collectiveSome
Corporate Heresies, Technology Rants, Personal Observations


Wednesday, May 04, 2005  

A lead article in the current issue of FastCompany starts with this sentence:

In an economy where style is king, we all need to start thinking and acting more like design.


(http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/93/design.html - From: Issue 93 | April 2005 | Page 68 By: Bill Breen Photographs by: Derek Shapton)

Bill Breen's FastCompany article reminded me of a soapbox I've been standing on for a while. For more years than I'd like to admit, I've been urging button-down business leaders to look towards a somewhat unorthodox source of perspectives -- the world of design.

This is hardly a new suggestion. Nearly twelve years ago Mitch Kapor fired a broadside against the vast majority of companies creating software tools. He indicted complacent software engineers who gave us boringly interchangeable products. Tools that were confusing to understand and egregiously complex to use. Tools that failed to give even the smallest bit of delight that could make us fans of these products.

At the time, he argued for the creation of a new profession -- that of Software Designer. Kapor likened the focus of this new calling to the ancient profession of architecture. Both are design professions that straddle two worlds -- the world of engineering requirements and creating tools -- and the world of people and human processes.



Design -- and a broader applicability

We need to expand Kapor's suggestion: great broad swaths of contemporary business need to consider the importance of design principles. Kapor's railings against workman-like software are the same kind of critiques given by a growing number of people, targeting an even larger range business endeavours.

We need to lobby for the creation and acceptance of yet another profession: that of Business Designer.

Our deployed technologies are more often wearisome than helpful. Our company's services and offerings are more confusing than delightful. And even our vaunted and admired styles of management lead to undercurrents of Dilbert cynicism among our employees.

Mitch Kapor's article points us towards a solution. It's a two-millenia-old solution worth re-visiting.

Two thousand years ago the Roman architect, Vetruvius, outlined the essence of good design. Good design, he argued, resides at the intersection of three principles. A good design needs to solve a problem; well-designed 'things' need to be robust. A good design needs to stand the test of time; that is, it needs to be sufficiently malleable in the hands of different people. And finally, a good design needs to give us delight, it needs to touch our hearts, it needs to give us pleasure.

Good design, in words that almost never appear in contemporary business literature, engages different parts of our human psyche.

It's this engagement, this sustained quality of human attention, that I argue is at the heart of a solution.



"un-packing" human attention -- and business consequences

Several years ago, I helped convene a small meeting in to talk about a directly related set of topics. Our round-table discussion, "The Economics of Attention" began with the following question: "How might business -- its organizational types, its products and services, and its enabling technologies -- be changed if we had a better understanding of human attention?"

During that meeting a nationally renowned designer - John Rheinfrank - shared some of his insights into the attention-practitioner's art. He described how a handful of elements combine to form a model of human attention. A model -- I'd wager -- quite different from ideas most of us brought to that conversation.

Rheinfrank talked about the centrality of observation for the design process: to learn how people actually use a product -- not how they describe using it. While his examples were from the world of product design (photocopiers and consumer point-and-shoot cameras) his principles have much broader applicability.



John Rheinfrank's design principles of engagement

1. Connection: Are your company's products and services, its technologies or even its organizational goals "reachable?" Can your customers -- or clients -- get to those offerings? Can your employees get to them? Or, and you need to ask yourself this often, is there something or someone gating that crucial access?

2. Attraction: Do your company's products and services, its technologies and even its organizational goals "beckon" to people. Are your customers or clients "wowed" or astounded by your offerings, are your employees?

3. Orientation: Does your company's "X" (fill in the words from above) guide people -- customers, suppliers, employees -- through what's possible. Is there a mapping of what they can expect? (As an example to yourself: step through some commonplace business events: how customers or suppliers negotiate various activities with your company, or with how a brand-new employee sees your organization. Having done that: how clear is the roadmap for these activities?)

4. Appropriate Experience: Does your company's "X" offer a range of involvement appropriate to what's needed. Appropriate engagement, over the period of time that the 'X' is being used/consumed is the key here. Is there enough challenge, is there a reward, does the activity 'make sense?'

5. Extension: Rheinfrank talked about 'skilling tools.' In contrast to the 'push-here-dummy' approach to the current generation of cameras, better products, better services, (better "Xs") would grow with the consumer. An example: Technology assessment might consider this criteria -- giving the nod to tools that not only offer a simple way to get something done but still offer interested consumers ways to 'get better' at their tasks.

6. Retention: How do we get the consumers of our "Xs" to *be* fans? How do we build loyalty? How do we get people to 'learn better,' and to remember to apply what they've learned to their jobs, their customers, their clients?

7. Social Reputation: This is where product (service, offering, and tool -- your company's "X") reputation is shared and where there are increasing returns. You spend a little more to make fans of your "X" and *they* tell their friends, who then want the experience... and the gyre widens.


These approaches can be applied to examining what our businesses offer.

Two days ago I was asked to look at a business proposal for a company that wants to create a marketplace for archived art collections. Yes - there are criteria like market sizes, competitor analyses, demographic projections, and regulatory environments that will play a role in how I evaluate this proposal.

But - and because of the reminder in this month's FastCompany article - I'll be taking a clue from John Rheinfrank's principles as I try to figure out if its a winning idea.

I suspect my evaluation will be the better for it...



----------------------------
again: the URL to the article:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/93/design.html

From: Issue 93 | April 2005 | Page 68 By: Bill Breen Photographs by: Derek Shapton

----------------------------



The Business of Design

In an economy where style is king, we all need to start thinking and acting more like design.

Quick, what's your IQ? No, not your intelligence quotient -- your imagination quotient. In this turbulent, get-real economy, the advantage goes to those who can outimagine and outcreate their competitors. So says Roger Martin, who has devoted his professional life to the study of competition -- first as a director at Monitor Co., the Boston-based consultancy, and now as dean of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management.

Martin believes that the North American economy is radically transforming. As the production of goods and services increasingly becomes routinized, the cost advantages across a growing array of industries accrue to China and India. Scale alone is not enough to thrive in a world where markets are rapidly globalizing; incremental improvement won't deliver a decent ROI. Our companies will continue to prosper only if they push to the higher ground of innovating and creating "elegant, refined products and services" -- which might well be produced elsewhere.

The upshot, says Martin, is nothing less than the emergence of the design economy -- the successor to the information economy, and, before it, the service and manufacturing economies. And that shift, he argues, has profound implications for every business leader and manager among us: "Businesspeople don't just need to understand designers better -- they need to become designers."

In a global economy, elegant design is becoming a critical competitive advantage. Trouble is, most business folks don't think like designers.

In a recent interview in Toronto, Martin asserted that real value creation now comes from using the designer's foremost competitive weapon, his imagination, to peer into a mystery -- a problem that we recognize but don't understand -- and to devise a rough solution that explains it. "For any company that chooses to innovate, the foremost challenge is this," Martin says. "Are you willing to step back and ask, 'What's the problem we're trying to solve?' Well, that's what designers do: They take on a mystery, some abstract challenge, and they try to create a solution."

The trouble is, when confronted with a mystery, most linear business types resort to what they know best: They crunch the numbers, analyze, and ultimately redefine the problem "so it isn't a mystery anymore; it's something they've done 12 times before," Martin says. Most don't avail themselves of the designer's tools -- they don't think like designers -- and so they are ill-prepared for an economy where the winners are determined by design.

And that, Martin claims, means traditional organizations must reinvent themselves to perform more like design shops. In this new world, there are fewer fixed, permanent assignments. Instead, work flows from project to project, and people organize their lives around their projects, just as in a design shop. Accenture, for example, is more efficient in part because it's a project-based organization -- it doesn't staff up for things that aren't projects, and it doesn't allow projects to become permanent.

Design-influenced companies also understand their customers at a profound level and mobilize around that insight. The Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts' detailed study of customers led it to conclude that it could win by offering first-class service, and so it invested enormously in recruitment and training. The chain visualized the desired outcome -- "make people feel great" -- and reinvented itself to deliver an exceptional "user" experience.

Organizations that embrace a design-based strategy also employ the practice of rapid prototyping. Whereas conventional companies won't bring a product to market until it's "just right," the design shop is unafraid to move when the product is unfinished but "good enough." Designers learn by doing: They identify weaknesses and make midflight corrections along the way.

Design's powerful impact on business strategy will require a whole new way of thinking. Martin asserts that traditional companies "reward two types of logic: inductive (proving that something actually operates) and deductive (proving that something must be)." Designers combine inductive and deductive reasoning to create a fresh approach -- abductive thinking -- which Martin defines as "suggesting that something may be and reaching out to explore it." Instead of acting on what's certain, designers bet on what's probable. Companies such as Apple act like design shops by saying, "If everything must be proven, we'll never make the likes of an iPod."

Martin believes that business schools are also out of position for the emerging design-based economy. In his view, even the degree -- a master's of business administration -- is problematic. "We're telling students that the big bucks are made by administering linear improvements -- getting better and better at doing essentially the same thing," he says. "But the real challenge lies in getting better and better at a different thing: devising clever solutions to wickedly difficult problems."

That view has led Martin and a handful of other pioneers to lead a groundbreaking effort to redesign business education itself. In a first step, Rotman has allied with the Ontario College of Art & Design to launch a series of joint courses. The Illinois Institute of Technology's Institute of Design recently launched a nine-month-long executive master's degree program in design methods. And Stanford University has committed $35 million to launch its "d.school," where people from large companies and startups alike will come to learn design thinking. "We want to produce T-shaped thinkers," says David Kelley, the chairman of Ideo and founder of the d.school. "That means combining analytical thinking -- the vertical leg of the T -- with horizontal thinking: intuitive, experimental, and empathetic."

And that's only the beginning. Rotman, the Institute of Design, and the d.school are in the early stages of mapping out a new discipline, "business design," which will seek to yoke business schools' rigor, practicality, and business relevance with design schools' creative problem solving and intensive understanding of the customer. The goal is to create a new generation of design- and business-based talent factories that will help fuel the North American economy as it undergoes its next great transformation.

----------------------------

Bill Breen is Fast Company's senior projects editor. He is based in Boston.

posted by Tom | 9:37 AM
archives
links
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.