jamin.org

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?

I’d like to continue a comment about bringing emotion into the design process because I think it deserves its own post. Kip said:

Design has some valuable roots in its ties with emotion, but in many ways we’ve lost touch. Can we bring a sophisticated discussion of “emotion” back on the table and include it in our design process?

I don’t know if we’ve lost touch or if emotion has been neglected in the bustle of quickly changing technology and products. But I think we can do more to bring emotion into the process. There might be an expectation that design is by default about emotion, and it does not need much attention.

Looking at my Basic Interaction design syllabus, emphasis is placed on the design process and methods. Although some of the methods, like personas and narrative scenarios are supposed to help get at the motivations and the experience, and by extension, the emotions. Video sketching is another method that I think helps to understand what the emotional aspects of the product might be like. Though we typically talk about video sketching as being about the experience, which leads me to ponder the relationship of emotion and experience in design (thesis paper topic for some grad student?).

I remember a recent comment about “shit in, shit out” in regards to the design process, which I took to mean you get what you bring into it. If you aren’t excited about the design process or problem, for example, your solution will not be very exciting. Perhaps if you are not emotional or consider emotion throughout the process, emotion will not be a strong component of your solution.

Last semester, when Kip and I were working on our TSA service design project, we spent a lot of time considering the emotional aspect of going through airport security. Taking lots of photos of people in context and having those photos surround us during design meetings really helped keep emotion at the forefront of our discussions. Though it also helped that we are both very aware of and keen to recognize the role of emotion in design.

Another suggestion I heard last summer at Adaptive Path came from Dan Saffer, who suggested considering the aesthetics sooner using an image, music, or word. This is similar to my experience with the TSA project, where we referred to certain photos to constantly remind us of the emotions involved currently and those we wanted the end result to embody.

I got back from the first Interaction Design Association (IxDA) conference, Interaction08, late Monday night after an 11-hour drive in a rented minivan with five other of my Carnegie Mellon peers. Rather than provide a blow-by-blow, I’ll apply a little bit of poetic license and start at the end.

At the end of the second day of the two-day affair, in lieu of one of the presentations, anyone who wanted to share their thoughts on the conference and what it should be next year was invited to attend a group meeting. At first, I wasn’t going to go, but one of my peers, Kyle Vice, was going, and the previous presentations were not inspiring me.

Kyle and I were the only ones to show up, initially. But eventually a small band arrived, totaling nine, though most were already IxDA board members. Thus, CMU students represented 25 percent of attendees. Not counting the board members, 50 percent. Gregory Petroff led the session and asked each of us to say why we came, what we thought could have been better, and what we would like to see next year. That seems like a reasonable way to construct this post.

Why did I attend?

I agreed with Bill DeRouchey, who was also present, who said that it felt important to be at the first conference on interaction design. I also mentioned that as an interaction design graduate student, who has been in the bubble of academia for the past two years, I wanted to see what the discipline thinks of itself, and contrast that against my thoughts of interaction design attained at Carnegie Mellon. What I didn’t say was that at the School of Design, we explore interaction design is a broad sense, and often talk about design and interaction design interchangeably. In design, there is no subject matter. My peers and I bring this perspective to interaction design and are thus interested in applications of interaction design beyond the screen and software.

Many of my peers were frustrated and angry with a lot of the presentations, as was I. Though I was tempered by the expectation that there would not be much new material, given that my life is currently devoted to the study of interaction design. That said, we found the application of interaction design by the representative community narrow, which brings me to the second question: what could have been better?

What could have been better?

I told the group that I would have liked to have seen a discussion and attempt at defining interaction design. Of all places and times to address this question, the first conference on interaction design seemed to be a likely place. And as this is a question that plagues every interaction designer, and serves as fodder for heated debate on the IxDA discussion list, I hoped it would receive some attention. Instead, the definition of interaction design escaped discussion, which I found disappointing. In relation to this, I also said that I would have liked to have seen a greater exploration of the boundaries of interaction design. What I didn’t say, and what my peers echoed, was that interface and software received too much attention. Surprisingly, there was very little presented regarding mobile interaction, physical products, ambient devices, gestural interaction, wearables, ubiquitous computing, and the role of interaction design in experience design, service design, organizational change.

Ironically, during the closing remarks, Dan Saffer listed five themes he garnered from the conference. The first was that we were exploring the boundaries of interaction design. In addition, he remarked that we skipped the question of the definition of interaction design, which received cheers from the crowd. This distressed me for the reasons stated above.

Five Themes

Since I brought it up, now seems like a good time to go over the five themes, mentioned in Saffer’s closing remarks.

Boundaries Where is our role? What defines us? Answer: comes from what we’re working on; common tools and prototyping

Tradition Not practicing in a vacuum

Context Space/time; organizations

Argument Providing tools for argument; and products are an argument

Influence How the products we create influence the way people behave

As I said, I did not think there was enough exploration of the boundaries, evidenced by the gap between what my peers and I think of interaction design and what we saw as practice at the conference. I disagree that what defines us is what we’re working on. It may be how others currently perceive interaction designers because other opportunities do not exist. But it doesn’t define us.

In talking with other attendees, I was glad to hear that people entertain the application of interaction design to more arenas. But it seemed evident that everyone was limited by their current circumstance and no place else to go. This is a fear that many of the students at the School of Design have when considering employment opportunities. If this is the situation, perhaps interaction design needs to design its way into other areas.

What would I like to see next year?

In the meeting, I said it would be great to see more representation from outside the community, like business and management. And for presentations, it might be nice to see designers and clients presenting both sides of the endeavor. What I didn’t say, perhaps because I felt it was assumed by my earlier comments, was that I would like to see a good and constructive discussion of the definition of interaction design, or some acknowledgment of the struggle. We did this at the Emergence conference with the question of service design both in the first and second year, and people seemed to respect the discussion and appreciate the struggle.

In addition, it would be great to see more case studies with actual projects. Heck, it would have been interesting to hear about the role of interaction design in the Charmr project. But what about interaction design for a service design project? Or the process of interaction design in organizational strategy?

One of the group participants mentioned a forum where attendees could show their work. This is an intriguing idea, which would allow greater attendee participation and provide greater exposure to the different types of work in interaction design. One project on interaction design in an area that is off the radar could spark debate and inspire curiosity and further broadening of current practice.

The Good

OK, now that I’ve offered some criticism, constructively, I hope, let’s talk about the good.

Dan Saffer, who according to my understanding, put together a lot of the content, did a great job of attracting some quality speakers. I especially enjoyed seeing Alan Cooper and Bill Buxton (not that I agreed with them). And I could see the attempt to have both practical and more philosophical presentations. Other speakers I enjoyed include Matt Jones and Carl DiSalvo.

Savannah is a great location to have a conference in February. T-shirt weather. Not too big. Lots of bars and restaurants. Also, the Savannah Collage of Art and Design was impressive. Carnegie Mellon should take note.

The food was top notch. Sunday’s lunch was better than any wedding I have ever attended. And parties with free food and booze are always welcome, and I would say essential for a successful conference.

As with any conference, the best part without doubt were the people that attended and the conversations that ensued. I was happy to run into designers who knew me from Emergence and UX Week, and to see some CMU alumni. Best yet, I made some new friends whom I hope to see at the next conference or elsewhere in the small but healthy interaction design community.

While I haven’t covered everything, these are the things that are resonating with me. I am happy that I went and feel that overall for the community it was a success. I am very curious to see how things shape up next year.

In total, eight interaction design graduate students from the School of Design attended the conference: Kipum Lee, Srividya Sriram, Carrie Chan, Kyle Vice, Beste Nazilli, Joe Iloreta, Imran Sobh, me.

Happy new year +3!

What follows is my experience in 2007 as a graduate student and the opportunities it afforded me, as well as what I will be doing in 2008. Finally, I mention the blizzard that is about to hit Mammoth Lakes, California, where I currently am.

Design School and 2007

Two thousand and seven was a great year for me. I have no regrets about taking two years out of my work life to indulge in the grad school experience. People say that you don’t need to go to grad school and that you can get the same experience in the working world. While that may depend on the program, in my case, I wholeheartedly disagree.

The interaction design program at the CMU School of Design has changed the way I think about what my purpose is in the world and how I think about life. I’ve had a chance to learn under some great people—Shelley Evenson, Richard Buchanan, Dan Boyarski, John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, Ben Fry, Golan Levin, and Kristin Hughes. And I have had the pleasure of being in the company of my peers, a range of interesting folks from various backgrounds with perspectives I truly appreciate. I learn a tremendous amount from them. My coursework has also provided me with real-world experience working for clients like Motorola and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

This past fall semester I taught Design Computing (digital prototyping with Flash) to a mix of graduate and undergraduate design students. It was my first time teaching, and was both challenging and rewarding.

I also had the opportunity to direct the school’s second annual Emergence conference, which was a great honor and privilege, though a lot of freaking work. But becoming acquainted with folks from Adaptive Path, Apple, Cooper, Core77, Electronic Ink, Engine, GM, Google, IBM, IDEO, live|work, Method, and Swisscom Mobile, eased the pain a bit.

Most of the companies listed above also recruit from the school. This past summer I worked at Adaptive Path in San Francisco, which I would not have had access to without going through the IxD program. There I worked on the Charmr project, a diabetes management device with a focus on the diabetic experience. It was very rewarding and a lot of fun.

Finally, my grad school experience has also truly turned me into a designer. So to answer any question as to whether grad school is worth the $70,000 I will owe upon graduation, for me, the answer is yes.

2008

Enough about last year. The year ahead will bring a slew of new adventures. For one, I will be graduating in May. After that, I will likely move away from Pittsburgh, where I have been living since 2003, to wherever it is that I find work. To prepare for this, during the winter break, I have been building a new portfolio and redesigning this site, which I hope complete before the semester begins on January 14.

This semester I am taking courses with Richard Buchanan, Kristin Hughes, and Shelley Evenson. In addition, I am teaching Basic Interaction Design to design, computer science, and HCI undergraduates. Given my enthusiasm for interaction design and the design process, I am very exciting about this.

In February I am heading to Savannah for Interaction08 to the first ever interaction design conference. I would also like to attend SXSW Interactive, but it may not be in the budget.

Speaking of conferences, I am also currently working on a Work-in-Process submission for CHI 2008 in Florence, Italy, due January 8. My paper is on my thesis project work regarding opportunities for interaction design to support identity change. Submission to CHI is a requirement of my thesis advisor.

Mammoth Blizzard

I am writing this post from Mammoth Lakes, California, where my brother, Matt, and his wife live. I have been here (Flickr photos) since December 20. It has been quite relaxing and a good break from my near constant design thinking. That said, I started off 2008 on somewhat of a design note when I met up with Dan Saffer (Designing for Interaction author, Adaptive Path Experience Design Director, and Interaction08 co-chair, MDes IxD CMU) who just happened to be in Mammoth at the same time as me. Dan will be guest lecturing at CMU on January 16 in Jodi Forlizzi’s Seminar 2 class for the first-year interaction design grads. Good beer and good conversation with Dan in an unlikely meeting place provided a fitting start to the new year.

Dan left Mammoth the next day, due to the upcoming storm. Conversely, I extended my stay.

The National Weather Service has issued a Blizzard Warning for Mammoth Lakes warning of significant snow accumulations and strong winds that have the potential to create dangerous winter driving conditions Friday through Sunday. Four day snowfall totals of 5 - 8 feet are possible through Sunday in the Sierra.

To leave Mammoth, I need to fly out of Reno, Nevada, which is already a harrowing experience given the winds the whip over the surrounding mountains. The impending storm will only increase those winds. So I changed my flight from this Friday to Tuesday, January 8, so I could both avoid potential delays or cancellations and also see such a massive amount of snow. Friday’s prediction is three inches per hour.

The fear of storm produced the longest grocery store lines that I have ever seen, stretching from check-out all the way down the aisles to the back of the store. The shelves were being emptied. Got to love people. (We were only there for a few ingredients needed for last night’s meal.)

So day three of 2008 finds me well, looking forward to the storm, the semester, and whatever lies beyond. I hope it finds you well, too.

One of the great things about being at Adaptive Path is that I have access to the cello-playing man who wrote Designing for Interaction, Dan Saffer. Today I sat down with him to talk about the direction my essay is going, as it’s somewhat of a commentary on the perception of interaction design in current practice.

It was the first time he and I really talked much about our ideas of interaction design (we’ve talked about other things, just not interaction design as a practice so directly). And it was great to pick his brain to find out whether I am either way off or making assumptions about some of the thoughts and gut feelings I have that are influencing my essay.

He was mostly supportive. And not that I don’t value my judgment, but it was nice to validate my thoughts with someone of his stature in the interaction design world.

As for the essay, it’s about the need for interaction design to distance itself from the web. This is something that I have been thinking about throughout the summer having encountered in a practicing world that seems to still largely view interaction design as being tied to the domain of web design. Not that all practice thinks of itself this way. But I think it will be good for Adaptive Path’s audience.

I’ve got a good outline of what I want to say, which I ran by Dan. Now I just need to crank it out. That’s what the last day of the internship is for.

Tonight I went to a party dedicated to two of my favorite things: cupcakes and cocktails. The party took place at Satisfaction’s new space across the street from Adaptive Path. Previously, they were renting space within AP.

I then went to an IxDA event in San Francisco, which involved about 10 more people than you would get in Pittburgh.

After that, I hit some other bars with APers Dan Saffer, Ryan Freitas, and Andrew Crow. Ryan and I kept it real and eventually hooked up with some other players, including the notorious microformat advocate, Tantek.

I was like, “You’re the Tantek.”

It was amusing to meet yet another person I had only read about, and to find the person so human.

On Sunday, I attended a CMU alumni get together at Adaptive Path in San Francisco. The event coincided with CHI being in San Jose this year. And CHI was the reason I was in SF.

Dan Saffer was our host, so I got to talk with him a bit. One thing everyone seemed to mention was that Dan looks different, due to non-thick black glasses and longer hair. So if you think he looks as he does on his site, think again.

Overall, it didn’t feel too much like a networking opportunity, which was part of the motivation for attending. I met one other Adaptive Path member, and talked to a handful of alumni, including some recent HCI graduates. But I struggled to maintain conversations due to two hours of sleep the night before and a cross-country flight that morning.

For me, it was more about seeing the Adaptive Path space and chatting with Dan about my internship there this summer. The layout of the space is very open and looks like a welcome and collaborative place. My classmates were jealous.