#design-led

‘Weave’ by dutch designer Jurianne Matter are pre-cut lanterns with simple instructions for making the folds which bring them to life. They can be used as candle holders, by placing them around a tall glass with a tealight inside, but they look equally as elegant along a shelf in the daylight.

Each pack contains 7 lanterns of different designs, and comes flat in a biodegradable sleeve, ready to wrap and post to a friend - but you can keep one for yourself if you want!

To stock Weave in your shop: contact Ffion at Zonnelijk

Selected online retailer: Radiance

We're surrounded by more data than ever, and as the mountains of information continue to grow, storytelling techniques can help designers make sense of it all.

In the pre-digital era, data was a subject for mathematicians and scientists. Now, one way or another, we can’t escape it.

Our constant use of online services not only relies on data, we are also a continuous source of data, generating information about all aspects of our lives.

Whether it’s data about the human body—thanks to the rise of wearables—our energy consumption at home, or data tied to our personal finance: we’re creating mountains of data, and now we need to find ways to make sense of it.

The rise of personalized data is poised to be a hot topic as companies seek to deliver real benefits from the information gathered on consumers. The challenge for designers lies in finding a way to reduce the complexity posed by such vast amounts of data and give data a human shape.

Startups are envied for their agility, creativity, and sense of fun. Larger organizations are frequently encouraged to replicate their models of 'lean' production or laboratory-like atmosphere. Innovations from startups are clear threats to the survival of established organizations that are complacent in their present situation. While organizations scramble to fend off these threats with innovation programs of their own, James P. Hackett (President and CEO of design-savvy Steelcase) argues that, in order to survive, organizations must realize that "Innovation is good, fitness is better". This is not an anti-innovation message, but one that addresses the higher state that enables self-perpetuating innovation competence.

Hackett reminds us that startups have a low survival rate, despite what the fanfare in the headlines might have us think. Their market success receives such great attention partly because it is so unlikely, and requires significant and disruptive innovation to occur. It is essential that larger organizations develop innovation capabilities if they hope to neutralize this threat. However, Hackett advises that "Innovation is a key atom - but not the only atom - in the molecule of fitness." In his paper, the definition of fitness seems quite loose and abstract, but generally represents an awareness and embracing of the organization's complexity in order to respond to changing scenarios. In my understanding: resilience through active reflection. 

The idea of fitness highlights a key advantage that large organizations can leverage against startups, beyond a lager pool of resources with which to pursue innovation. Their greater complexity, which is sometimes seen as an obstacle to 'lean' and 'agile' operation, can be reframed as a source of rich insight. "Design thinking requires that we consider every possible dimension and every affected constituency in designing a solution," writes Hackett. "It also requires that we embrace the complexity within our systems because the complex elements add richness that cannot be found in simpler models." These "simpler models" are the startups that aim solely for rapid growth through innovation.

Hackett likens reflection required in this process to that required in product design research, which seeks nuanced insights through a variety of ethnographic methods. In the pursuit of organizational fitness, all stakeholders must be considered, and their relationships examined. The investigation of this complex interconnectedness can lead to opportunities that are not available to small startups. Organizational culture must be reflective and receptive to the complexity that is revealed.

Before reading Hackett's article, I had trouble articulating why I have chosen to focus my research on the behaviour and capabilities of organizations rather than individuals or small groups. Design Thinking embraces and leverages complexity and, therefore, is most potent in, and perhaps even defined by, an organizational context. The recent proclamations of the demise of Design Thinking are responding to its incorrect usage - Design Thinking is about more than just innovation, fitness is not necessarily agility or growth, and established organizations are not startups. The value of each is in these differences, and the complexities that they represent.

Reference:

This recent Forbes article grapples with the question of design's rising profile in the corporate world, and a generally increased design sensitivity among both consumers and business. The closest it gets to declaring a reason is the listing of a few examples of design-led organizations: Apple, Ikea, and First Direct Bank. From this data, it is declared that design can be seen "as a source of competitive advantage, customer and employee satisfaction and, lastly, a route to higher profits." I agree with this conclusion, and I think that the reasoning used is exemplary of the environment in which design advocates must frame their value: a corporate world with a fixation on hard proof and indisputable data.

This backward-facing deductive logic dominates most corporate decision making. Design advocates must come to terms with this reality, know their audience, and learn how to play within their rules. I say this reluctantly, because many organizations are beyond this, and have learned to embrace the design ethos of abductive logic. However, I am speaking about design advocacy for those with a design deficiency, which seems to better represent industry as a whole. I get the sense that the author is intentionally writing for this audience, and that they strategically tailored their perspective to make it easy to swallow.

As evidenced by the linked Forbes article, successful examples of design-led organizations can be persuasive within the rules of this game. However, they leave a lot of room for misinterpretation of what it means to be design-led. In this very article, when describing Apple's well-packaged extended warranty, Apple Care, the author writes "The impact on brand is that customers see these brands as both progressive and customer centric." Again, I agree with this statement, but the wording has me worried that the customers' perception is valued over the organization's reality. It reminds me of greenwashing, where brands will go to great lengths to project the image of sustainability, short of actually adopting sustainable practices and producing sustainable products.

We have examples of successful design-led organizations. Rather than reducing them to algorithms and incorporating them within market optimization software for an approximate and hollow emulation, we must embody their ideals. Organizations must realize the implications of orienting themselves towards these goals. It entails that they are respectful of their users, and that they are inherently curious about their motivations, desires, and needs.