I concur about his idea of how good design makes you happy. But the pragmatist in me would also like to see design that makes the experience of the user using it happy too, rather than just be having that feeling at the visceral levels. On another note, I would love to have that teapot at my place!
Showing posts with label business of design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business of design. Show all posts
Monday, March 4, 2013
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Video: Design is in the Details #designology
"Design doesn't have to be about grand gestures, but can solve small, universal and overlooked problems." Paul Bennett, Chief Creative Officer, IDEO
I love the reframing of a storage system for children.
I love the reframing of a storage system for children.
Friday, April 29, 2011
The hospital that 'Pees'
 |
| Taken from: http://bit.ly/lQBfTi |
My colleagues and I had a meeting with some representatives from the newest hospital in Singapore, the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, and came away impressed with some of the health ideas and philosophies that they have infused, or trying to infuse, into their daily operations.
On a very macro level, what I love and find refreshing is their idea, or approach to what, and how should, a hospital be. Instead of just looking at a hospital as an institution to cure the sick and needy, the evolutionary idea that was surfaced is that the hospital should be a centre for health too, and in fact, should be a catalyst for healthy living. And this idea should be propounded beyond the 4 corners of the hospital, into the immediate community that resides close by. This idea of getting the hospital to be part of the community just sounded like the proposed idea of how mosques in Singapore were supposed to operate within this multi-racial and secular society of ours. Each mosque was supposed to be a leader, or take ownership in matters related to Islam and other family-related issues and matters, whilst of course, taking into account national and other religious agenda.
On an architectural level, the design of the 3 blocks that makes up the hospital is indeed functionally impressive. Their 3-step approach towards customer orientation, their time-limited consideration for patients/visitors to be able to be at a certain location, within the hospital complex, their integrative approach towards 'integrating' the water body next door into their overall landscaping works...all these seems to be really an excellent testimony about their seriousness towards achieving a more holistic and evolutionary idea about what healthy living is all about....and more importantly, about how health should be approached and how a hospital is supposed to operate, currently and for the future!
I also loved their idea of the 3P's...especially in the areas of geriatrics. The first P, being PRODUCT, looks at the most basic and perhaps, 'superficial' level....that some problems or situations could be resolved by designing and making A PHYSICAL PRODUCT. Beyond this, the second P being PROCESS, is somewhat pitched at a more conceptual level. Perhaps this is something similar to what I am trying to infuse into my lessons...that sometimes problems should be identified beyond just the symptomatic or superficial levels, into its root cause! So perhaps process here involves beyond just the mere physicality or tangibility of products as solutions or probable solutions; beyond that there could be process-related issues that are best resolved in order to achieve the most complete or effective solutions. On the last level of P, being PEOPLE, I thought is somewhat true as beyond just the manifestations of a product or a process, it is indeed people that would be the true changers and perhaps, solutions to most problems. Changes in attitudes, lifestyles, perceptions....all these are people-related situations that are complex in nature, but not necessarily impossible to achieve a change in, in order to realise a win-win outcome.
I walked away from the meeting still feeling floored and amazed at the ideas that they are working on, and I hope that the programme that my team and me are currently working on with them could bear even more 'fruits', to enable my students to understand better, about what is at stake for them, in their 'Elderly Challenge' journey.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Design? by Design Says Hello
An interesting peek into the design industry in Singapore. And yes, comparatively we are still a relatively young industry over here. It would definitely take time to make the culture here to be more design-conscious, but at least this is a start to something more...I hope!
Friday, March 18, 2011
Designing for the constrained spaces of an airplane
It is interesting that in my plane trips, I tend to look at how the the overall designs of the spaces centring around the customers' experiences tend to be rather ingenius. Ingenius in the sort of way that they are still functional, but yet not necessarily lacking in its availability to pander to (almost) most of the usual needs that a passenger would want on a flight...and maybe more! Space constraits aside, I am always amused at firstly, the design of the aisle and the seats, of how a high degree of optimisation must have gone through the minds of the seat designers when they were conceptualising its designs. It certainly brought me back to the good old days during my post-graduate studies, when optimisation studies and operations research were 2 of my specialisation areas.
And who can forget the swiss-army-like concept in the toilets. The kind that perhaps would put some of our pulic toilets to shame. Barring the squeezy nature, what surprises me from an ergonomical and anthropometrical points of view is how everything seems to be within reach and arranged in a certain orderly yet logical way. However i would love it even more if they could just make the toilet roll a little more to the front of the seats, rather than at the back.
And who can forget meal-times, the sight of the stewardesses sashaying down the aisle to hand out the airline's version of MRE's (meals ready-to-eat) is usually a welcoming one to most (hungry) passengers, unless of course you were beginning to think that they must have been cooked by your evil mother-in-law from your previous live/marriage! And what surprises me about these meals was also about how some of the small design details that must have taken place back in the design studios. Two examples that I have managed to capture in my recent trips are as shown below.
The first picture shows how a portion of a cornflake meal is also packaged with enough milk at its top. Hence instead of having the flakes and milk as separate entities, they are combined in a single packaging.
The second one is a little easier to see, but what surprises me is the non-necessity of such design, but then it might just be my opinion. They perhaps dipped one end of the 2-pointed toothpick into a green dye, to allow its users to differentiate the different ends. Perhaps its a small gesture of design thinking, but it certainly was enough to make me wonder whether I might have missed out on anything else!
And perhaps I have....!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
And who can forget the swiss-army-like concept in the toilets. The kind that perhaps would put some of our pulic toilets to shame. Barring the squeezy nature, what surprises me from an ergonomical and anthropometrical points of view is how everything seems to be within reach and arranged in a certain orderly yet logical way. However i would love it even more if they could just make the toilet roll a little more to the front of the seats, rather than at the back.
And who can forget meal-times, the sight of the stewardesses sashaying down the aisle to hand out the airline's version of MRE's (meals ready-to-eat) is usually a welcoming one to most (hungry) passengers, unless of course you were beginning to think that they must have been cooked by your evil mother-in-law from your previous live/marriage! And what surprises me about these meals was also about how some of the small design details that must have taken place back in the design studios. Two examples that I have managed to capture in my recent trips are as shown below.
The first picture shows how a portion of a cornflake meal is also packaged with enough milk at its top. Hence instead of having the flakes and milk as separate entities, they are combined in a single packaging.
The second one is a little easier to see, but what surprises me is the non-necessity of such design, but then it might just be my opinion. They perhaps dipped one end of the 2-pointed toothpick into a green dye, to allow its users to differentiate the different ends. Perhaps its a small gesture of design thinking, but it certainly was enough to make me wonder whether I might have missed out on anything else!
And perhaps I have....!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Singapore
Monday, March 7, 2011
Reflections of the cynic...
 |
| The team posing for a picture with Janet Wozniak (front row, extreme right). I'm just behind her. Photo by Irfan Darian (2011) |
The irony of it, as a teacher, was that I had always had this believe that only students who were less able in their academic studies would be able to show true appreciation to what their teachers had done, especially when they had made it after their studies. But I was so totally wrong in that department!
What I saw was the true manifestation of what education was about. It didn't matter to me that some of them were not perfect in their presentations, or that their presentation boards were less than professionally done, or that they didn't look perfectly fitting in their somewhat oversized blazers (well at least for some of them), but what I did totally feel good about was in seeing how they had truly risen up to the occasion, when that much more was demanded out of them. And add to that...to pull all this off at a world stage when they were barely 2 years into their high-school education was truly a remarkable achievement indeed!
On another note, I was also mindful about this feeling of letting go. That 'butterfly-in-your-stomach' feeling that usually pervades in the minds, and bellies, of parents and teachers, and especially when they worry incessantly about how their charges were going to perform at THE event! I guess this feeling is natural indeed, and I am glad to say that my worries were totally unfounded. But then again, we can never ever let go completely...can we?
Alas, the event has come and gone, and what's left right now are the memories, and reflections. I am still reeling from the satisfaction, and to answer the question that Dan Pink had posed to the audience, about asking the 'Why's' instead of the 'How's' and the 'What's', to me at least, the 'why' of doing all of this, the stress and tiredness of getting all of them ready, all these was really and truly...about and for the students!
Signing off...the cynical idealist
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The 10 commandments of good design
This is an interesting take on what makes a design good. The 10 commandments of Good Design, by Dieter Rams:
1) Good design is INNOVATIVE: It does not copy existing product forms, nor does it produce any kind of novelty for the sake of it. The essence of innovation must be clearly seen in all functions of a product. The possibilities in this respect are by no means exhausted. Technological development keeps offering new chances for innovative solutions.
2) Good design make a product USEFUL: A product is bought in order to be used. It must serve a defined purpose – in both primary and additional functions. The most important task of design is to optimise the utility of a product.
3) Good design is aesthetic: The aesthetic quality of a product – and the fascination it inspires – is an integral part of its utility. Without doubt, it is uncomfortable and tiring to have to put up with products that are confusing, that get on your nerves, that you are unable to relate to. However, it has always been a hard task to argue about aesthetic quality, for two reasons.
Firstly, it is difficult to talk about anything visual, since words have a different meaning for different people.
Secondly, aesthetic quality deals with details, subtle shades, harmony and the equilibrium of a whole variety of visual elements. A good eye is required, schooled by years and years of experience, in order to be able to draw the right conclusion.
4) Good design helps a product to be UNDERSTOOD: It clarifies the structure of the product. Better still, it can make the product talk. At best, it is self-explanatory and saves you the long, tedious perusal of the operating manual.
5) Good design is UNOBTRUSIVE: Products that satisfy this criterion are tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained leaving room for the user’s self-expression.
6) Good design is HONEST: An honestly-designed product must not claim features – more innovative, more efficient, of higher value – it does not have. It must not influence or manipulate buyers and users.
7) Good design is DURABLE: It is nothing trendy that might be out-of-date tomorrow. This is one of the major differences between well-designed products and trivial objects for a waste-producing society. Waste must no longer be tolerated.
8) Good design is THOROUGH to the last detail: Thoroughness and accuracy of design are synonymous with the product and its functions, as seen through the eyes of the user.
9) Good design is CONCERNED with the ENVIRONMENT: Design must contribute towards a stable environment and a sensible use of raw materials. This means considering not only actual pollution, but also the visual pollution and destruction of our environment.
10) Good design is as LITTLE design as possible: Back to purity, back to simplicity.
Taken from http://www.vitsoe.com/en/gb/about/gooddesign
1) Good design is INNOVATIVE: It does not copy existing product forms, nor does it produce any kind of novelty for the sake of it. The essence of innovation must be clearly seen in all functions of a product. The possibilities in this respect are by no means exhausted. Technological development keeps offering new chances for innovative solutions.
2) Good design make a product USEFUL: A product is bought in order to be used. It must serve a defined purpose – in both primary and additional functions. The most important task of design is to optimise the utility of a product.
3) Good design is aesthetic: The aesthetic quality of a product – and the fascination it inspires – is an integral part of its utility. Without doubt, it is uncomfortable and tiring to have to put up with products that are confusing, that get on your nerves, that you are unable to relate to. However, it has always been a hard task to argue about aesthetic quality, for two reasons.
Firstly, it is difficult to talk about anything visual, since words have a different meaning for different people.
Secondly, aesthetic quality deals with details, subtle shades, harmony and the equilibrium of a whole variety of visual elements. A good eye is required, schooled by years and years of experience, in order to be able to draw the right conclusion.
4) Good design helps a product to be UNDERSTOOD: It clarifies the structure of the product. Better still, it can make the product talk. At best, it is self-explanatory and saves you the long, tedious perusal of the operating manual.
5) Good design is UNOBTRUSIVE: Products that satisfy this criterion are tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained leaving room for the user’s self-expression.
6) Good design is HONEST: An honestly-designed product must not claim features – more innovative, more efficient, of higher value – it does not have. It must not influence or manipulate buyers and users.
7) Good design is DURABLE: It is nothing trendy that might be out-of-date tomorrow. This is one of the major differences between well-designed products and trivial objects for a waste-producing society. Waste must no longer be tolerated.
8) Good design is THOROUGH to the last detail: Thoroughness and accuracy of design are synonymous with the product and its functions, as seen through the eyes of the user.
9) Good design is CONCERNED with the ENVIRONMENT: Design must contribute towards a stable environment and a sensible use of raw materials. This means considering not only actual pollution, but also the visual pollution and destruction of our environment.
10) Good design is as LITTLE design as possible: Back to purity, back to simplicity.
Taken from http://www.vitsoe.com/en/gb/about/gooddesign
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Repair Manifesto
I think it is especially during this economic times that product designers should be looking at making products that are not only affordable, but also 'repairable'. Because it is interesting to note that as the pace of technological developments quickens, the consumers can't help but feel the pressure of replacing their outdated products more often out of a sheer need for being up-to-date, rather than out of necessity. I was thinking that perhaps there should be a movement of sorts, or even a branch of engineering, or science, or even a derivative of one of them, that dwells into the creation of 'a more repairable' product. It would be interesting to note how such a branch of study will be motivation enough for mankind to look at alternatives of how to best use the already limited resources that they have, and are provided for! Perhaps it is high time too that technological development, especially in the areas of product development, should be looking at some of the ideas that I have shared way earlier during one of my earlier posts, the idea that perhaps we could future-proof some of the products too, perhaps designing a design or a product, or parts of it, that would be able to last a few generations of that product itself, or perhaps having a label of sorts, that labels a product as being made from 'recyclable' material, but this time round, not in the usual sense of the word of recycling, but more so that the current design and make up of the product being designed and made up of parts from the design of the previous iteration/generation of the product family! That would be interesting, wouldn't it?
Which brings me to this idea of the Repair Manifesto, that I took up from core77.com site. It is really an interesting idea!
Which brings me to this idea of the Repair Manifesto, that I took up from core77.com site. It is really an interesting idea!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Land of the Failing iPhone
Thanks to marketing hype, and the perpetuating marketing hyperdrive that seems to up the 'coolness' ante, the iPhone has grown to be the 3rd largest selling handphone set in the world. But it seriously fails in the land of the rising sun, where surprisingly, the iPhone is somewhat of a product failure! Wired writes an interesting article on why this is so (Taken from here):
Why the Japanese Hate the iPhone
By Brian X. Chen
Apple's iPhone has wowed most of the globe — but not Japan, where the handset is selling so poorly it's being offered for free.
What's wrong with the iPhone, from a Japanese perspective? Almost everything: the high monthly data plans that go with it, its paucity of features, the low-quality camera, the unfashionable design and the fact that it's not Japanese.
In an effort to boost business, Japanese carrier SoftBank this week launched the "iPhone for Everybody" campaign, which gives away the 8-GB model of the iPhone 3G if customers agree to a two-year contract.
"The pricing has been completely out of whack with market reality," said Global Crown Research analyst Tero Kuittinen in regard to Apple's iPhone prices internationally. "I think they [Apple and its partners overseas] are in the process of adjusting to local conditions."
Apple's iPhone is inarguably popular elsewhere: CEO Steve Jobs announced in October that the handset drove Apple to becoming the third-largest mobile supplier in the world, after selling 10 million units in 2008. However, even before the iPhone 3G's July launch in Japan, analysts were predicting the handset would fail to crack the Japanese market. Japan has been historically hostile toward western brands — including Nokia and Motorola, whose attempts to grab Japanese customers were futile.
Besides cultural opposition, Japanese citizens possess high, complex standards when it comes to cellphones. The country is famous for being ahead of its time when it comes to technology, and the iPhone just doesn't cut it. For example, Japanese handset users are extremely into video and photos — and the iPhone has neither a video camera nor multimedia text messaging. And a highlight feature many in Japan enjoy on their handset is a TV tuner, according to Kuittinen.
What else bugs the Japanese about the iPhone? The pricing plans, Kuittinen said. Japan's carrier environment is very competitive, which equates to relatively low monthly rates for handsets. The iPhone's monthly plan starts at about $60, which is too high compared to competitors, Kuittinen added.
And then there's the matter of compartmentalization. A large portion of Japanese citizens live with only a cellphone as their computing device — not a personal computer, said Hideshi Hamaguchi, a concept creator and chief operating officer of LUNARR. And the problem with the iPhone is it depends on a computer for syncing media and running software updates via iTunes.
"iPhone penetration is very high among the Mac users, but it has a huge physical and mental hurdle to the majority who just get used to live with their cellphone, which does not require PC for many services," Hamaguchi said.
Cellphones are also more of a fashion accessory in Japan than in the United States, according to Daiji Hirata, chief financial officer of News2u Corporation and creator of Japan's first wireless LAN.
So that would suggest that in Japan, carrying around an iPhone — an outdated handset compared to Japanese cellphones — could make you look pretty lame.
Take for example Nobi Hayashi, a journalist and author of Steve Jobs: The Greatest Creative Director. His cellular weapon of choice when he spoke to Wired.com June 2008? A Panasonic P905i, a fancy cellphone that doubles as a 3-inch TV. It also features 3-G, GPS, a 5.1-megapixel camera and motion sensors for Wii-style games.
"When I show this to visitors from the U.S, they're amazed," Hayashi told Wired.com. "They think there's no way anybody would want an iPhone in Japan. But that's only because I'm setting it up for them so that they can see the cool features."
Kuittinen said he's predicting Apple's next iPhone will have better photo capabilities, which could increase its odds of success in Japan. However, he said the monthly rates must be lowered as well.
Otherwise, Apple might as well say sayonara to Japan.
Why the Japanese Hate the iPhone
By Brian X. Chen
Apple's iPhone has wowed most of the globe — but not Japan, where the handset is selling so poorly it's being offered for free.
What's wrong with the iPhone, from a Japanese perspective? Almost everything: the high monthly data plans that go with it, its paucity of features, the low-quality camera, the unfashionable design and the fact that it's not Japanese.
In an effort to boost business, Japanese carrier SoftBank this week launched the "iPhone for Everybody" campaign, which gives away the 8-GB model of the iPhone 3G if customers agree to a two-year contract.
"The pricing has been completely out of whack with market reality," said Global Crown Research analyst Tero Kuittinen in regard to Apple's iPhone prices internationally. "I think they [Apple and its partners overseas] are in the process of adjusting to local conditions."
Apple's iPhone is inarguably popular elsewhere: CEO Steve Jobs announced in October that the handset drove Apple to becoming the third-largest mobile supplier in the world, after selling 10 million units in 2008. However, even before the iPhone 3G's July launch in Japan, analysts were predicting the handset would fail to crack the Japanese market. Japan has been historically hostile toward western brands — including Nokia and Motorola, whose attempts to grab Japanese customers were futile.
Besides cultural opposition, Japanese citizens possess high, complex standards when it comes to cellphones. The country is famous for being ahead of its time when it comes to technology, and the iPhone just doesn't cut it. For example, Japanese handset users are extremely into video and photos — and the iPhone has neither a video camera nor multimedia text messaging. And a highlight feature many in Japan enjoy on their handset is a TV tuner, according to Kuittinen.
What else bugs the Japanese about the iPhone? The pricing plans, Kuittinen said. Japan's carrier environment is very competitive, which equates to relatively low monthly rates for handsets. The iPhone's monthly plan starts at about $60, which is too high compared to competitors, Kuittinen added.
And then there's the matter of compartmentalization. A large portion of Japanese citizens live with only a cellphone as their computing device — not a personal computer, said Hideshi Hamaguchi, a concept creator and chief operating officer of LUNARR. And the problem with the iPhone is it depends on a computer for syncing media and running software updates via iTunes.
"iPhone penetration is very high among the Mac users, but it has a huge physical and mental hurdle to the majority who just get used to live with their cellphone, which does not require PC for many services," Hamaguchi said.
Cellphones are also more of a fashion accessory in Japan than in the United States, according to Daiji Hirata, chief financial officer of News2u Corporation and creator of Japan's first wireless LAN.
So that would suggest that in Japan, carrying around an iPhone — an outdated handset compared to Japanese cellphones — could make you look pretty lame.
Take for example Nobi Hayashi, a journalist and author of Steve Jobs: The Greatest Creative Director. His cellular weapon of choice when he spoke to Wired.com June 2008? A Panasonic P905i, a fancy cellphone that doubles as a 3-inch TV. It also features 3-G, GPS, a 5.1-megapixel camera and motion sensors for Wii-style games.
"When I show this to visitors from the U.S, they're amazed," Hayashi told Wired.com. "They think there's no way anybody would want an iPhone in Japan. But that's only because I'm setting it up for them so that they can see the cool features."
Kuittinen said he's predicting Apple's next iPhone will have better photo capabilities, which could increase its odds of success in Japan. However, he said the monthly rates must be lowered as well.
Otherwise, Apple might as well say sayonara to Japan.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What Design is supposed to be?
I came across this article on the 4 fields of Industrial Design from the core77.com site, and I must say that it is one of the best piece that I've ever read. I'd just like to share it with my readers here, whether designers or not. Original article, with pictures, is here. Enjoy and be enlightened...
The 4 Fields of Industrial Design: (No, not furniture, trans, consumer electronics, & toys), by Bruce M. Tharp and Stephanie M. Tharp
You do what?
"So, you design factory machines? Is that what you mean?" Many of us have switched from calling ourselves "industrial designers" to saying that we are "product designers." But the difficulty grows if your design work does not fall squarely inside the commercial realm—the experimental stuff, the artsy stuff, or not-for-profit stuff.
The confusions are understandable. Not only has the profession never had its own television series with a catchy abbreviated title to predicate popular understanding (E.R., CSI: NY, L.A. Law, Dr. 90201), but the discipline is relatively young, immensely broad, and ever expanding. What is hard to reckon with, however, is the confusion that exists even within the profession of industrial design: What activities do product designers recognize, champion, or even legitimize? What are the frameworks around our practice, and how are those communicated to the outside world?
Design is pretty much a mess. Just try and make sense of the range of the terms floating around out there: user-centered design, eco-design, design for the other 90%, universal design, sustainable design, interrogative design, task-centered design, reflective design, design for well-being, critical design, speculative design, speculative re-design...
Design is a mess
The problem is that design is pretty much a mess. Just try and make sense of the range of the terms floating around out there: user-centered design, eco-design, design for the other 90%, universal design, sustainable design, interrogative design, task-centered design, reflective design, design for well-being, critical design, speculative design, speculative re-design, emotional design, socially-responsible design, green design, conceptual design, concept design, slow design, dissident design, inclusive design, radical design, design for need, environmental design, contextual design, and transformative design.
Without a compelling, indeed, taxonomic, way of organizing design activity, we are selling ourselves short; we not only have difficulty understanding the profession ourselves, but also in communicating to the world our potency, range, and potential impact. In the end, we seem scattered and "designy"—in a less-than-flattering sense of the word.
As academics responsible for making sense of this jumble for our students then, we feel like those professional bic-a-brac organizers you see on daytime talk shows, confronting the tumult of someone's bloated car garage. So after some long days and a dumpster-load of capabilities lists, here we present everything neatly ordered onto 4 shelving units. Behold the Design Garage—a categorizing of designed-object activity into four primary fields: Commercial Design, Responsible Design, Experimental Design, and Discursive Design. Let's take a closer look at each, focusing on the drivers, criteria for success, and primary intents:
Commercial Design
Commercial Design is what is commonly understood as industrial/product design and comprises the overwhelming majority of our professional activity. This is design work oriented toward, and driven by, the market. Success is largely defined in economic terms—sufficient return on investment. The primary intent of the designer is to create useful, useable, and desirable products that customers can afford and that generate adequate profit.
With the iPhone, we have what is rudimentarily a gadget, be it seductive in form and sophisticated in function. It has proven quite profitable for Apple, as even between the announcement of its sale in January 2007 and the first days in the store, their stock value increased 65%, and then up to a 135% total increase by the end of the year.
And beyond the realm of gadgetry, Phillipe Starck's Louis Ghost chair for Kartell sold over 200,000 units in 2006. Now selling for $410 at the MoMA store, this could represent over $80,000,000 in retail sales. While just a (highly profitable) chair, Starck includes an element of "concept" in its design, capturing the spirit of classic Louis XV chair, but in 21st Century polycarbonate plastic. Aside from this perhaps "artistic" quality and intellectual content, it is still an object that was designed using cutting edge industrial processes for a mass market, with the chief intent of producing profit for Kartell.
The primary (though not only) driver of Commercial Design is to make money.
Responsible Design
Responsible Design encompasses what is largely understood as socially responsible design, driven by a more humanitarian notion of service. Here the designer works to provide a useful, useable, and desirable product to those who are largely ignored by the market. Issues such as ethics, compassion, altruism, and philanthropy surround the work, be it for users in developing or developed countries. While Responsible Design can and often does have a relation to the market—being "commercially available"—its primary intent is not a maximization of profit, but instead to serve the underserved.
The XO laptop of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program is a prime example that has garnered a great deal of press in recent years. It is typical in that the device is commercially available (to governments and aid organizations), though it is not conventional in its means of distribution nor with its philanthropic intent.
Another example that helps make the distinction from Commercial Design is the Ableware one-handed cutlery set, which with the aid of a spring mechanism cuts a bite-sized piece of food and allows it to be skewered on fork tines with a simple downward motion. With this product, amputees and people with limited dexterity are better able to feed themselves and live more independently. While this is a product that exists on the market, the impetus was compassion—this object is not highly profitable as the target audience is fairly limited. The designer's primary intention was one of service.
(It may be helpful to compare Ableware to OXO Goodgrips, where Sam Farber wanted to create a commercially viable mass product line around more comfortable and grip-able handles. While initially inspired by his wife, he saw a market opportunity of "20 million Americans like Betsy who suffered from arthritis" and subsequently "interviewed retailers and buyers to identify the best-selling and most important items" for the first OXO products. Responsible products certainly can be profitable, but we doubt that if Farber had not seen such a viable business opportunity he would have proceeded with his project. As such, Ableware is a more pure example of Responsible Design, and we would classify OXO as Commercial Design—primary intent—but one that also has a strong secondary concern for service to a somewhat ignored market.)
The primary (though not only) driver of Responsible Design is to help those in need.
Experimental Design
Experimental Design represents a fairly narrow swath within the broad field of design, and its primary intention is exploration, experimentation, and discovery. Experimental Design is defined perhaps more by its process than its outcome. In its purest form it is not driven by an overly specific end-goal of application, but instead is motivated by a curiosity—an inquiry into, for example: a technology, a manufacturing technique, a material, a concept, or an aesthetic issue. Much of the work at MIT's Media Lab is fairly typical of this kind of design: technological investigations that are often only obtusely practicable and relevant to the immediate and everyday. Just as with Responsible Design, a marketable object may eventually result from an experimental project, especially after refinement and after it is directed at a specific market. But the primary intent of Experimental Design is to explore possibilities with less regard for serving the market.
Front Design's Animals Project
Popular Swedish design group, Front Design, created their Animals Project as a way of exploring the possibilities of a non-humanly-mediated production process: "We asked animals to help us [design products]. 'Sure we'll help you out,' they answered. 'Make something nice,' we told them. And so they did."
What resulted were everyday objects: wallpaper that was "decorated" by a gnawing rat, a lamp cast from a rabbit's burrow, wall hooks that were formed by constricting snakes, a lampshade created after recording a fly's path around a light bulb, a vase created by casting the impression of a dog's leg in deep snow, and a table who's top is patterned by the paths of wood consuming beetles. None of these everyday products were commercialized; they were not intended to be viable products, but instead the product-form was the means through which they investigated ideas of randomness and mediation within the context of mass-production and everyday objects.
The primary (though not only) driver of the Experimental Design is to explore.
Discursive Design
Discursive Design refers to the creation of utilitarian objects whose primary purpose is to communicate ideas—they encourage discourse. These are tools for thinking; they raise awareness and perhaps understanding of substantive and often debatable issues of psychological, sociological, and ideological consequence. Discursive Design is the type of work that is generally less visible in the marketplace (though it can certainly exist there), but rather is most often seen in exhibition, print, and film. This is where design rubs up most closely against art. Importantly, however, these are objects of utility that carry ideas; in order to be considered design rather than art, they function (or could function) in the everyday world, but their discursive voice is what is most important and ultimately their reason for being.
The Placebo Project by Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby is a strong example of Discursive Design, where they wanted to raise awareness and debate regarding the role and costs of technology in contemporary life through the topic of Hertzian space—the engulfing fields of invisible electromagnetic waves generated by electrical devices. One object from the series is the Compass Table, which is an ordinary, unadorned wooden table whose top surface has been embedded with twenty-five simple, navigational compasses. The table functions as any other table would. However, when, for example, a cell phone sitting on the table rings, the compass needles begin to dance and make visible the electromagnetic waves that enter into the home and surround its occupants.
Another more literal example is with Brazilian designer, Rafael Morgan's Indigestive Plates. These are classic ceramic dinner plates that have a message about poverty and hunger printed in thermochromatic ink. At room temperature the plate seems conventional, but when a dinner guest begins to finish their hot meal, they are confronted with a message such as: "Every day 16,000 children die of hunger-related causes." Morgan imagines "what would happen if we disguise some of [these] plates in an expensive snob restaurant...or maybe in some important political meeting?" Here a product offers typical utility, but is foremost designed to instigate and quite literally carry a provocative message.
The primary (though not only) driver of Discursive Design is to express ideas.
The Overlap
In presenting the aforementioned product examples from the four fields, we chose more "pure" versions of each. As mentioned, this framework is based upon the primary intention of the designer, yet we fully recognize the reality of multiple motivations. It important to emphasize that the categories are not entirely distinct from one another—there is overlap.
In fact, it is rare for any product to be "pure," in the sense that it is a result of a single intention (e.g., profitability, service, experimentation, or voice). Most products are the result of multiple intentions, like OXO's interest in commercially successful mass-products that also serve the dexterously challenged.
A strong example of "impurity," or more appropriately, "hybridity" would be the Hug salt and pepper shakers designed by Alberto Mantilla. They are very successful commercially, and yet have a strong and intentional discursive voice. These are two shakers abstractly anthropomorphized, which differ only in color—one white and one black. The shakers, with their stubby arms, nest together appearing to hug each other. As described by the designer, "[Their] very nature...connotes brotherhood. The bold use of black and white suggests that we are all brothers and sisters on this planet and we need to treat each other with kindness, compassion and respect." To truly understand these as either a commercial object or a discursive object, it would be necessary to understand the primary intention of the designer, which cannot always be read from the objects—especially in hybrids. Along with this overlap, it should also be emphasized that all four fields represent relative- rather than ultimate-states; objects range in their commercial-, exploratory-, responsible-, and discursive-capacity.
So what?
It might be easy to respond to this conceptualization of four fields as an interesting contribution to design theory, but is it actionable in the "real" complex work of design practice? As authors/academics/designers who confront daily the theory/practice divide ourselves, we feel confident that there are important implications of such a framework for designers, the profession, and the consumers of design.
1. First, we know from experience with our students and many seasoned practitioners that there is a sense of comfort and even relief that comes from the legitimization of the range of their design work/ideas. There are many professionals who do "side work"—considering it "conceptual" and sometimes hiding it or sheepishly refering to as "design-art" on their websites. (This was the case at one point for Scott Wilson and Mike and Maaike, for example.) This four-field approach offers formal acknowledgement, and challenges the dominant legacy of 20th-century industrial design with its inextricable link to markets and its focus on "problem solving."
2. Similarly, once the range of design work is recognized and "sanctioned," forces can rally around it and move it toward full potential. In many ways this has happened in the last decade with Responsible Design. We now understand what it is, how it relates to the profession, and corporate pro-bono initiatives and groups like Project H are understood, championed, and are becoming more mainstream. We imagine that once the IDSA adds to their professional interest sections Discursive Design and Experimental Design groups, we will see the same kind of advances that have occurred since their establishment of responsible design sections such as Universal Design and Design for the Majority.
3. Since this framework is based upon design intention, its structure can help designers better understand and focus their projects. The fields help the designer get straight on their overall intention and how overlap or hybridity might help or hurt, as well as how the context of use/consumption comes into play.
4. Professionally, this scheme also helps Industrial/Product Design communicate with the world that it engages. Once we understand the various intentions and roles that we can take on, the better we can clarify and be taken as seriously as we often wish we would be. Those who work in staunchly commercial realms can easily distinguish their activity from the other forms, and vice-versa. Experimental Design or Discursive Design, which can resemble art or mere frivolity, have a means of expressing distinction and value in their activities.
5. The formal inclusion of other modes of design beyond the commercial moves us beyond the role of handmaiden to industry; our profession is seen as being able to serve along broader intellectual and social lines. It helps establish designers as important local and global citizens as well as influential cultural agents.
6. With this framework, consumers of design have a more established basis for understanding intentionality and therefore a basis for evaluation. Experimental and discursive work are often erroneously subjected to the same measures of success as commercial work (blog commentary is notorious for this). When consumers are aware of designers' intentions, then more effective communication results: the designer is better satisfied because an object's goals are understood, and the consumer can focus more precisely on what value they may extract from the work.
7. And finally, the consumer can see their role shift from a position of passivity (when striking an all-too-common commercial posture) to a more active engagement in work that intends on engaging the intellect or prompting debate.
Names and frameworks are powerful. Our hope is that understanding the design landscape through these four, simple categories—Commercial Design, Responsible Design, Experimental Design, and Discursive Design—will help the profession, our "consumers," and ourselves better understand design activity and ultimately its potential in an increasingly complex world of ideas and objects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educated as a mechanical engineer, industrial designer, and sociocultural anthropologist, Dr. Bruce M. Tharp (bruce.tharp[at]core77[dot]com), is an assistant professor of Designed Objects at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). He and his wife Stephanie Tharp (snmunson[at]uic[dot]edu), Associate Professor of Industrial Design at the University of Illinois-Chicago, are currently working on a book project, entitled Discursive Design. In addition to their academic work, they have a studio, materious, through which they create across all four fields of designed objects.
The 4 Fields of Industrial Design: (No, not furniture, trans, consumer electronics, & toys), by Bruce M. Tharp and Stephanie M. Tharp
You do what?
"So, you design factory machines? Is that what you mean?" Many of us have switched from calling ourselves "industrial designers" to saying that we are "product designers." But the difficulty grows if your design work does not fall squarely inside the commercial realm—the experimental stuff, the artsy stuff, or not-for-profit stuff.
The confusions are understandable. Not only has the profession never had its own television series with a catchy abbreviated title to predicate popular understanding (E.R., CSI: NY, L.A. Law, Dr. 90201), but the discipline is relatively young, immensely broad, and ever expanding. What is hard to reckon with, however, is the confusion that exists even within the profession of industrial design: What activities do product designers recognize, champion, or even legitimize? What are the frameworks around our practice, and how are those communicated to the outside world?
Design is pretty much a mess. Just try and make sense of the range of the terms floating around out there: user-centered design, eco-design, design for the other 90%, universal design, sustainable design, interrogative design, task-centered design, reflective design, design for well-being, critical design, speculative design, speculative re-design...
Design is a mess
The problem is that design is pretty much a mess. Just try and make sense of the range of the terms floating around out there: user-centered design, eco-design, design for the other 90%, universal design, sustainable design, interrogative design, task-centered design, reflective design, design for well-being, critical design, speculative design, speculative re-design, emotional design, socially-responsible design, green design, conceptual design, concept design, slow design, dissident design, inclusive design, radical design, design for need, environmental design, contextual design, and transformative design.
Without a compelling, indeed, taxonomic, way of organizing design activity, we are selling ourselves short; we not only have difficulty understanding the profession ourselves, but also in communicating to the world our potency, range, and potential impact. In the end, we seem scattered and "designy"—in a less-than-flattering sense of the word.
As academics responsible for making sense of this jumble for our students then, we feel like those professional bic-a-brac organizers you see on daytime talk shows, confronting the tumult of someone's bloated car garage. So after some long days and a dumpster-load of capabilities lists, here we present everything neatly ordered onto 4 shelving units. Behold the Design Garage—a categorizing of designed-object activity into four primary fields: Commercial Design, Responsible Design, Experimental Design, and Discursive Design. Let's take a closer look at each, focusing on the drivers, criteria for success, and primary intents:
Commercial Design
Commercial Design is what is commonly understood as industrial/product design and comprises the overwhelming majority of our professional activity. This is design work oriented toward, and driven by, the market. Success is largely defined in economic terms—sufficient return on investment. The primary intent of the designer is to create useful, useable, and desirable products that customers can afford and that generate adequate profit.
With the iPhone, we have what is rudimentarily a gadget, be it seductive in form and sophisticated in function. It has proven quite profitable for Apple, as even between the announcement of its sale in January 2007 and the first days in the store, their stock value increased 65%, and then up to a 135% total increase by the end of the year.
And beyond the realm of gadgetry, Phillipe Starck's Louis Ghost chair for Kartell sold over 200,000 units in 2006. Now selling for $410 at the MoMA store, this could represent over $80,000,000 in retail sales. While just a (highly profitable) chair, Starck includes an element of "concept" in its design, capturing the spirit of classic Louis XV chair, but in 21st Century polycarbonate plastic. Aside from this perhaps "artistic" quality and intellectual content, it is still an object that was designed using cutting edge industrial processes for a mass market, with the chief intent of producing profit for Kartell.
The primary (though not only) driver of Commercial Design is to make money.
Responsible Design
Responsible Design encompasses what is largely understood as socially responsible design, driven by a more humanitarian notion of service. Here the designer works to provide a useful, useable, and desirable product to those who are largely ignored by the market. Issues such as ethics, compassion, altruism, and philanthropy surround the work, be it for users in developing or developed countries. While Responsible Design can and often does have a relation to the market—being "commercially available"—its primary intent is not a maximization of profit, but instead to serve the underserved.
The XO laptop of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program is a prime example that has garnered a great deal of press in recent years. It is typical in that the device is commercially available (to governments and aid organizations), though it is not conventional in its means of distribution nor with its philanthropic intent.
Another example that helps make the distinction from Commercial Design is the Ableware one-handed cutlery set, which with the aid of a spring mechanism cuts a bite-sized piece of food and allows it to be skewered on fork tines with a simple downward motion. With this product, amputees and people with limited dexterity are better able to feed themselves and live more independently. While this is a product that exists on the market, the impetus was compassion—this object is not highly profitable as the target audience is fairly limited. The designer's primary intention was one of service.
(It may be helpful to compare Ableware to OXO Goodgrips, where Sam Farber wanted to create a commercially viable mass product line around more comfortable and grip-able handles. While initially inspired by his wife, he saw a market opportunity of "20 million Americans like Betsy who suffered from arthritis" and subsequently "interviewed retailers and buyers to identify the best-selling and most important items" for the first OXO products. Responsible products certainly can be profitable, but we doubt that if Farber had not seen such a viable business opportunity he would have proceeded with his project. As such, Ableware is a more pure example of Responsible Design, and we would classify OXO as Commercial Design—primary intent—but one that also has a strong secondary concern for service to a somewhat ignored market.)
The primary (though not only) driver of Responsible Design is to help those in need.
Experimental Design
Experimental Design represents a fairly narrow swath within the broad field of design, and its primary intention is exploration, experimentation, and discovery. Experimental Design is defined perhaps more by its process than its outcome. In its purest form it is not driven by an overly specific end-goal of application, but instead is motivated by a curiosity—an inquiry into, for example: a technology, a manufacturing technique, a material, a concept, or an aesthetic issue. Much of the work at MIT's Media Lab is fairly typical of this kind of design: technological investigations that are often only obtusely practicable and relevant to the immediate and everyday. Just as with Responsible Design, a marketable object may eventually result from an experimental project, especially after refinement and after it is directed at a specific market. But the primary intent of Experimental Design is to explore possibilities with less regard for serving the market.
Front Design's Animals Project
Popular Swedish design group, Front Design, created their Animals Project as a way of exploring the possibilities of a non-humanly-mediated production process: "We asked animals to help us [design products]. 'Sure we'll help you out,' they answered. 'Make something nice,' we told them. And so they did."
What resulted were everyday objects: wallpaper that was "decorated" by a gnawing rat, a lamp cast from a rabbit's burrow, wall hooks that were formed by constricting snakes, a lampshade created after recording a fly's path around a light bulb, a vase created by casting the impression of a dog's leg in deep snow, and a table who's top is patterned by the paths of wood consuming beetles. None of these everyday products were commercialized; they were not intended to be viable products, but instead the product-form was the means through which they investigated ideas of randomness and mediation within the context of mass-production and everyday objects.
The primary (though not only) driver of the Experimental Design is to explore.
Discursive Design
Discursive Design refers to the creation of utilitarian objects whose primary purpose is to communicate ideas—they encourage discourse. These are tools for thinking; they raise awareness and perhaps understanding of substantive and often debatable issues of psychological, sociological, and ideological consequence. Discursive Design is the type of work that is generally less visible in the marketplace (though it can certainly exist there), but rather is most often seen in exhibition, print, and film. This is where design rubs up most closely against art. Importantly, however, these are objects of utility that carry ideas; in order to be considered design rather than art, they function (or could function) in the everyday world, but their discursive voice is what is most important and ultimately their reason for being.
The Placebo Project by Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby is a strong example of Discursive Design, where they wanted to raise awareness and debate regarding the role and costs of technology in contemporary life through the topic of Hertzian space—the engulfing fields of invisible electromagnetic waves generated by electrical devices. One object from the series is the Compass Table, which is an ordinary, unadorned wooden table whose top surface has been embedded with twenty-five simple, navigational compasses. The table functions as any other table would. However, when, for example, a cell phone sitting on the table rings, the compass needles begin to dance and make visible the electromagnetic waves that enter into the home and surround its occupants.
Another more literal example is with Brazilian designer, Rafael Morgan's Indigestive Plates. These are classic ceramic dinner plates that have a message about poverty and hunger printed in thermochromatic ink. At room temperature the plate seems conventional, but when a dinner guest begins to finish their hot meal, they are confronted with a message such as: "Every day 16,000 children die of hunger-related causes." Morgan imagines "what would happen if we disguise some of [these] plates in an expensive snob restaurant...or maybe in some important political meeting?" Here a product offers typical utility, but is foremost designed to instigate and quite literally carry a provocative message.
The primary (though not only) driver of Discursive Design is to express ideas.
The Overlap
In presenting the aforementioned product examples from the four fields, we chose more "pure" versions of each. As mentioned, this framework is based upon the primary intention of the designer, yet we fully recognize the reality of multiple motivations. It important to emphasize that the categories are not entirely distinct from one another—there is overlap.
In fact, it is rare for any product to be "pure," in the sense that it is a result of a single intention (e.g., profitability, service, experimentation, or voice). Most products are the result of multiple intentions, like OXO's interest in commercially successful mass-products that also serve the dexterously challenged.
A strong example of "impurity," or more appropriately, "hybridity" would be the Hug salt and pepper shakers designed by Alberto Mantilla. They are very successful commercially, and yet have a strong and intentional discursive voice. These are two shakers abstractly anthropomorphized, which differ only in color—one white and one black. The shakers, with their stubby arms, nest together appearing to hug each other. As described by the designer, "[Their] very nature...connotes brotherhood. The bold use of black and white suggests that we are all brothers and sisters on this planet and we need to treat each other with kindness, compassion and respect." To truly understand these as either a commercial object or a discursive object, it would be necessary to understand the primary intention of the designer, which cannot always be read from the objects—especially in hybrids. Along with this overlap, it should also be emphasized that all four fields represent relative- rather than ultimate-states; objects range in their commercial-, exploratory-, responsible-, and discursive-capacity.
So what?
It might be easy to respond to this conceptualization of four fields as an interesting contribution to design theory, but is it actionable in the "real" complex work of design practice? As authors/academics/designers who confront daily the theory/practice divide ourselves, we feel confident that there are important implications of such a framework for designers, the profession, and the consumers of design.
1. First, we know from experience with our students and many seasoned practitioners that there is a sense of comfort and even relief that comes from the legitimization of the range of their design work/ideas. There are many professionals who do "side work"—considering it "conceptual" and sometimes hiding it or sheepishly refering to as "design-art" on their websites. (This was the case at one point for Scott Wilson and Mike and Maaike, for example.) This four-field approach offers formal acknowledgement, and challenges the dominant legacy of 20th-century industrial design with its inextricable link to markets and its focus on "problem solving."
2. Similarly, once the range of design work is recognized and "sanctioned," forces can rally around it and move it toward full potential. In many ways this has happened in the last decade with Responsible Design. We now understand what it is, how it relates to the profession, and corporate pro-bono initiatives and groups like Project H are understood, championed, and are becoming more mainstream. We imagine that once the IDSA adds to their professional interest sections Discursive Design and Experimental Design groups, we will see the same kind of advances that have occurred since their establishment of responsible design sections such as Universal Design and Design for the Majority.
3. Since this framework is based upon design intention, its structure can help designers better understand and focus their projects. The fields help the designer get straight on their overall intention and how overlap or hybridity might help or hurt, as well as how the context of use/consumption comes into play.
4. Professionally, this scheme also helps Industrial/Product Design communicate with the world that it engages. Once we understand the various intentions and roles that we can take on, the better we can clarify and be taken as seriously as we often wish we would be. Those who work in staunchly commercial realms can easily distinguish their activity from the other forms, and vice-versa. Experimental Design or Discursive Design, which can resemble art or mere frivolity, have a means of expressing distinction and value in their activities.
5. The formal inclusion of other modes of design beyond the commercial moves us beyond the role of handmaiden to industry; our profession is seen as being able to serve along broader intellectual and social lines. It helps establish designers as important local and global citizens as well as influential cultural agents.
6. With this framework, consumers of design have a more established basis for understanding intentionality and therefore a basis for evaluation. Experimental and discursive work are often erroneously subjected to the same measures of success as commercial work (blog commentary is notorious for this). When consumers are aware of designers' intentions, then more effective communication results: the designer is better satisfied because an object's goals are understood, and the consumer can focus more precisely on what value they may extract from the work.
7. And finally, the consumer can see their role shift from a position of passivity (when striking an all-too-common commercial posture) to a more active engagement in work that intends on engaging the intellect or prompting debate.
Names and frameworks are powerful. Our hope is that understanding the design landscape through these four, simple categories—Commercial Design, Responsible Design, Experimental Design, and Discursive Design—will help the profession, our "consumers," and ourselves better understand design activity and ultimately its potential in an increasingly complex world of ideas and objects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educated as a mechanical engineer, industrial designer, and sociocultural anthropologist, Dr. Bruce M. Tharp (bruce.tharp[at]core77[dot]com), is an assistant professor of Designed Objects at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). He and his wife Stephanie Tharp (snmunson[at]uic[dot]edu), Associate Professor of Industrial Design at the University of Illinois-Chicago, are currently working on a book project, entitled Discursive Design. In addition to their academic work, they have a studio, materious, through which they create across all four fields of designed objects.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Designing literally
I would love to start a section in my blog whereby I would showcase some quirky design ideas, whether still in concept or in production, which I hope my readers will find interesting. And no, you don't need to have a level 5 DQ to appreciate them. :)
Here's my first one, the "Hand"Wrench by Paul Julius Martus:
Here's my first one, the "Hand"Wrench by Paul Julius Martus:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
When design matters!
21 Nov 2008, 0346 hrs IST,
By: Robert Brunner & Stewart Emery
In 1997, shortly after Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Dell’s founder and chairman, Michael S Dell, was asked at the Gartner Symposium and ITxpo 97 how he would fix financially troubled Apple. “What would I do?” Dell said. “I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.”
He had no idea he’d be eating those words just ten years later when Apple’s market capitalisation surpassed not just Dell’s $64 billion ($47 billion as we write this), but IBM’s as well. In mid-2007 , Apple was the most valuable computer maker in the world. Its market capitalisation stood at nearly $162 billion, $6 billion more than that of industry heavyweight IBM. At that same time, Apple’s market cap was the fourth largest among technology companies, lagging behind only Cisco ($189 billion ), Google ($208 billion), and Microsoft ($290 billion).
The message: “Apple matters.”
The question: “What’s to learn?”
On the second day after Jobs came back to Apple, Tim Bajarin , recognised as a leading analyst and futurist covering the field of personal computers and consumer technology, was invited to meet with him.
One of the questions Bajarin asked Jobs was how he planned to get the computer maker back on the road to profitability. To his surprise, one of the foundational solutions offered was “industrial design.”
At the time, this made no sense. However, Apple soon introduced the headturning iMacs with their bold colours, which threw the stodgy industry and its boring beige PCs for a loop. Apple followed up with the introduction of the iPod, ever-sleeker iMacs, and the iPhone, hailed by PC Magazine columnist Lance Ulanoff as “the most important product of the still-young 21st century.”
Now the company is shaking up the notebook market with the thin, light, and stylish MacBook Air, and has taken on the video rental market with the Apple TV.
Apple has built a design-driven culture that knows how to connect with its customers in a deeply emotional way. Apple products are portals to an amazing menu of continuing experiences that matter to a lot of us. Over time, Michael Dell built a brilliantly designed computer manufacturing and delivery heavyweight.
For a long time (by technology standards), Dell was the 800-pound gorilla in the space. Times change. Pretty soon, other makers mastered supply-chain management, which is now the price of admission . The PC itself was relegated to commodity status.
What to do?
Become brilliant at using design to provide an amazing customer experience.
You know that design is on everyone’s mind — it’s almost a mantra. You see a new product a car, an iPod, or the latest cutting-edge cell phone, and you might think that a fairly straightforward process was involved in the product design. In some cases, this might be true, though often it’s not.
As a matter of fact, the process that delivers a good design — the physical embodiment of the product and how it looks and feels to a customer , which is so important for success — is often driven more by serendipity than by an integrated understanding of the design’s impact on the broader idea of a product and business. Serendipity is a good thing, but counting on it isn’t.
In 1997, shortly after Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Dell’s founder and chairman, Michael S Dell, was asked at the Gartner Symposium and ITxpo 97 how he would fix financially troubled Apple. “What would I do?” Dell said. “I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.”
He had no idea he’d be eating those words just ten years later when Apple’s market capitalisation surpassed not just Dell’s $64 billion ($47 billion as we write this), but IBM’s as well. In mid-2007 , Apple was the most valuable computer maker in the world. Its market capitalisation stood at nearly $162 billion, $6 billion more than that of industry heavyweight IBM. At that same time, Apple’s market cap was the fourth largest among technology companies, lagging behind only Cisco ($189 billion ), Google ($208 billion), and Microsoft ($290 billion).
The message: “Apple matters.”
The question: “What’s to learn?”
On the second day after Jobs came back to Apple, Tim Bajarin , recognised as a leading analyst and futurist covering the field of personal computers and consumer technology, was invited to meet with him.
One of the questions Bajarin asked Jobs was how he planned to get the computer maker back on the road to profitability. To his surprise, one of the foundational solutions offered was “industrial design.”
At the time, this made no sense. However, Apple soon introduced the headturning iMacs with their bold colours, which threw the stodgy industry and its boring beige PCs for a loop. Apple followed up with the introduction of the iPod, ever-sleeker iMacs, and the iPhone, hailed by PC Magazine columnist Lance Ulanoff as “the most important product of the still-young 21st century.”
Now the company is shaking up the notebook market with the thin, light, and stylish MacBook Air, and has taken on the video rental market with the Apple TV.
Apple has built a design-driven culture that knows how to connect with its customers in a deeply emotional way. Apple products are portals to an amazing menu of continuing experiences that matter to a lot of us. Over time, Michael Dell built a brilliantly designed computer manufacturing and delivery heavyweight.
For a long time (by technology standards), Dell was the 800-pound gorilla in the space. Times change. Pretty soon, other makers mastered supply-chain management, which is now the price of admission . The PC itself was relegated to commodity status.
What to do?
Become brilliant at using design to provide an amazing customer experience.
You know that design is on everyone’s mind — it’s almost a mantra. You see a new product a car, an iPod, or the latest cutting-edge cell phone, and you might think that a fairly straightforward process was involved in the product design. In some cases, this might be true, though often it’s not.
As a matter of fact, the process that delivers a good design — the physical embodiment of the product and how it looks and feels to a customer , which is so important for success — is often driven more by serendipity than by an integrated understanding of the design’s impact on the broader idea of a product and business. Serendipity is a good thing, but counting on it isn’t.
We think most people are prone to define design, particularly good design, more narrowly than they should. When you see an iconic product, such as an iPhone, for instance, that enjoys an initial runaway success, it’s so easy to overlook the big picture of how the product fits into the company’s future — and the future of similar products in general. We want you to consider a far broader view of the significance of design.
Consider, for instance, the case of Motorola’s Razr phone. Here is a product you might consider iconic. Historically, Motorola was an innovative company. The Razr has been a runaway success, although a bit of a fluke actually, because Motorola has never really understood what it had. Motorola just came up with a nice design and a nice form factor.
The Razr was thin. Designers sacrificed some footprint (height and width) for thinness. The design tied in with the naming, “Razr,” and it worked, the imagery around the product struck a chord in people’s hearts and minds. Motorola initially marketed the Razr well, but efforts since then have largely fallen flat.
The design did not transform Motorola’s culture. The company had only a single product, and now Motorola is back in trouble because it tried to repeatedly milk this one product over and over again. It hasn’t worked. The company tried to apply the veneer of the product to other products instead of saying, “What would be the next step in creating an experience that would resonate with people?”
It did not continue to grow, build on, and invest in what made the Razr successful. Instead, Motorola chose to imitate, not innovate . It repeatedly used the same language on different models and form factors. It added colours and used the same conventions, without life or soul. The company became stale almost overnight.
Motorola doesn’t have a design culture. It has an engineering culture that tries to be a design culture. But the company fundamentally failed to see this. The product development folks seemed to say, “We’ll make a cool thing, and that will be great,” but they didn’t develop the ability to consistently repeat it. On the operating system side, Motorola has never been able to design a great mobile phone user interface .
The user experience suffers as a consequence. Design goes beyond simply the physical form factor. A big difference exists between a good design and a great product. Motorola didn’t take the next steps to make the Razr the essential portal to people’s mobile experience and hasn’t been able to create consistent design cues across all customer touch points. Motorola might not even know that it matters — but it does.
Design establishes the relationship between your company and your customers. So the complete design should incorporate what they see, interact with, and come in contact with. In short, all the things they experience about your company and use to form opinions and to develop desire for your products . These touch points should not be allowed to just happen. They must be designed and coordinated in a way that gets you where you want to be with your customer — to where you
matter to them.
While teaching an engineering class at Stanford University about the emotional side of design, we asked, “Who cares if Motorola goes out of business next week?” One person raised his hand. We then asked, “Who cares if Apple goes out of business next week?” Most of the class raised their hands.
If you are the CEO of Motorola, this is not good news because you were just told that you don’t matter very much. If you don’t think this is true, check your stock price.
The message here is this: Really grasp this idea of design — or you die. And, oh, yes — your products themselves have to be great.
(Robert Brunner is a renowned industrial designer & Stewart Emery is a corporate consultant. They are co-authors of “Do you matter? How great design will make people love your company” )
Monday, October 27, 2008
Defying Single Discipline Approaches - the case for a multi-faceted education
One of the things that I have always propounded is the idea that education in itself should move away from the traditional boundaries of a singular or silo-like nature of subject matter, and should evolve towards the integrative evolutionary approaches. No longer is an engineer just a mere tinkerer of technical specifications, much like a doctor no longer just be expected to make sense of symptoms and dispense medication to the sick. The world is constantly evolving, and if the subject areas that our future leaders are still being taught like those that had been imparted a generation ago, then I guess something should be done to make that education evolutionary change possible! I was pretty much inspired by this text of a speech given by Professor Yrjö Sotamaa, a Professor of Design innovation and the former Rector of the University of Art and Design Helsinki. Here is the full text of the speech, taken from here:
REFORM OF THE CENTURY
- Expanding the Creativity of the Nation
Distinguished Guests
Excellencies
Ladies and Gentlemen
The challenge today is not simply to evolve in a changing world, but to do so in a world where the rate of change is unprecedented. This acceleration has created a broadening gap between our traditional structures of knowledge and the nature of problems we are confronted with. We are also confronted with growing global competition.
How can a small country like Finland keep its position as a forerunner in the changing world? How can we build conditions for continuous sustainable success?
It is clear to us that without constant renewal we will not be the forerunners for long. We should not be blinded by the present day admirable rankings Finland holds in global innovation and competitiveness reports. They can fade away quickly as we all know.
The key instrument in addressing these challenges is the renewal of the Finnish Innovation Strategy, which was presented to you by Mr. Esko Aho, President of SITRA. The Innovation Strategy is a core element of Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s cabinets program and currently under preparation in the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. The Parliament will discuss it in a few weeks' time.
Addressing Internal and External Challenges
Besides the external challenges Finland has two fundamental internal challenges in the future. Finland is becoming gray faster than any other European society. In this respect Finland and Turkey are in a very different situation. The share of people in Finland over 65 years will be by 2030 over 25%, which is a 10% increase to the present situation. Thus, the labor force will shrink rapidly.
The other challenge is connected with the size and resources of the Finnish society. The total R&D investment in Finland is approximately 6 billion euro. This is in global comparison a very high share of the GNP, but very small amount in absolute terms. Many companies put more yens, dollars and euros to R&D than the whole Finnish society.
Our 6 billion is equal to the investment of companies like Ford and Pfizer. In this respect, too, Finland and Turkey are in a very different situation. We have to be able to use our resources more effectively, be more focused, more dynamic and have a better innovation capability than others in order to survive in the growing global competition.
Paradigm Shift in Innovation Thinking
When the young Finnish students demonstrated last spring loudly in front of the Finnish Parliament against the new Innovation University their slogan was “Make love, not innovations”. For them innovation meant only business, technology and product development.
Even if love is not the solution the students were right in one aspect. It is very true that in the past our strategy has been technology lead: turning technology into new products, services and businesses. This strategy has been a true success story.
Finland has grown from an importer of technology to a global exporter of high tech. The mobile communication giant Nokia is the flagship of this amazing story. It is a combination of visionary thinking, advanced technology, cutting edge design and excellent business strategy.
The new strategy aims at strengthening the core competencies of Finland through a radical university reform. And it is turning innovation thinking 180 degrees around to human-centric thinking. It does not lessen the importance of technology and business know-how, but in the future the innovation drivers are stronger tied to the needs of users and the opportunities on the market. The shift to user-driven innovation highlights the importance of design. Design has a huge and very new potential for innovation.
The new strategy promotes also the idea of open innovation systems, which would expand the innovation base by involving all actors in the society to the innovation processes. The strategy emphasizes also our connections to the global knowledge networks. Finland is actively developing at the moment research networks between the centers of excellence of several countries in nanotechnology, digital technology, energy, wellbeing, environmental sciences and functional materials. The strategy also wants to build a research and innovation environment, which would attract the best researchers, students, innovators and investors to Finland.
Global Hunt for Talents
In essence the new innovation strategy is very close to the thinking of the hottest international creativity guru Richard Florida. His formula of successful regions and countries is simple: attract, develop and retain. Attract the best talents, give them first class education and make them stay and contribute to the development of the society.
The City of Helsinki has also revised its thinking and is putting much effort in increasing the attractiveness of the city center. The Lord Mayor Jussi Pajunen talks enthusiastically of vivid student life and a creative urban culture. In the past students were only an expense and they were pushed to live on the outskirts of the city.
Richard Florida also claims that the most successful and competitive societies will be the ones, which can expand the creativity to the whole society, where everyone can use his or her creativity and contribute to the success of the society. In this respect the new innovation strategy follows Florida’s advice and the thinking of Finland’s President Mrs. Tarja Halonen.
The Finnish University Reform
Innovation is defined in the new strategy as “a knowledge-based competition advantage, which has been utilized”. In the strategy the application area in which innovations should be utilized is broadened from business, to societal applications and wellbeing. This aims at renewal of the whole Finnish society.
The key element of the strategy is the first part of the previous definition: we are preparing the society to knowledge-based competition. As the increase of our productivity cannot be based on growing labor force, the only way to grow is through advanced knowledge and human creativity. Therefore the university reform mentioned before has become the key project of the present government. It has been rightly called the “Reform of the Century”.
The reform is basically similar to what was done in Japan in 2004. Our 20 universities, which are all public universities and now government offices, will become financially and legally independent by January 1, 2010. The number of universities will drop to fifteen.
The reform gives on one hand greater autonomy to all universities and on the other hand it tries to strengthen their resources though mergers. The government has also promised to increase significantly the financial resources of all universities, which has not usually been part of similar reforms in other countries.
The spearhead project of the university reform is the innovation university. It has been named the Aalto University, according to the world famous Finnish Architect Alvar Aalto. The Aalto University is a foundation, which was established on June 25th, this year by the government and the industry.
The Foundation is an independent, multi-disciplinary arts and science community active in the fields of technology, economics, and applied art as well as other closely associated fields. For the first time both public and private bodies have joined their forces in education and research to secure success of our society. The active role of the industry has been important in pushing the reform forward.
The Aalto University will be formed through the merger of three existing universities all with 100 years of history. The University of Art and Design Helsinki, the Helsinki School of Economics and the Helsinki University of Technology. They are all leading universities in Finland with high international reputation in their respective areas.
Ambitious Goals, Investment and Schedule
The ambitions and schedule of the Aalto University are both equally challenging. It should grow in ten years to be one of the prime universities in the world and it starts operating in ten months time, in August 2009.
The government and industry will give the foundation an endowment of 700 million euro. This is not much compared to Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge and many of the other leading universities, but in the Nordic context it is a very large amount and lays a foundation to the financial independence the Aalto University.
In addition to this, the government has promised to increase the funding of the annual running costs of the Aalto University by 100 million euro by 2012. This is a 60% increase to the present level. The size of the investments and the reform as a whole tell clearly of Finland’s will and its unique capability to implement radical reforms rapidly through good collaboration of different actors in society. That is one of the secrets of our success.
Dynamic Governance
The new university will get a dynamic governance system and is lead by a Board consisting of seven high caliber members all with a doctorate degree. They have extensive experience from research, education, business, management, society and culture. Three of the seven are women. Two of the members come from leading universities in USA, from MIT and the Boston University and one of them is Director of the European Science Foundation. None of the Board members are employees of the university.
The Board has just launched an international search of the first President of the University. If you know potential candidates, I hope you will pass the word to them.
The Chairman of the Board, Dr. Matti Alahuhta, and the CEO of Kone Corporation has said that art and design and their creative tradition make the combination unique in the world. This will turn the cultural assets and the great design tradition of Finland to key drivers of the new innovation thinking.
Aalto University is an Answer to the Big Picture Problems
The new innovation thinking in Finland connects us to the global grand challenges and also to the global opportunities. This thinking has been well manifested by the President and CEO Curtis R. Carlson of SRI International at Stanford University and the President of the University of Tokyo, Professor Hiroshi Komiyama in his book Vision 2050.
For Carlson and Komiyama the buzzword means breakthrough innovations, which change the world. How do we use our knowledge and skills to solve the grand problems we share: energy, climate, food and poverty? How do we turn the challenges into new opportunities and to a sustainable future?
The Aalto University is an answer to the “big picture problems”, which defy single discipline approaches. Our society has been served successfully by deep and narrow specialties, but the nature of today’s “big picture” challenges fall at the intersection of what we know. Not unlike cooking, the solution today is not in any one ingredient, but in the mix. The key idea of the Aalto University is build education and research on the synergy between design, technology and business.
Because the key decision makers cannot always see a complete synthetic whole, they are often blind-sided by the unintended consequences of their action. As an integrative human centric discipline, design is uniquely positioned to fill this strategic need. Therefore, design is one of the key assets of the new user-centric and need-driven innovation strategy and of course to the Aalto University, too.
New Opportunities of Collaboration
There are many well working university and research contacts between the best institution in Turkey and Finland. The Finnish university reform gives new opportunities to expand and deepen these contacts in key areas of knowledge. The renewal of our societies provides us exciting opportunities to share our experiences to build future success.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this forum and the opportunity to present the actions Finland has taken to tackle the global knowledge and innovation challenges.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Bluetooth possibilities...
I am in the market for a bluetooth mouse; I guess I just got sick and tired of the wired versions, and the much-touted wireless versions that have humongous and ugly-looking dongles sticking out like a sore thumb from the sides, and I have come to realise that it is still very much an early day for it. Looking at the versions available at most local stores, I realise that a bluetooth wireless mouse still commands a premium in all shops here, more expensive than the regular wireless versions here. I guess it will take some time for the prices to go down a little, and while waiting for that to happen, I just had this idea of what are the possibilities of this wireless technology, that I heard the first time waaaaaaay back in 1997, during my initial hunt for jobs right after my graduation.
1) Why not a bluetooth charging unit. I've heard news a couple of months back that there are currently research on some form of an electromagnetic charging unit, without contact, done at MIT. Hmmm, I can just envision the day when charging your mobile phones is easy, you just need to be in the transmission zones for you to be worry-free on how long your phones can go per charge!
2) An all-in-one hands-free earpiece, one that can sync with your iPods, mobile phones, home entertainments systems, Skype phones, and everything else in between, effortlessly. It is quite a hassle for you to be changing headsets for all the various gadgets that you have, wouldn't it be nice to just have ONE piece of headset that can intelligently know which gadget to sync with?
3) Perhaps a bluetooth-enabled cup and coffee-maker unit. The cup will inform the coffee-maker to start heating up or boiling the coffee when, say, the cup detects a low amount of coffee, or when say, it is turned over from its inverted position, signalling that coffee is needed pronto.
4) A bluetooth-synchronised clocks, where all the clocks in a particular housing unit or office, can be synchronised to only ONE timing, not a minute more, or less. Pretty much the problem that I have at home right now! :)
5) A bluetooth-capable car, where you can do diagnostics testing and stuffs like that with your car! It can even be 'wired' to you laptop, so that when it is time to for you to leave your office space, it is able to start the air-conditioning or the heater unit of your car, just in time for you to be cosy in it when you reach for the doors and enter the car.
Hmmmm, so far so good. What do you think?
1) Why not a bluetooth charging unit. I've heard news a couple of months back that there are currently research on some form of an electromagnetic charging unit, without contact, done at MIT. Hmmm, I can just envision the day when charging your mobile phones is easy, you just need to be in the transmission zones for you to be worry-free on how long your phones can go per charge!
2) An all-in-one hands-free earpiece, one that can sync with your iPods, mobile phones, home entertainments systems, Skype phones, and everything else in between, effortlessly. It is quite a hassle for you to be changing headsets for all the various gadgets that you have, wouldn't it be nice to just have ONE piece of headset that can intelligently know which gadget to sync with?
3) Perhaps a bluetooth-enabled cup and coffee-maker unit. The cup will inform the coffee-maker to start heating up or boiling the coffee when, say, the cup detects a low amount of coffee, or when say, it is turned over from its inverted position, signalling that coffee is needed pronto.
4) A bluetooth-synchronised clocks, where all the clocks in a particular housing unit or office, can be synchronised to only ONE timing, not a minute more, or less. Pretty much the problem that I have at home right now! :)
5) A bluetooth-capable car, where you can do diagnostics testing and stuffs like that with your car! It can even be 'wired' to you laptop, so that when it is time to for you to leave your office space, it is able to start the air-conditioning or the heater unit of your car, just in time for you to be cosy in it when you reach for the doors and enter the car.
Hmmmm, so far so good. What do you think?
Monday, September 29, 2008
The 'Greening' of Design: William McDonough: The wisdom of designing Cradle to Cradle
One of the more interesting presentations from TED.com. What I like about William's presentation here is the idea on the 'totality' of design, where design is not just about the here and now, not just about the experiences during the 'life-span' of a product. More importantly is the cradle-to-cradle ideas that he propounded, that is, at the very least something that humanity ought to start adopting, lest we become extinct within this century.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
MEANINGFUL REALISATION: Level 2 of Design Quotient
I have posted earlier about 'KNOWING' as the initial level of one's Design Quotient (DQ). It is about knowing that there is indeed something more than just the mere manifestation or superficiality of a particular product or object that is used. Following that, what transpires next would be a more 'MEANINGFUL REALISATION' that there is indeed more about the product that meets the eye.
For example a case in point, the regular toothbrush that I have quoted earlier. After one's realisation that there is something more about the toothbrush than he or she realises, what do follow, in the DQ context of things, would be the action of wanting to know that there is indeed something more than just a 'stick with nylon bristles'. It can be perhaps be seen as the deeper realisation that the stick does more than just a mere tool for holding, and the bristles are designed in such a way that it is much more than just becoming a brushing tool of sorts. This meaningfulness can be seen even further when one, having been enlightened further, would then want to know why things are designed or placed in a certain way. This perhaps would then be a precursor to Level 3 of my DQ theory: DESIGNERLY INTERROGATION, which I would touch on next in my next post.
For example a case in point, the regular toothbrush that I have quoted earlier. After one's realisation that there is something more about the toothbrush than he or she realises, what do follow, in the DQ context of things, would be the action of wanting to know that there is indeed something more than just a 'stick with nylon bristles'. It can be perhaps be seen as the deeper realisation that the stick does more than just a mere tool for holding, and the bristles are designed in such a way that it is much more than just becoming a brushing tool of sorts. This meaningfulness can be seen even further when one, having been enlightened further, would then want to know why things are designed or placed in a certain way. This perhaps would then be a precursor to Level 3 of my DQ theory: DESIGNERLY INTERROGATION, which I would touch on next in my next post.
Designing like it really matters
One of the challenges that I really relish is to come out with something new in the areas of teaching design. The challenge that was thrown to me this time round was in how the various areas of the arts, design, media and technology, can be convergently packaged and taught together with other altruistic values. Though I think it is not easy, but I don't think it is impossible. Certain ideas have already come to mind, such as:
* the fact that Singapore is becoming a greying city opens up various areas and possibilities in the field of geriatrics - the branch of medicine that focuses on healthcare for the elderly. I've see the set up of a model home for the elderly at a certain health care centre in the Western part of Singapore in my Innovation Protocol training (which I have blogged in earlier), and I do think that this would be a good starting point
* looking at the burgeoning industry of alternative fuels and alternative energies is another area of interest that I should be looking into. And in fact, I was thinking of tying up with various commercial concerns should this idea be successful in taking off
* Making the values that one would want to be taught to be the title of the design project, for example, a design project with the title 'RESPECT'. That would bring up some crazy ideas, but this might prove a little difficult as the final intent of the product might just be a little off from the actual intent of the project itself
* Be involved in a multi-cultural/religious/language immersion programme, something like those charitable projects that you see being done by volunteers to areas that are struck with disasters. Students can use those experiences not only to launch a physical project, but also be involved in a deeper understanding of the values that the project hopes to imbibe them in
* Environment: Another slant to the idea earlier is to see how the Green Revolution can be tapped even further to excite students to look at various processes that they can look at that has the potential to green, or even greener. Perhaps this can be parked under the theme of 'Design Sustainability' too
Hmmm, these are the ideas that I have managed to brainstorm at the moment. Any ideas from my blog readers are really welcomed. Doesn't matter to me whether you are a designer, a teacher, or even someone who cares about things that relates to design, all ideas that area passed would be seriously considered.
* the fact that Singapore is becoming a greying city opens up various areas and possibilities in the field of geriatrics - the branch of medicine that focuses on healthcare for the elderly. I've see the set up of a model home for the elderly at a certain health care centre in the Western part of Singapore in my Innovation Protocol training (which I have blogged in earlier), and I do think that this would be a good starting point
* looking at the burgeoning industry of alternative fuels and alternative energies is another area of interest that I should be looking into. And in fact, I was thinking of tying up with various commercial concerns should this idea be successful in taking off
* Making the values that one would want to be taught to be the title of the design project, for example, a design project with the title 'RESPECT'. That would bring up some crazy ideas, but this might prove a little difficult as the final intent of the product might just be a little off from the actual intent of the project itself
* Be involved in a multi-cultural/religious/language immersion programme, something like those charitable projects that you see being done by volunteers to areas that are struck with disasters. Students can use those experiences not only to launch a physical project, but also be involved in a deeper understanding of the values that the project hopes to imbibe them in
* Environment: Another slant to the idea earlier is to see how the Green Revolution can be tapped even further to excite students to look at various processes that they can look at that has the potential to green, or even greener. Perhaps this can be parked under the theme of 'Design Sustainability' too
Hmmm, these are the ideas that I have managed to brainstorm at the moment. Any ideas from my blog readers are really welcomed. Doesn't matter to me whether you are a designer, a teacher, or even someone who cares about things that relates to design, all ideas that area passed would be seriously considered.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
When the designer is more important than the CEO?
I absolutely love this article..really. Shows how much design have impacted the bottomline of the most creative and design savvy firm in the world. Original article is linked here by Jason Schwarz:
"We've now had a chance to see the prototype G1 phone. Google (GOOG) is hoping to carve out its own niche in the cellphone market in much the same way Apple (AAPL) has recently done. Can we expect to see lines outside of T-Mobile stores when the phone goes on sale next month? Highly unlikely. Instead, Google's gPhone appears headed down the same path of irrelevancy as the Microsoft (MSFT) Zune. According to Walt Mossberg, "The G1 won't win any beauty contests with its Apple rival. It's stubby and chunky, nearly 30% thicker and almost 20% heavier that the iPhone."
I was prepared to delve into a detailed comparison between the gPhone and the iPhone but Mr. Mossberg's statement just put an end to any constructive debate that we might have had. When you try and tell me how cool the copy and paste feature is or how excited you are about the MMS photo function I'll just have to give you the look. The same look that I gave to Zune enthusiasts who told me how much better the large video screen was. I don't think so. It's on days like today, when someone comes out with a product like the gPhone that we remember just how dominant Apple has become. Aren't new product releases supposed to be better than the existing ones? Apple competitors are shamefully years behind and it's all because of one man, Jonathan Ive.
Senior VP of Industrial Design, Jonathan Ive, is the most important man in the tech world. He is more important to Apple than Steve Jobs. Have you seen what the Mac looked like before Ive came along? Do you remember where Steve Jobs was before Ive took over the design team? Jonathan Ive is the principal designer of the Mac, the iPod, and the iPhone. Not Steve Jobs. While Wall Street's busy watching Steve's weight we should be more concerned with Ive's eyesight. Jonathan Ive is the real Moses here, Jobs is just Aaron. In January the guy was rated the most influential Brit in America, ahead of Beckham. Those in the know praise his work. Read the following reviews that Ive received for his iPhone design:
* "He has an uncanny skill for imparting a device with simplicity, distinction, and inevitability. He could probably design a better triangle, and when he was done you'd realize that three sides were one side too many." --James Lileks, Minneapolis Star Tribune
* "The iPhone is something out of Tom Cruise's science-fiction film Minority Report, which is set in 2054." --Paul Durman, The UK Times
* "The iPhone is a typical piece of Ive design: an austere, abstract, platonic-looking form that somehow also manages to feel warm and organic and ergonomic." -- Lev Grossman, Time
Jonathan Ive should be the next CEO of Apple. Apple's software is good, their end to end user experience is great, but the look and feel of their products is what set's them apart. In the last few months, the world has quietly been experiencing a sea change. The market share tidal wave of Apple is coming and it's not all riding on Steve Jobs's shoulders. "
"We've now had a chance to see the prototype G1 phone. Google (GOOG) is hoping to carve out its own niche in the cellphone market in much the same way Apple (AAPL) has recently done. Can we expect to see lines outside of T-Mobile stores when the phone goes on sale next month? Highly unlikely. Instead, Google's gPhone appears headed down the same path of irrelevancy as the Microsoft (MSFT) Zune. According to Walt Mossberg, "The G1 won't win any beauty contests with its Apple rival. It's stubby and chunky, nearly 30% thicker and almost 20% heavier that the iPhone."
I was prepared to delve into a detailed comparison between the gPhone and the iPhone but Mr. Mossberg's statement just put an end to any constructive debate that we might have had. When you try and tell me how cool the copy and paste feature is or how excited you are about the MMS photo function I'll just have to give you the look. The same look that I gave to Zune enthusiasts who told me how much better the large video screen was. I don't think so. It's on days like today, when someone comes out with a product like the gPhone that we remember just how dominant Apple has become. Aren't new product releases supposed to be better than the existing ones? Apple competitors are shamefully years behind and it's all because of one man, Jonathan Ive.
Senior VP of Industrial Design, Jonathan Ive, is the most important man in the tech world. He is more important to Apple than Steve Jobs. Have you seen what the Mac looked like before Ive came along? Do you remember where Steve Jobs was before Ive took over the design team? Jonathan Ive is the principal designer of the Mac, the iPod, and the iPhone. Not Steve Jobs. While Wall Street's busy watching Steve's weight we should be more concerned with Ive's eyesight. Jonathan Ive is the real Moses here, Jobs is just Aaron. In January the guy was rated the most influential Brit in America, ahead of Beckham. Those in the know praise his work. Read the following reviews that Ive received for his iPhone design:
* "He has an uncanny skill for imparting a device with simplicity, distinction, and inevitability. He could probably design a better triangle, and when he was done you'd realize that three sides were one side too many." --James Lileks, Minneapolis Star Tribune
* "The iPhone is something out of Tom Cruise's science-fiction film Minority Report, which is set in 2054." --Paul Durman, The UK Times
* "The iPhone is a typical piece of Ive design: an austere, abstract, platonic-looking form that somehow also manages to feel warm and organic and ergonomic." -- Lev Grossman, Time
Jonathan Ive should be the next CEO of Apple. Apple's software is good, their end to end user experience is great, but the look and feel of their products is what set's them apart. In the last few months, the world has quietly been experiencing a sea change. The market share tidal wave of Apple is coming and it's not all riding on Steve Jobs's shoulders. "
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
KNOWING: the first level of Design Quotient
I realised that it has been a while since the last time I have blogged about 'Design'. In today's post, and subsequent entries, I hope that I am disciplined enough to be able to give my views on the various levels of the Design Quotient (DQ), a schema of sorts that I hope would be able to spark various discussions on raising the design consciousness in the design domain of our cognitive capacity.
Firstly, my question would be how do we start to 'look' at design as a means to just beyond something that is a given. How do we, say, be appreciative enough about the design of everyday items that surrounds us, without looking or delving deeper into its various other technicalities of how it is made, or how it has added a great deal of benefit to out lives! I mean when we brush our teeth in the morning, are we really aware the amount of effort that goes into the design of the toothbrush and the toothpaste container? It is this very state of 'KNOWING', of awareness, at a certain level of 'design consciousness' is where I would put my theoretical viewpoint on the first level of DQ. It is this level of consciousness, of suddenly being hit by that AHA moment, of suddenly realising, as you held the toothbrush in your hands, and then suddenly realising how ergonomically well-designed the toothbrush is, how everything about it is so...well nicely fitted into what it is intended to function as.
It is at this state of knowing, of realising, of suddenly being awakened by the superficiality, beyond its tendency to connote negativities, of design in itself as a state of being that would help, or trouble us in one way or another. On the other side of the scale, the realisation that something is badly designed could also spark this state of consciousness, although one would somewhat be more overwhelmed with vulgarities of the verbal kind, more than being hit by a 'design awareness' moment, when bad design come avisiting!
So let's just state that the first level of DQ is:
KNOWING: the semi- or full-conscious state of realising the superficiality of design
Firstly, my question would be how do we start to 'look' at design as a means to just beyond something that is a given. How do we, say, be appreciative enough about the design of everyday items that surrounds us, without looking or delving deeper into its various other technicalities of how it is made, or how it has added a great deal of benefit to out lives! I mean when we brush our teeth in the morning, are we really aware the amount of effort that goes into the design of the toothbrush and the toothpaste container? It is this very state of 'KNOWING', of awareness, at a certain level of 'design consciousness' is where I would put my theoretical viewpoint on the first level of DQ. It is this level of consciousness, of suddenly being hit by that AHA moment, of suddenly realising, as you held the toothbrush in your hands, and then suddenly realising how ergonomically well-designed the toothbrush is, how everything about it is so...well nicely fitted into what it is intended to function as.
It is at this state of knowing, of realising, of suddenly being awakened by the superficiality, beyond its tendency to connote negativities, of design in itself as a state of being that would help, or trouble us in one way or another. On the other side of the scale, the realisation that something is badly designed could also spark this state of consciousness, although one would somewhat be more overwhelmed with vulgarities of the verbal kind, more than being hit by a 'design awareness' moment, when bad design come avisiting!
So let's just state that the first level of DQ is:
KNOWING: the semi- or full-conscious state of realising the superficiality of design
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)