I just received The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage by Roger Martin. Martin is the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. He has been researching and introducing innovative new ways for business leaders and consultants to think and transform organizations. This new path is grounded and driven by design thinking. My primary interest in reading this book is to be able to identify and map the principles and concepts to the design theory I have been learning in the HCI/d program at IU. Further, I hope to be able to become more adept at developing and speaking the language that will allow even more business leaders to tap into these powerful paradigms. I sat down this afternoon to read the first chapter.

And if that's not enough design love, I also decided to start learning how to use Prezi, a visualization and storytelling application that escapes the constraints of a traditional slide deck. There was a slight learning curve to this but once I got the hang of it, it was a great note-taking tool. I am sure I would do this a little differently if I did it over again but, overall, I was pretty satisfied with the results. If you want to see the presentation, just click on the link below. You can either go through the presentation using the prescribed path but feel free to explore it on your own any way you want. By the way, for the richest experience with Prezi, be sure to view it fullscreen (click on the link below, put mouse over the "More" label and click on "Fullscreen"). Please note that the Fullscreen feature does not work if you watch it from within this blog post.

http://prezi.com/erdcfsk9fvph/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I continue to read through "Design Expertise" by Dorst and Lawson. We are still in the preliminary stages of defining design expertise. As is expected, it is necessary to define some of the fundamental terms so as to reduce confusion and find some common ground before going deeper. Dorst and Lawson define "design" by looking at the design process from several different perspectives. It is their intention to construct a composite that will be pieced together, resulting in an accurate definition. It is interesting that they note this is the same approach we (designers) typically use to understand our own design problems.

Design thinking is not one way of thinking. It has been called multidisciplinary by some and others have gone as far as calling the design discipline "transdisciplinary". Designers employ analytical and creative thinking - not necessarily in sequence or in a linear fashion but rather in an integrated, almost simultaneous manner. We live between two worlds with one foot planted in the world of science and analysis while the other foot is firmly grounded in the creativity of the arts. We don't fit entirely within either one. We often find ourselves engaging in our own game of tug-of-war with our peers as some members of the design community try to become more like one discipline or the other. Yet, this balance serves us well in coming up with solutions to all types of "wicked" problems.

Designers focus their energies on the solution, not the problem. They approach problems as if there is no structure to the problem and do not attempt to analyze all the data. Rather, it is a fine balance between analysis and creativity. Experienced designers place constraints on themselves. Perhaps they will limit the amount of time to conduct analysis (research) before moving on to generating concepts and ideation.

As a result of this hybridization of disciplines found in design, designers are often misunderstood. Dorst and Lawson actually compare us to the platypus, an animal that many considered to be a hoax when it was first discovered. The platypus did not fit within the norms and standards that were then known to biologists. Fortunately, this didn't bother the platypus. They didn't know that they were an anomaly and a challenge to the scientific thinking of the day. They certainly didn't make any effort to change who they were in order to fit within the existing conventions. Perhaps we as designers can learn a few lessons from the platypus. If we do, we might find those in other fields less resistant to accepting our authenticity.

Coming up, we examine several of the other perspectives presented by Dorst and Lawson as we continue to construct a working definition of what design really is.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I am currently reading "Design Expertise" by Kees Dorst and Bryan Lawson. The question in the title is posed in the introductory chapter.

This leads to other related questions. We are all designers and we design things every single day, if only to pick out (design) the outfit we are going to wear.

• What are the defining characteristics that differentiate design experts from the rest of us?
• Is design ability a "talent" only found in the few or is it a skill shared by most of us?
• If we can all learn to develop our design skills, how does that benefit us in our everyday lives?

It is my intention to continue the exploration of this topic through multiple short posts as I work through the text. It is also my hope that many of you will add your thoughts, insights and ideas by posting comments below so as to facilitate a dialog that we can all benefit from.

What are your thoughts regarding these questions? I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks for stopping by.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »