Stay tuned.

Adam

Here’s a quote:

“There’s all these people talking; saying sort of this ‘everybody’s a Designer’ type of thing, and I’m saying ‘Well no, they’re not‘. My stance is that there is something called Design. It is a specialized profession; just as specialized and highly-trained as you might be if you have a PhD in Computer Science, or a Doctorate in Medicine, for that matter. There is something called Design. It is highly specialized and everybody is not one of them, any more than everyone, just because they do a little design or innovation, any more than you’re a Mathematician because you count change when you come out of the grocery store.

“But – the caveat is that Designers are the most inarticulate people in the world in terms of explaining what they do, and being able to say it in a way that distinguishes the distinct, and critical, and important, valuable skills that they bring to the table.

“And hence, as I experienced at my last company, the Head of HR, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Council of the company, had as much to say on my area of expertise as I did. – But to be real clear, I did not have an equal say about (their work).”

(and later)

“Anyone who thinks that what comes out of the box (the object) is what’s important… is already lost. What you sell is the experience that the object engenders.

“We are deluding ourselves if we think that the products that we design are the ‘things’ that we sell, rather than the individual, social and cultural experiences that they engender, and the value and impact that they have.”

(now in my words)

The object is the interface between user or audience and the designed experience.

An interesting talk, by an interesting person.

Bill Buxton, Sketching and Experience Design at Stanford University,

May 09, 2008

Thanks Bill,

Adam

1) Things – the products, or the physical results of the design processes.
2) Individual problem solving process - Design-thinking and iterative work, on one’s own.
3) Collaborative problem solving process - The social process of conceiving and planning the best compromise between the goals and means of a group.

The field, or profession of Design incorporates all three, but within popular design discourse, there has been more focus on the forms and form-giving process than on the social process of collaboration.

I believe that the field is really defined by the Designer-client, or the Designer-collaborator relationship. Most professional Designers are required to work with other people to help reach mutual goals. This relationship involves social processes of communication, deliberation, negotiation and reaching agreement. This social aspect of the design process could be greatly improved, and the field could be rapidly advanced if this became the focus of more of our discourse.

What if Design students were trained to first love the inter-personal dialogue that collaborative design demands? What if they were trained specifically in active listening, group dynamics, verbal communication, mediation and negotiation? What would the field of Design look like if Designers had more training in the social processes of collaboration itself?

It’s worth considering.

Adam

In my experience, students of Design are very much convinced that “Design can save the world”. I’m quite sure it will too, but I fear that the field of Design may not have anything to do with it. The reason for my fear is that I believe Design discourse is much more focused on an admiration of solutions than it is on a study of processes, and that has led our culture to associate us with products over problem-solving. This association is to our detriment, and the detriment of Design itself. I’m not as interested in what the Design stars are making, as I am in how they are getting access to the problems that result in their interesting products. What is Design without the designs? An answer to this question is the key to our field’s continued development, and the key to our getting a chance at saving the world.

If you ask a class full of Design students the question “What is design?”, there is usually an uncomfortable silence; a sick-feeling comes over the group, as if you just broke out the kryptonite on a room full of Supermen. The fear of the question is indicative of the position of Design in North American culture, which is one of ambiguity at best. And the inability of students (and professionals) to answer it is at the heart of that ambiguity, and at the heart of Design’s relatively poor “rate-of-inclusion” in the solving of problems that plague our society and our world.

Nothing frustrates a Designer more than seeing problem situations that they are not able to affect, but in order to to have access to the world’s problems, Design must be clear about what it is and what it has to offer.

Too often, when we talk about design, our conversations rapidly fall into a discussion of things. They always seem to describe design in terms of it’s products. The books and magazines on the subject are filled with stylized chairs, modern architecture, gorgeous typography, and high-quality printing techniques. From one design examination to the next, design seems to look a lot like design, as if it were a particular type of product or a fashion. Wherever I look, people are talking about products and consequences – outcomes – not design at all. But I think it’s time to focus on design itself, as something separate from its products.

So what is design on its own? How can we talk about it without focusing on what it’s used for?

Tim Brown of IDEO is one of the few voices in Design who is active in discussing the designing over the solutions. He has focused recently on the subject of defining “design thinking”, and has a new book on the subject which is soon to hit the shelves. (Visit his blog for more on that)  While he was working on the book, Brown asked readers to comment on what they thought the term “design thinking” meant. And the responses were typical, ranging from “problem solving”, to “applied art”. The enormous range of definitions and applications for the subject is both inspiring and paralyzing. You see, we live in a world of increasing specialization. Our time/money-focused world wants to know specifics when it comes to who it includes in it’s processes. What we’re going to get, how long it’s going to take, and how much its going to cost. On the other hand, the field of Design wants to convince you that it can do almost anything – but that’s just too vague to be practically applicable. So again, the question arises:

What is Design?

Many feel opposed to the very idea of “defining” it, because they see it as creating limitations. But the opposite is true. Definition is the foundation of the infinite. Knowing what something is releases its potential and presents the possibilities. Thus finite and infinite are intimately connected.

In my own study, I have found that design is a range of things which share the same name. I have also recognized that the working definitions go well beyond what the dictionary outlines.

Design is essentially three key things:

1) Forms or Products (results of design processes)

2) Individual Problem-solving processes (“design thinking”)

3) Collaborative Problem-solving processes (“participatory design”, and the social processes of conception and planning within a larger society)

Most of the time, these three separate concepts are not clearly separated in our discussions on the subject, and this is what has lead to so much confusion about what the field is, what it does, how it should be taught, and how it should fit in to our society and culture. Let me give you a few examples:

A fashionably-dressed young man with a MacBook under his arm says “I just love design”.

In this case, this person is not referring to the problem-solving processes of either the individual or the group. He’s referring to the products which have resulted from them. In this case, design is a form, or a solution. Many people orient their thoughts on design around its products.

A woman creates lamps in her basement. She plans them using her own ideas, sketches them according to her own tastes, builds them herself and she is now looking for a buyer. She calls herself a Designer.

Most people would accept that title for this example. The reason we accept it is that we see the individual processes of problem-solving and creating forms as a definition of design and being a designer – even with no client or collaborator.  This is where we tend to focus on forms or products over processes. If we see this persons products as interesting, attractive, or useful, we’re happy to call her a designer. We might also call her an artist, or a hobbyist, or a craftsperson. And this adds to the confusion. In my estimation, this individual activity is only a part of what it means to be a Designer.

Here’s another example:

An airline is looking for a way to increase profits. They hire a consultant who studies their business and internal culture, meets with different members of the company, interviews travelers and makes suggestions for ways the airline could alter it’s entire business from the company logo, to the interiors of planes, to the way the airline handles customer service. This consultant assembles multidisciplinary teams, representing all aspects of the airline’s business. They brainstorm, deliberate and create new action plans for the transformation of the customer experience to something better.

For many of us, the social, participatory qualities of this example might make it the quintessential description of Design… and it’s the one the dictionary omits. But this is where I believe the Field of Design needs to focus the definition of itself. If we do, this example only begins to scratch the surface of what Design can do.

The collaborative nature of design, which synthesizes the strengths of multiple perspectives is one that does not receive enough of our focus, and it is where we need it most. The individual processes of problem-solving and form-giving are not what will define the field and help it gain access to the “wicked problems” of the now and near-future. For Design to reach its fullest potential, it must be clearly understood, characterized and discussed and defined as a collaborative, social process.

To that end, when we’re talking about the field of Design in its most holistic let’s try this extended definition:

Design is a process of conception and planning. A Design is the product of such a process. The field of Design has two modes; Individual, and collaborative.

The first mode is an Individual Design process. Individual Design is the conception and planning of action. It is an individual process, played out in the mind of an individual, which seeks the most elegant compromise between goals and means.

The second mode of Design is the Collaborative Design Process. This mode of Design is the collaborative conception and planning of human action.  It is the social process of finding the most elegant compromise between the goals and means of a group of individuals. A Designer must draw out the collective strengths of the group, while minimizing the negative effects of  disagreements which can weaken the collaborative effort. The second mode of Design requires the first, as individual design-thinking is an essential part of the collaborative design process.

The first mode, or Individual Design process, is something common to just about all human endeavors. Even when you’re making yourself a sandwich or deciding what to wear. And this process is not restricted to human minds either, as it can be seen in other thinking animals as they work to solve problems through iterative processes of problem-solving. So the first mode cannot define the field of Design on its own. It is really the second mode, or collaborative process which sets it apart from so many others and defines the field.

Design is the process of finding the most elegant compromise between goals and means. Design is a vehicle for applying the problem-solving strengths of  individuals to the needs of a larger society. Design is a social process, and being a Designer is a social role. The need for design arises when people cannot see how to reach their goals with the tools they possess, and the field maintains it’s position in society through helping them do so.

Design in this light does not have anything to do with art. It does not have anything to do with a particular fashion or product. It has nothing to do with business and no need to be profitable. While it has produced artful products and resulted in increased profits, the processes of Design itself have no inherent ties to such things. And while Designers are quick to champion Design as a “good”, or virtuous endeavor, it has no inherent value – good or bad. It can be used for any purpose.

Design has existed in every moment of civilization, from mud-and-straw huts, to New York City skyscrapers. Design is how we get from a world we don’t like to one that we do. It’s our conscious evolution. It is very much dependent on people listening to each other, speaking clearly and keeping their egos in check while maintaining their values and serving their passions. What do we want? How are we going to get there? And most importantly, how are we going to get the most out of our collective strengths without collapsing under the weight of our individual human weaknesses?

Up until recently, the definition of Design has been largely based on the problem-solving skills of individuals. It has been long tied to Art and the concept of the lone Genius. Even while they say otherwise, Designers aspire to this ideal. Stephan Sagmeister for instance, displays on the wall of his New York Studio, the slogan “Style=Fart”. But an examination of his work, or a look at one of his TED presentations reveals a series of images that reflect a very clear style, a consistent product and a focus on those products over any examination of the reasons and processes that brought them into existence. In his defense, I don’t think that’s his intention, (and he eventually admitted his statement on style was in error when compared to his work) but it’s another example of where discussions of design really don’t talk much about the Design itself, and focus much more on the polished results of the Designer, and a proliferation of his individual genius. And I suspect that Sagmeister has a great wealth of experience behind him that we don’t see – the experience which could tell us the story not of what, but of how.

Design theorist Richard Buchanan referenced Herbert Simon when he defined Design as “the conception and planning of the artificial”, but that definition does nothing to break the overriding emphasis on the individual. In light of the present day problems of climate-change, political unrest and dwindling natural resources, it has never been more important for the field of Design to examine its social processes. For in order to take part, and to increase its rate-of-inlcusion, it must be very clear to the world that Designers are more a help than a hinderance. The old idea an aloof, egotistical genius is not going to cut it. Designers need to focus on their connective skills as much as their form-giving abilities. This means that we need to pay more attention to our communication skills – listening as well as speaking. We need to understand more about group dynamics, negotiation and conflict resolution. For such skills lie at the heart of effective collaboration. And the development of these skills should be central to any Design Education program.

The collaborative aspect of Design is what allows it to synthesize the strengths of other disciplines, combining their input into a cohesive whole, in the form of a design solution. Graphic Designers connect writers, photographers, illustrators, typographers, programmers and printers. Urban Planners synthesize the strengths of engineers, architects, construction firms, developers, community members and governing bodies.

And if you look at Design in this way, you find that it exists in many places not traditionally associated with Design. All of the sudden, Business Management is a Design field. Event Planning is a Design field. International Development is a Design field. Anywhere we find people solving problems through the synthesis of other disciplines, we find Design.

Again (in a shorter form):

Design is the synthesis of individual and collaborative processes of the conception and planning of human action. Design is the social process of seeking the most elegant compromise between the goals and the means of a group of human beings. It is the essence of conscious social advancement and the key to solving the wicked problems that plague us.

Look at the world from your perspective and try applying that definition for a while. See where it takes you – where it takes us.

We should remember that we’re not inventing design. We’re just getting our heads wrapped around something that is part of our humanity. The first mode is natural to the individual; the second is natural to the group. It has always been; it will always be. But like the ancients did with the study of Rhetoric, we can observe, codify and refine such inherent aspects of our humanity, and teach what we learned to our children. In this way, we consciously advance the field of Design at the same time.

In order for the field of Design to continue to grow and thrive, we have to focus on it as a social process. We have to improve on our ability to collaborate. We need to refine our social skills and increase our rate-of-inclusion. And when we find ourselves included, we need to make the most of each and every opportunity, doing our best to affect the world and the people around us in a positive way.

Only then will Design reach its fullest potential. Only then will the field of Design have a chance to “save the world”.

Adam

J

Here in Halifax, a place that has at times been described as the Design Dead Zone, Jeff runs a little web design studio called Brightwhite(.ca). He hasn’t written any best-sellers. He hasn’t been featured in Fast Company Magazine, and he’s never given a TED Talk. (At least not yet…).

In a sense, Jeff White is a design everyman. And what I mean by that, is that he represents the field of design in the world that most of us live in. He’s got bills, kids and pets. And when it comes to design, he still has to negotiate his designs into existence with regular people. He hasn’t reached genius status (at least not publicly) and that means that when Jeff engages in a design process with clients, they still have to agree with his ideas before they’re going to pay him to make those ideas a reality. Dare I say it? – He has to compromise.

Just like 99.99 percent of the rest of the field of Design does.

Sadly, the role models of the Design world tend not to be like Jeff. Design heroes tend to be people who don’t have to compromise. Too often, young Designers aspire to the ranks of “big names”, who scoff at the very mention of a compromise. Like great artists, their designs are prized and commodified. Their products remain pure and unspoiled by the uneducated tastes of their clients, who act more like patrons, or benefactors.

And all of these stars seem to work in some huge, metropolitan city that has a culture that is really nothing like our own.

We think of these great designers, in their loft studios of Manhattan, and we lament the fact that our own clients keep spoiling our designs. Designers in this region have long blamed “this conservative little town”, its politics and its unwavering attitudes for the lack of a real Design “scene” in this part of the world. After short-lived attempts at making a living here, most young Designers just pick up and move to where the action is, or go into some other field.

But not Jeff White.

Jeff is excited about the possibilities, and he’s talking about them. He’s talking to people at NSCAD University (Nova Scotia College of Art and Design) as well as people at NSCC (Nova Scotia Community College), which have long been considered opposite sides of the regional design coin. He’s visiting High School students and he’s online and offline, promoting social media. He’s not trying to be anyone but himself. He’s learning as he goes, and sharing what he knows. He’s connecting, and in the process, he and others like him in this community are actually making a Design scene.

I have long told Design students that it’s easy to be negative. It’s easy to sit back and fire off about how everything around you is just not good enough. It’s easy to point to other people in other parts of the world that “really know where it’s at”. And it’s easy to throw your arms up and blame your lame portfolio on the lame community you live in, and the fact that your clients “just don’t know what good design really is”.

But we as Designers have to go further than that. Designers have to go beyond the recognition of what’s wrong with the world, to what they’re actually going to do about it. The difference between “negativity” and “critique” is that critique aims to cause positive change; to shape future endeavors for the better. Designers should remain critical, without becoming negative.

I hold that design is a social role, and that every society needs designers to employ their inherent talents for moving the world from what it is, to what we wish it to be.

I’ve been in Halifax now for nearly twelve years. I taught Design at NSCAD, worked as Graphic Designer for MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects, and formed Violet Design and Communications with Designer, Angie Hodder. We put together our own identity and website and spent a lot of time looking around at what others are doing. We watched a lot of TED videos and admired the work of Design Stars online. But one day, I found myself reading Jeff’s blog, then watching a video of him and Giles Crouch on haligonia.ca, discussing social media. Regular, local guys, doing what they love, and working in the real world of design. Because as anyone who has made a living in the uphill-battle-of-Design-in-Halifax should know – It just doesn’t get any more “real” than this. I realized that I had spent too much time lamenting the downsides of design in this part of the world, and that I needed to take some of my own advice.

If we aren’t happy with the Design scene, (or lack thereof ) in Halifax, then what are we going to do about it? I contacted Jeff, and we had a phone conversation about the mysteries of twitter and blogging. Now I’m fumbling my way into the pool – for better or worse. Like Brightwhite, Queen Street Studios, Breakhouse, MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple, The Planning and Design Centre, Eric Wood, Bruce Kierstead and the late Lou Cable, we’ll just keep designing, keep learning and keep believing in what we do. And maybe the scales of this community will finally tip in our favour. Hell, maybe they already have.

So thank you, Jeff. Thanks for staying critical and not giving in to the negative. For loving what you do, and for spreading it around.

Thanks for doing something about it.

Adam