of these indicators to at least give one's non-endowed ability in any of the areas above, but at least having that basic rudiments of appreciation in all of the above, to be at least be scoring a minimal value, at the very least.

Another idea that I have pertaining to DQ is perhaps looking at exploring this as a means for a more holistic approach to evaluate students who are in the fields of engineering or/and architecture, or its related fields! Coming from one who is a mechanical engineer by training, I do strongly feel that this is actually a very good evaluative tool of sorts for those who wants to embark on a technically-based career, or one that requires the convergence of the abovementioned skill sets. I mean seriously the last thing that we want is to see a terribly designed building or machinery, that is not even aesthetically pleasing, let alone a value-adding utilitiy tool for its target consumers!

Perhaps the T-shaped dimensionality that I touched on earlier can be explored a little deeper, with DQ be the contextual basis, for one to perhaps use or at least to start exploring this as a means for an evaluative model.

Which brings me to mind, why not then also use this as a yardstick for selecting students for a high-school design subject matter. I mean with the propogation of the idea that design education in high schools, in general, is usually reserved for the tail-end students in most high schools here, shouldn't there at least be some effort, by someone somewhere, to at least relook at this model or assumption again, and perhaps, do something about it, lest we have the Rosenthal effect on teachers being a root cause of the demoralisation of high-school design educators here! Hmmmm...

No comments: