Done with Grad School! (the short post)

May 15th, 2008

At 10am this morning, I turned in my signed thesis paper and thesis project, making me officially done with grad school. It’s been pretty quiet on this site the past couple weeks as I tried to get everything complete. This short post is meant to break that silence. But as I have spent many sleepless nights the past week, I’m exhausted and in dire need of a beer, I am keeping this brief.

Graduation is on Saturday. It’s a relief to be done, though I don’t think the reality of what that means has sunk in yet. Congratulations to all of my peers.

Look forward to a longer, more reflective post to come, when I have more energy.

Richard Buchanan Leaving School of Design

April 30th, 2008

Today we learned, in an apparent slip, that Richard Buchanan is leaving the School of Design. At the very end of class, in a conversation largely framed around the question of what is design, he mentioned that he would be a professor of information systems, “whatever that means.” There was a pause in the room as we students wondered if we just heard what had been rumored to be the case ever since Dick dropped all thesis advisees a few weeks ago. I took the opportunity and broke the silence: “So you are leaving?”

“Yes.”

He did not say much more, only that it was very difficult to leave the program. Not surprising for the person who has been with the school for 17 years, first serving as the Nierenberg Chair, followed immediately by a 10-year stint as head. He redesigned the undergraduate program and spearheaded the creation of the grad program that I am about to graduate from.

Sources indicate that he has accepted a position at Case Western.

As Buchanan has provided the theoretical and philosophical perspective to design that has influenced everyone that has passed through the grad program and contributes greatly to what makes designers from the School of Design stand out amongst their contemporaries, his departure will definitely impact the feel of the program and perhaps the thinking of its future grads. I’m very curious to see how the school adapts to his leaving next year.

Personally, I have enjoyed the classes I have taken with Dick. I appreciate the broad view of design that he promotes. And there was something wonderful about being beaten down and made to struggle through difficult texts during Seminar 1 the first semester of my graduate experience. If nothing, the experience contributed to a stance of humility and appreciation for different perspectives. It’s difficult to know how much he has influenced my thinking. I tend to believe that I have been influenced more by my peers when talking about the material of his classes than the classes themselves. However, if the stories Dick tells are true, I may not realize the impact of his classes for years to come.

Fourth Order Design?

April 25th, 2008

Fourth Order Design Talk

I’ve heard “fourth order design” thrown around a lot lately. The more I hear it, the more I would rather hear what the the person is really talking about. It makes me wonder whether the term helps clarify anything or actually muddies design. Can we not call design “design”?

To a degree, I think that’s what the Down with Innovation article was saying:

“Design is now so important, it seems, that designers can no longer be trusted with it, and to make it absolutely clear that control has moved into someone else’s hands, design needs to be given a fancy new name. Call it design thinking. Call it innovation.”

Is fourth order design along these lines? Perhaps not now, but it has potential. I wonder if it would be useful if it was a widely used term, or if it would be as meaningful as innovation.

MX 2008: Nathan Shredroff

Speaking of which, this wonderfully illustrated piece coming out of Adaptive Path’s recent MX conference contains the “I” word. Reading it, I wondered why innovation was mentioned at all. Could we not replace “innovation” with “design”? Would it make more sense?

I’m a bit against what I’m about to do, but let’s compare the definitions of innovate and design. Let’s start with innovate, which in Merriam-Webster only has one useful definition.

innovate (transitive verb) to introduce as or as if new

Design, on the other hand, is much richer, with lots of definitions. For brevity, I’ll only pull the first.

design (transitive verb) to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

Given these two definitions, innovate does not work in the above piece: “Why innovate? To create better solutions, organizations, and world.” Introducing something new is no guarantee of better. This is the problem with innovation as a goal. If I were betting on better solutions, organizations, and world, I would put my money on design.

Personally, I would like to see designers call design by its name. That goes for business folks as well. Calling design something else so that it’s not scary will not help the discipline. Fourth order design, at least, contains the word design.

A concern I have for fourth order design is that while it may encapsulate some ideas about (new?) ways to think about design,  it may also splinter design by alluding to a hierarchy. Fourth is better than first, second, and third, assuming higher is better. Though I could see businesses feeling more comfortable dealing with design that is perceived to be on a higher level.

We have a hard enough time being on the same page when talking about design. Throwing around fourth order design does not make it any more clear. To make my point, I purposely haven’t defined fourth order design in this post.

Tony Golsby-Smith of 2nd Road Visits CMU

April 23rd, 2008

Last week, Tony Golsby-Smith, CEO of 2nd Road, the Sydney-based consulting company that focuses on shaping large-scale change, visited Richard Buchanan’s Design, Management, and Organizational Change class. Over the course of three hours, he shared his perspective on design and its role within 2nd Road. What follows are notes and thoughts from that conversation.

Tony is an interesting character. He can easily reach the top of any white board and gives thoughtful responses to the questions put to him. He believes that 2nd Road is fundamentally challenging the world view of organizations. “I’m driven by a revolution in organization fabric,” he says. Organizations have been built for stability and not innovation. They kill innovation. His firm helps organizations build what they call innovation capability.

Essentially, his firm seems to be an alternative to industrial age management thinking. And while design thinking is part of their process and information design is a core skill within the firm, they prefer to call themselves management consultants and work with upper management to create vision and strategy, build skills for new thinking, change systems, and change organizational culture. They are already at the table where designers sometimes desire to be. I’m a bit unclear how 2nd Road got there, but it seems like that’s where they started, or at least very near there. Tony argued that if you start in the marketing and consumer space, it’s harder to move up because you’ve been put into a box.

I wonder if designers in the consumer space really want to be at the table, or at the table in the same way in which 2nd Road participates. Transforming organizations seems like an entirely different wicked monster to deal with. But it certainly does pay well. While I won’t divulge the numbers, a three-day Strategic Conversation costs their clients more than you make in a year. Interestingly, I had a conversation with a San Francisco design consultancy that seemed to suggest their consulting workshops with management did not yield much income.

If I had to pull a definition of design from the way he talked about it, I’d say it is upfront conceptual thinking. “Tomorrow doesn’t exist,” he says, “You can’t analyze it.” Through rhetoric, 2nd Road invents tomorrow through dialogue, creating worlds through words (or visualizations). It seems that conversation plays a large role in their offerings. As much as possible, they want the client to own the process.

In terms of where they operate, Tony says they work in third and fourth order design. If you’ve never taken a class with Richard Buchanan, you likely don’t know what that means, which makes me wonder if it’s useful to describe design in this way. Simply, it means they are using design for services, environments, systems, and the interconnectedness of systems as opposed to design that is concerned with communication and forms. They work on highly complex and highly ambiguous problems that take place over the course of years rather than days, weeks, or months.

I’m curious about how design works in this arena, which is why I am talking to 2nd Road about opportunities to work with them. I’m curious about how this type of firm is different from design consultancies like IDEO, Frog, and Adaptive Path. I’m also curious how similar or dissimilar they are to the big management consulting companies or an innovation strategy firm, like Doblin. Good questions to ask in the next round of talks, I suppose.

Overall, Tony’s visit makes concrete some of the more abstract ideas about the role of design in organizational change that we have been discussing throughout the semester. But it’s noteworthy that they don’t call themselves a design firm. I wonder what that means for the discipline. Is design something that business consultants can consume and make their own, or can it stand on its own, and as Dan Saffer recently said, smash the table altogether?

Core Competencies of Design

April 18th, 2008

Richard Buchanan presented the “Core Competencies of Design” in class this week, offering a slightly different version of the list of why designers are valued. I’m not sure if this is just a further iteration or different due to the shift in focus from designers to design itself. The language is fairly similar, though notably different in a few areas. I’ve included both for comparison.

Core Competencies of Design

  • Vision: see the whole
  • Facilitation: work across disciplines
    • Why? Something to do with being able to see the whole. To see the way things fit together
  • Visualization: polysensorial awareness
    • Many senses: aural, touch, smell, as a way of grasping the situation we are in
  • Prototyping: rapid experimentation
    • This is close to how we work. It’s not a comfortable way of working for most people.
    • Opposite to: if you don’t do it the right the first time, you fail. Philosophic difference.
  • Human-centered focus: focus on people and their goals (individuals and organizations)
    • Look a people as individuals and as groups. Also in context of an organization, because humans work in teams or groups

Why Designers Are Valued

  • Whole/part: designers look at the whole in relation to the parts; they see the big picture
  • Bring to life/creativity: designers have a passion for making things
  • Comfortable with ambiguity: openendedness; not prejudging the solution; take chances, take risks; try multiple solutions
  • Polysensorial aesthetics: an aesthetic of many senses; this is about the actual making: prototyping; drawing; visualizing
  • Emotion/empathy: emotion is a way to engage with the world; passion; designers care about people

Also, Buchanan said the core competencies list will be part of an upcoming publication, which I think is not his own.

Portfolio

About

I am a graduate interaction design student at the School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University. » More about