| 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 ----------------------------
---------------------------- Bill Breen is Fast Company's senior projects editor. He is based in Boston. posted by Tom | 9:37 AM |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
