Ed Jacobs: Design Process Is No Substitute for Good Ideas

Ed Jacobs | Design Process from Confederate Motors, Inc. on Vimeo.

 

While recognizing the “Design Process” for its value, Ed Jacobs underscores the importance of a good, new, and intuitive idea as the foundation for any creation. Design process, in other words, can sometimes be a crutch for cookie-cutter ideas that lack a concept and the vibrancy that can move the end-users or audience.

Advertisements

Design is a Way of Life

“Design is a way of life, a point of view. It involves the whole complex of visual communications: talent, creative ability, manual skill, and technical knowledge. Aesthetics and economics, technology and psychology are intrinsically related to the process.”—Paul Rand, from A Designer’s Words.

Five Ways to Fail at Design – Sohrab Vossoughi – The Conversation – Harvard Business Review

As much as the business world seems to admire design innovation these days, very few companies are doing it well. As the founder of a firm that helps businesses innovate, I’ve watched approvingly as design has gone from a niche topic to the covers of mainstream publications and the keynotes at business conferences. And yet, in 28 years of creative consulting, I have seen far more corporate design efforts fail than succeed.

The arguments in favor of these efforts have been solid: commercial markets are saturated with adequate offerings, consumers are more aware of alternatives and more discerning in their choices, and innovative design is an effective way to differentiate and communicate a brand. But while there are plenty of familiar examples of design-driven market success — Oxo, Apple, Umpqua Bank, Virgin Atlantic and Netflix, to name a few — they are the exceptions, not the rule.

It’s common to hear of companies hiring a creative consultancy, applying its recommendations, and yet at the end of the contract, seeing little or no return on investment. The majority of engagements that end this way have resulted in solutions that were never implemented, or were not implemented to their full potential. The design failed, in other words. My observations of attempts at design innovation in the business world suggest that this track record is typical. It can lead thoughtful executives to view design hype with skepticism, and suspect a case of winner’s bias: magazines run cover stories about the rare design-driven superstar, but ignore the more numerous losers.

But there are strong similarities among companies that use design effectively, and it’s not that they hired the “right” consultancy or believed in the power of design more than their competitors. Design failures are rarely the result of a bad concept or an unwilling client — the companies mentioned above have used a variety of consultancies at crucial junctures in their growth, and most of them still do. What sets them apart is an alignment of expectations. These companies go into the design process with a clear understanding of the role they must play, and a willingness to let their business be transformed by it.

The truth is there’s only so much designers can do on their own to make a company successfully innovative. Companies that misalign their expectations — and many do ignore their own part in becoming more innovative — generally fail. They genuinely want good design, and they want it to impact their bottom line, but they want it to take place externally. Their vision of design as a purely third-party service is doomed.

This misalignment expresses itself in many forms. Here are five of the most common ways to fail at design:

  1. Refuse to change any other part of your business. Treating design as an add-on can work when a company commissions a “designer series” of products to briefly boost the brand’s appeal, but this is hardly what we mean when we talk about innovation saving your business. The smartest companies foster an internal culture of innovation, which creative consultants can support, but only if other aspects of the business — management, development, manufacturing, marketing — are open to change. More immediately, requiring a design team to propose only solutions that can be realized with your current process ensures more of the same.
  2. Design outside of your innovation space. Designers don’t implement solutions, companies do. For that reason, the most innovative solution on earth won’t work if it’s pursued by a company that can’t properly execute it. At Ziba we call this capability the client’s “innovation space” — the arena in which they’ve already proven themselves willing and able to lead the pack. Some companies are technology innovators, others are product innovators or experience innovators. Learning which you are in order to direct later efforts is a crucial first step that most companies skip.
  3. Try to design for everybody. Design works as a differentiator because it responds to human needs, both functional and emotional. Most of us agree that a Ferrari is beautifully designed, but nobody would say it’s for everyone. The same could be true of a minivan. Each succeeds in its market because it delivers to a tightly defined group of users. In a landscape where consumers increasingly demand tailored experiences, failing to identify a clear strategic target is designing to fail. The most useful tool a client can give a consultancy is a well-considered, focused profile of who they’re designing for. The least useful is a mandate to create something that appeals to everyone.
  4. Insist on replicating another company’s success. “We want to be the Apple of [insert industry]” might be the single most common request clients make of creative consultancies, and it’s certainly one of the most damaging. Good design does more than just serve the needs of its audience, it does so in a way that’s true to the company’s purpose and values. An Apple-like experience delivered by a company that isn’t Apple can’t be sustained, because it’s not backed up by Apple’s culture and resources. The result is an inconsistent experience that feels disingenuous to customers, and shatters their loyalty. This is why “me too” innovation almost never works. Not only does it make you look like a copycat, it shows you don’t care about your own brand enough to express it in your user experience.
  5. Compartmentalize design into isolated tasks. It’s tempting to treat design as a menu of services, applying it here and there on bits of a project that need sprucing up. To a skeptical client this can feel economical and controlled, but it cripples the design effort by fragmentation. The best user experiences are integrative; they make sure that every touch point is consistent and logical, building trust from the user, and reinforcing the brand’s character. Piecemeal design work creates an incoherent experience that users will ultimately reject.

Good design can indeed lift a company’s performance from lackluster to outstanding, but it’s still just one element in the overall system. The key to getting what you need from design is letting it influence, and be influenced by, the other elements in that system. Only when design considerations are integrated into your company’s culture as thoroughly as quality, schedule and budget are, will you start moving down the path of design-driven success.

Sohrab Vossoughi is founder and President of Ziba Design. He holds more than 40 patents, has received ten citations in Business Week magazine for Best Product Design, and is the only industrial designer to have been elected a Global Leader of Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum.

Innovation requires Intuition and Feeling, Not just Data


While market research is crucial to the successful development of innovation in design, traditional market research methods such as focus groups are only part of what drives successful design solutions and successful innovation. Putting together a group of customers and conducting a focus group has its uses, but also its problems. Many spectacularly successful products did not engage in customer feedback (e.g. Apple), while some of the most extensive customer testing programs have led to some of the biggest market failures (e.g. New Coke). Why? Because customers notoriously lean toward what is conservative, safe and familiar.

One fundamental ingredient on the road to innovation, is allowing time for the design team to get immersed in the market of the given project. This allows designers to receive information by osmosis—the kind of information that depends on intuition, and feeling. By this process, designers are in a position to act on hunches and take risks on subtle levels of information—the kind of information that traditional market research is often unable to capture or measure.

Customers are equipped to comment on what they know, while designers are equipped to come up with new solutions to problems, and to influence consumer behavior. When designers are supported with time in the target consumer market, the design process is able to address customer needs from a perspective that most customers could not come to identify or verbalize.

At Google, this is built in to the environment: Google engineers are expected to spend 20% of their time at work on individual projects, in an effort to create and support an environment of innovation with market potential. For companies not quite in the ballpark of Google, or companies otherwise unable to commit to innovation to the same degree, the message is this: if you want a better shot at innovation and successful design solutions, allow time for the design team to dabble and to get immersed in the project’s market.

More on this, from Michael Beverland, Professor of Marketing at the University of Bath School of Management, via the Design Management Institute, or below. Case studies and examples include: Playmobil, Apple, and the notorious consumer-input failures such as New Coke.

InnovationInDesign.pdf (1946 KB)
View this on posterous

Business Schools learn from Designers

“There is something we [designers] contribute: a high tolerance for uncertainty, ways to grapple with visual representations and understanding problem-solving as an open-ended, playful process,” says Lucy Kimbell, a fellow in design leadership at Oxford’s Saïd Business School.

Growing numbers of business schools from Stanford to Esade are incorporating design thinking into their business curriculum to encourage inter-disciplinary teamwork, abductive reasoning skills, creative problem-solving and a heightened awareness of the role that empathy plays in business.

As Fortune 500 companies increasingly view design as part of strategic business decisions, designers are being called on to improve services, operations, and supply chains, in addition to the traditional areas of product design and communications designs.

Abductive reasoning skills involve creative leaps of imagination and visualization—skills which complement the traditional business school focus on analytical and quantitative skills. For some schools, the goal of incorporating design thinking is, in part, to cultivate an empathetic view of the world so as to equip managers with tools to better relate to customers.

“Designers have empathy because they’re thinking about what will ultimately move their client. But managers don’t have that. They think: ‘I don’t have to take a phenomenon seriously until it becomes statistically significant,” says Professor Roger Martin, dean of Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto. “By complementing the analytic with these generative skills, we bring the whole human being to the problems we face.”

via ft.com. Story edited for highlights; full story by Rebecca Knight at the Financial Times.